Anti-UKIP hysteria

The hysteria and paranoia from UKIP's detractors is becoming so severe that they are undermining their own arguments.

It staggers me that these people accuse UKIP of whipping up fear of immigrants when whipping up fear is what these people do best - comparing UKIP to the Nazis, calling them fascists, launching aggressive and violent street protests against them, launching mass Twitter campaigns etc, comparing UK 2014 to Germany 1933, the list goes on.

UKIP's alleged scaremongering pales into comparison when compared to the hysteria and fear created by the left.

I actually agree somewhat with your point, some far left groups (Such as the ridiculous NUS which thinks that UKIP are worse than ISIS) and others like UAF are bigoted fascists.

However, I think though UKIP may not be overtly racist, the links it has with Neo Nazi's in Europe, and the extreme character of other eurosceptic parties in Europe is a cause for concern.

Every multi-national group in the EP contains individuals and/or parties who have a record of prejudice and/or bigotry.

It is near impossible to avoid making such alliances due to the fact that group of a certain size are a necessity in order to have speaking and voting rights in parliament. Furthermore, many European countries have attitudes that are fundamentally different to ours that mean such attitudes are more prevalent.

UKIP are by no means alone in forming alliances with such parties.

I actually agree somewhat with your point, some far left groups (Such as the ridiculous NUS which thinks that UKIP are worse than ISIS) and others like UAF are bigoted fascists.

However, I think though UKIP may not be overtly racist, the links it has with Neo Nazi's in Europe, and the extreme character of other eurosceptic parties in Europe is a cause for concern.

I'm going to need some evidence for that. I can see no evidence of the EPP, The liberals or the Greens certainly have no history of extremity.

There is a real difference for say, a remark by Berlusconi and the attitude of the Far Right Austrian Freedom Party.

The Socialists may have had some unpleasant history during the beginning of the cold war but have changed. Only some of the Far Left and most of the Far Right groups* have the prevalence of such views.

As to you're last point, you're right: the BNP and the Tories are also guilty to various extents.


*http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/26/far-right-europe-election_n_5391873.html

I'm going to need some evidence for that. I can see no evidence of the EPP, The liberals or the Greens certainly have no history of extremity.

There is a real difference for say, a remark by Berlusconi and the attitude of the Far Right Austrian Freedom Party.

The Socialists may have had some unpleasant history during the beginning of the cold war but have changed. Only some of the Far Left and most of the Far Right groups* have the prevalence of such views.

As to you're last point, you're right: the BNP and the Tories are also guilty to various extents.


*http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/26/far-right-europe-election_n_5391873.html

Links with neo-nazis in Europe. You mean in the same way the Greens have links with child rapists and child rape advocates?

The hysteria and paranoia from UKIP's detractors is becoming so severe that they are undermining their own arguments.

It staggers me that these people accuse UKIP of whipping up fear of immigrants when whipping up fear is what these people do best - comparing UKIP to the Nazis, calling them fascists, launching aggressive and violent street protests against them, launching mass Twitter campaigns etc, comparing UK 2014 to Germany 1933, the list goes on.

UKIP's alleged scaremongering pales into comparison when compared to the hysteria and fear created by the left.

Links with neo-nazis in Europe. You mean in the same way the Greens have links with child rapists and child rape advocates?

The greens aren't extreme? Have a look at their track record in some environmental issues.

However, what we tend to find is that it's a lot easier to name call than debate.

There's another thread here,

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3027079&page=3&p=52263373#post52263373

Where one of the posters is claiming that if you're anti EU you're a fascist if you're against the EU because referendums are bad and people aren't capable of making democratic decisions.

The aims of racism against UKIP for being anti immigration ignores the fact that they are advocating exactly the same immigration policy that the EU has towards non EU members. Remember Australians or Canadians for example don't have free movement yet we hate the same head if state and legal system and language and in my cases blood lines.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that joining "eco terrorist" groups like some of the stuff Greenpeace isn't as bad as having a background with fascist groups like say Combat 18, although I think that some of the far Left Groups like SWP are as bad as the BNP in some cases.




And you say I straw man! Listen sunshine, I know you struggle with this concept, but as i've said in that post referendums aren't necessarily democratic and have been used in dictatorships as well as democracies. What referendums do is get a complex issue and break it down into two hastily put together options.

California has been royally screwed over by "Direct democracy"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/16/california-golden-dream-turned-sour

Here are some more reasons:

* Referendums are often a framing exercise. We often don’t want either of the options we’re being asked to adopt, preferring one that isn’t on the ballot. Governments decide what the question is going to be anyway, and if they don’t like the answer that they get back, it can always become a never-end-um (see Ireland and the Lisbon Treaty)
* Referendums are often used to deal with the difficult questions that political parties daren’t address during elections. They allow politicians to park awkward or divisive questions when they’d be better offering joined-up answers. They provide a way of letting the political class off the hook.
* They drive out the deliberative element in policymaking. The referendum question is an appeal to reflexes rather than an attempt to get a thoughtful response from the public.
* They hand enormous powers to newspaper proprietors and people with the finances to take one side of the argument. It also hands the reins of government over to unelected and well-heeled pressure groups.
* Strong personalities, or celebrities whose popularity in no way derives from their suitability to make big decisions often have an undue bearing upon the outcome. It is more important to have people with convening power on your team than to have good arguments.
* As De Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill pointed out, they lead to a tyranny of the majority. The Swiss came very close recently to allowing every citizenship application to be put to a popular vote.
* Time and time again, the public don’t answer the question they’ve been asked. They use one question to send an unrelated message to an unpopular government.
* Referendums privilege the weight of opinion (in numbers) over the weight of arguments.
* By making policy questions explicit, as Cass Sunstein illustrates at length, youpolarise the arguments instead of promoting a rich debate and useful complex legislative responses.
* People who don’t have the capacity to engage in the debate on a given issue are effectively disenfranchised – especially when the referendum makes decisions that could be taken by elected representatives who would deliberate on everyone’s behalf and defend their decisions at subsequent elections. The low-paid, people who work long hours, people with enough problems of their own, people who don’t have the confidence to express their views or the opportunity to discuss them become unrepresented
* In referendums, power is exercised without responsibility. No-one is under any pressure to obeyThe General Will or to ensure that a policy is actually in the long-term public interest
* Doubt and equivocation are a good thing. Instinctive certainty often isn’t. As Darwin put it, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.“ Doubters and equivocators are more likely to abstain in referendums, and – following the logic of the Dunning-Kruger effect, that’s a bad thing

* Fanatics will always vote. People who have doubts or equivocation on a subject are more likely to abstain. A smaller-number of people who feel strongly one way can effectively oppress a larger number of people who generally lean in another direction but don’t feel that strongly on the subject.




I think its more of an association thing, where they also attract the same sort of people who are basically racist. I dont think they've got anyone who wants to leave the EU, but have more immigration. It doesn't help that they're also right wing, so are going to get a barrage of lefty hate anyway.

People like you scare the crap out of me. The classic 'I know best and I'll do your thinking for you.'

It's an extremist mentality, and one of the reasons I'm not a fan if the EU.

Top marks for avoidance, as usual. This is why UKIP cant be taken seriously, other than scare stories they've got nothing.

In any case, I probably don't know best, neither do you neither do most people. As Individual we need to be allowed to choose our own destinies and make our own decisions. The EU has done far, far more to help protect this than the fascists and nationalists you defend, that want to scrap human rights, bring back the death penalty and turn real democracy into direct democracy where the people who pander to hate and fear are the big winners, where everybody is inherently wicked.

(This is where you come in and go "M-m-muh heritage")

Scare stories?

You've been advocating how great the EU is but for it to be successful it shouldn't be held to account democratically.

That's not a scare story. That's a repeat of European history.

People like you scare the crap out of me. The classic 'I know best and I'll do your thinking for you.'

It's an extremist mentality, and one of the reasons I'm not a fan if the EU.

Links with neo-nazis in Europe. You mean in the same way the Greens have links with child rapists and child rape advocates?

As per your last point, how can it be a repeat of history without any conflict? A repeat of history would having many nationalistic states occasionally slaughtering each other, which is the impression I get from many of the fascist euro sceptics want to return to. Like that Polish MEP who wants to start another world war 3 and make boys "manly again".

As per the democratic deficit lie:

From the European Journal public of public policy:

Yet the European “democratic defi cit” is a myth...
using six alternative understandings
drawn from the EU’s critics. It uses empirical
evidence and the latest research to measure the
state of EU democracy along these dimensions. And
it assesses the results using reasonable and realistic
standards drawn from the empirical practice of existing
European democracies.
The result of this analysis is unambiguous: across
nearly every measureable dimension, the EU is at least
as democratic, and generally more so, than its member
states.
http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/myth_european.pdf

and

The term “democratic deficit” originated in media outlets. While it has been encouraging to see citizens lured into an important debate by the buzzword’s mass-appeal (however vaguely-defined it may be), misinformation disrupts the course of discussion (Moravcsik 2002). Even fundamental characteristics of the Union are generally unknown to its citizens, a fault for which EU policymakers certainly share some blame. Indeed, I find it hard to imagine that legend of “eurocratic” tyranny would have prevailed, if more people were aware of the institutional framework that grounds transnational policymaking in Europe.


http://www.europeanideas.eu/pages/politics/eu-political-system/the-democratic-deficit-deficit.php


(This is where you post a story from the Mail)

I agree. I do think there are areas where the European institutions urgently need reform, but on an aggregation of reasonable measures of what democracy is it's clear it's a more democratic system than the UK.

British Thatcherite types are just butthurt that voters on the continent mostly abhor their "Anglo-Saxon" economics, and that Europe reflects this with commitments to human and workers' rights.

(Still, the EU high command with things like TTIP has shown itself to be foully sycophantic to America, corporations and neo-liberalism. Same with the expansion of the EU for cheap labour, though I accept the need to position against Russia.)

Generally agreed, though do you have evidence in regards to the TTIP? I cant really find any concisive proof that its as bad as some people say (I find it unlikely that the French would be prepared to let US companies buy their public services)

I'm starting to think that the Left have found their own scare story...