Thread: Farage you utter sack of shit Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005591

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
"We won without a single bullet being fired"

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Technically, he is correct. It wasn't a *single* bullet.

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Projectile]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm hoping that if we all close our eyes at the same time and wish really bloody hard that Farage will disappear in a puff of bullshit.

Even if he was so fucking stupid to realise what he was saying with regard to Jo Cox, then what the fuck was it meant to mean?

That somehow if he'd lost it would have been utterly right to fire bullets..?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
I'm really hoping, although not with very much belief it's going to happen, that this marks the point where Nige retreats from the public sphere.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'm really hoping, although not with very much belief it's going to happen, that this marks the point where Nige retreats from the public sphere.

That's so not going to happen. He's going to be on every bloody news programme and every sofa for the next 3 months.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'm really hoping, although not with very much belief it's going to happen, that this marks the point where Nige retreats from the public sphere.

That's so not going to happen. He's going to be on every bloody news programme and every sofa for the next 3 months.
I know, but on quite a dark morning I still find myself capable of dreaming beautiful dreams.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
He said what!!

Is he mad??

Stupid question.

Do you suppose he will try to form a coalition with the Tories and get a Clegg position?
 
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :
 
He really hasn't grasped the concept of gracious winning and healing divides, has he?

Compared to Cameron's speech, which I thought quite honourable in the circumstances.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
WTFF?!!!! [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Technically, he is correct. It wasn't a *single* bullet.

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Projectile]

How could he have been referring to that tragic incident when that tragic incident was expected to nudge wobblers into the Remain Camp?

This thing wasn't won by farage it was lost by Remain. The disconnect from traditional Labour voters in key areas played a big part. Getting TB to stand there holding a Remain placard, while the lesser-spotted Jeremy was nowhere to be seen looked and felt pathetic .
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
How could he have been referring to that tragic incident when that tragic incident was expected to nudge wobblers into the Remain Camp?

He wasn't of course. And when he said it, the polls were closed and the count nearly done.

I'm assuming he was surviving on little sleep, cigarettes and alcohol.

But I think it shows an underlying level of stupidity and says something about what he thought might have been a fair response if he had actually lost it.

quote:
This thing wasn't won by farage it was lost by Remain. The disconnect from traditional Labour voters in key areas played a big part. Getting TB to stand there holding a Remain placard, while the lesser-spotted Jeremy was nowhere to be seen looked and felt pathetic .
Bollocks. Leaving aside all the in-fighting in the Tory party, every single claim made by Leave was rebuffed. Every single one.

The country rejected logic and instead went for gut feeling - which was that immigration was bad and that somehow leaving the EU would make a difference to that.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I must confess I laughed out loud when Farage said on telly that the idea that European savings could go to the NHS was misguided. I knew it was coming alright; I just didm;t expect it one hour after the result. One hour!!!
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
... Do you suppose he will try to form a coalition with the Tories and get a Clegg position?

Wouldn't he need an actual seat at Westminster to do that, which thanks be to God, he doesn't have?

What a complete arse.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I laughed out loud when Farage said on telly that the idea that European savings could go to the NHS was misguided. I knew it was coming alright; I just didm;t expect it one hour after the result. One hour!!!

To admit that he has actually won because he blatently and deliberately lied to people shows either real courage, utter stupidity on the level of someone who thinks they are a teapot, or a belief that their position is right irrespective of truth, fact or information.

Two of these fit.

I want to see a new stature erected in honour of British mindnumbing stupidity. I think Farages head on a stick would work.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
... Do you suppose he will try to form a coalition with the Tories and get a Clegg position?

Wouldn't he need an actual seat at Westminster to do that, which thanks be to God, he doesn't have?

What a complete arse.

If Boris the Cream-Faced Loon becomes Tory leader, I expect Farage will be given a seat in the Lords, from whence he will exercise whatever ministerial powers Boris gives him. Don't you just hate unelected elites?
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
Surely Farage would have more integrity than to accept a seat in an undemocratic, unelected legeslative body?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I laughed out loud when Farage said on telly that the idea that European savings could go to the NHS was misguided. I knew it was coming alright; I just didm;t expect it one hour after the result. One hour!!!

I think that many things are going to unravel and that people will see what damage he's caused and turn on Farage and savage him (sadly only metaphorically).
 
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Surely Farage would have more integrity than to accept a seat in an undemocratic, unelected legeslative body?

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
The good thing is that he loses, and so do other Kippers, income from not-attending or working at the EU.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
He said what!!

Is he mad??

Stupid question.

Do you suppose he will try to form a coalition with the Tories and get a Clegg position?

He'd have to get elected to Parliament first.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
Oh good Lord, what on earth has Cameron let them do to this country...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I laughed out loud when Farage said on telly that the idea that European savings could go to the NHS was misguided. I knew it was coming alright; I just didm;t expect it one hour after the result. One hour!!!

Farage was running his own campaign, and wasn't officially part of the Leave campaign, so I believe he wasn't technically party to the £350 on the NHS lie. I wasn't paying attention to what he said, so he may have repeated it in his own right. But if he didn't then he can disown it.

Gove and Bloody Stupid were party to the statement. I rather fear Farage and the interviewer have got them off the hook by despatching the awkward question so early.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Brexit guy on newsnight is now saying they want free movement of labour ....

What were people voting leave thinking they'd get again ? Do we think they are going to think they got what they were promised ?
 
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Surely Farage would have more integrity than to accept a seat in an undemocratic, unelected legeslative body?

I don't think I've ever seen the words "Farage" and "integrity" in the same sentence before. They don't really go together very well, do they?

At least, as Penny pointed out, he's presumably now unemployed (or as he would probably put it, a "Scrounger").

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
And now the man has gone back to something that has been on his mind since at least 2013, probably since Dunblane itself, since he mentions it every time he raises the subject of the legalisation of handguns, and the 'kneejerk' banning that followed the killings. He has done this on several occasions.

From the Telegraph

It was obviously on his mind yesterday with his 'no bullets' remark.

What is he after? And can he be contained? He could have that being saved for some great purpose idea after his plane crash as has happened to others after near misses.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Brexit guy on newsnight is now saying they want free movement of labour ....

What were people voting leave thinking they'd get again ? Do we think they are going to think they got what they were promised ?

[Killing me] [Killing me] and how exactly are they going to sell that to the people who voted for them because they kept on going on about how they'd stem immigration? How can you "take control of your borders" and have free movement of labour?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Note from the BBC2 newsnight discussion with some folk from Boston lincs - they didn't believe the 350 mill claim literally. But the key thing was migration. Multi-occupancy non-english speaking folk working in the same place.

So free movement of labour whilst out of the EU wouldn't solve their problem.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston,_Lincolnshire

Their actual problem sounds like poor planning / zoning re accomodation - not enough social housing but also in terms of where people are permitted / encouraged to build their major depots.

[ 25. June 2016, 20:33: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I know, but on quite a dark morning I still find myself capable of dreaming beautiful dreams.

He wants UKIP to play a part in the negotiations, so sadly that might remain just a dream.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I laughed out loud when Farage said on telly that the idea that European savings could go to the NHS was misguided. I knew it was coming alright; I just didm;t expect it one hour after the result. One hour!!!

Farage was running his own campaign, and wasn't officially part of the Leave campaign, so I believe he wasn't technically party to the £350 on the NHS lie. I wasn't paying attention to what he said, so he may have repeated it in his own right. But if he didn't then he can disown it.
On question time, his response to the issue was "It's not £350 million... it's a lot more than that", which brought scoffs and laughs from the audience. Obviously he didn't clarify his 'maths'.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
Mr Farage. He's a sack of shit alright. Specifically, he's an oily, presuming, jumped-up sack of shit who appears to think that he can speak, on behalf of the whole machinery of British government, past and present.

What I'm referring to is this;

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11664618

wherein Mr Farage was condescending enough to do an interview with my country's second-worst thing on the airwaves, in which he apologised, you know, for all that shit back then in the '70's where our exports dried up overnight due to, you know, that awkward thing where they, you know, shacked up with the EEC instead. (And now that's she's not around to wash my socks anymore, I thought of you, dear, and how happy we were together)...

As the president of Federated Farmers effectively said - that was a long time ago now, and I think we might be over it.

But hey, England, if you were thinking of trying a charm offensive down here - how's about you send someone charming, not a hamster-cheeked loon who gets his suits second-hand from a used-car salesman, and, if the photographic record is correct, never actually closes his mouth.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'm waiting for him to say something to get himself charged with inciting racial hatred (and, of course, convicted). Or, for someone to charge him for some of the stuff he has already said.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm waiting for him to say something to get himself charged with inciting racial hatred (and, of course, convicted). Or, for someone to charge him for some of the stuff he has already said.

Doesn't that poster count?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'd have thought so. But, to the best of my knowledge there is no investigation heading towards such a prosecution over it.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Karl:
quote:
How can you "take control of your borders" and have free movement of labour?

Really, Karl, I gave you credit for more intelligence than that. On the one hand we have this long queue of people waiting to get into the country that the EU says we've got to let in. On the other we have this long queue of working-age people with skills and talents this country needs that we have decided to let in ourselves.

Completely different, as Nigel Farrago would be the first to say.

Oh wait - it's the same queue...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
According to a piece in the Guardian by the photographer, who took the picture to enable people to understand the situation of the refugees, and had travelled along with them, he had not sought permission to use the picture. But there was something about the agency which prevented any comeback.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The Guardian:

quote:
A spokesperson for Getty Images confirmed that the picture had been licensed from them and was taken in Slovenia in 2015 by its staff photographer Jeff Mitchell. “It is always uncomfortable when an objective news photograph is used to deliver any political message or subjective agenda. However, the image in question has been licensed legitimately,” they said.
The photographer clearly relinquished his rights by selling the picture to Getty. Permission was clearly sought and paid for.

None of this excuses Farage's misleading use of the image, but trashing him effectively requires having your facts straight.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

None of this excuses Farage's misleading use of the image, but trashing him effectively requires having your facts straight.

Which is a massive irony.

[ 28. June 2016, 13:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I was trying to be polite...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I did imply the legal use of the image. Couldn't find the piece on line in time to get my facts straight.

He has been behaving badly in the EU today, and having stuff said to him. I would be cheering them on, were I there.

BBC report
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How can you "take control of your borders" and have free movement of labour?

Very easily. You make your own decision to have open borders instead of being told by someone else that you must have open borders.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But access to the Single Market means you do have to accept someone else imposing their definition of free movement of labour, so you don't control your own borders after all.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I don't know what "access to the Single Market" means.

I do know it's perfectly possible for Australian goods to enter Europe.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
It means that stuff moves around without taxes being levied. So when Marks and Sparks send their finest English tea across the Channel, I can buy it for the same price as in the UK. In future, thanks to the Brexiteers, I will have to pay import duties. Bastards.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
It means that stuff moves around without taxes being levied. So when Marks and Sparks send their finest English tea across the Channel, I can buy it for the same price as in the UK. In future, thanks to the Brexiteers, I will have to pay import duties. Bastards.

Well, "no taxes" doesn't automatically mean "same price" (especially with different currencies), but point taken.

Though it's worth pointing out that many free trade deals arise outside of a "Single Market". We have a number with the EU ourselves that enable us to export goods there without tariffs. I know because I've drafted some of the relevant legislation at this end.

[ 28. June 2016, 16:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Of course, nobody is forced to put import duties onto anything. The EU has a deal with Palestine, for example, which means certain products are duty free.

And products are obviously not the same price across the EU for a whole load of different reasons - transport costs, economies of scale, labour costs, demand etc.

The actual difference between being in the EU and not is that all (legal) products can move entirely freely around the zone without any interference. So I can go and sell my products in Sweden or Spain or Romania as if I was a citizen/resident of those countries.

If the UK leaves the EU, then there will inevitably be trade barriers, even if they're not actual import tariffs.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course, nobody is forced to put import duties onto anything. The EU has a deal with Palestine, for example, which means certain products are duty free.

And products are obviously not the same price across the EU for a whole load of different reasons - transport costs, economies of scale, labour costs, demand etc.

The actual difference between being in the EU and not is that all (legal) products can move entirely freely around the zone without any interference. So I can go and sell my products in Sweden or Spain or Romania as if I was a citizen/resident of those countries.

If the UK leaves the EU, then there will inevitably be trade barriers, even if they're not actual import tariffs.

Sure. And conversely, someone in Sweden or Spain or Romania will face greater barriers to coming to the UK to sell their stuff there.

The positives and negatives of this depend very much on one's position. Are you buying or selling? Which market is the most lucrative, the one you're in or the one you're not? Who are your competitors and how is their situation different to yours?

What is most valuable to you in a product?

I put that last one separately because it's one that's been bugging me a bit lately. Globalisation seems to have become a race to provide the cheapest product, not the one of the greatest value. A lot of the world seems happy to purchase a product that is a little bit shit so long as it's the cheapest option.

And then, while saying that our trade is "free", we end up having to impose various standards and requirements and bans to protect ourselves and see to it that none of this stuff is really shit in ways that could render a product either useless or dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely see the benefits of trade. But I sometimes think that we are so keen on the notion of "free" trade that we cease to engage in critical thinking about the kinds of barriers that we want and need.

Meanwhile, we make it easier for really big companies to move money and resources around, evade our taxes (a big issue in Australia recently, with the Australian divisions of multinationals like Google and Apple paying almost nothing on Australian-generate income) and then we're surprised that they are so much more able to take advantage of the globalised world than all the people we thought we were doing it for.

We had cigarette companies suing Australia for imposing world-leading bans on tobacco advertising. That was the whole problem. "World-leading" is a synonym for "different". Thankfully the case was lost, but I definitely find it concerning that such a case is even possible.

For all the benefits of being able to go to Sweden or Spain or Romania and do business as if you were a citizen, the fact is you're not a citizen. The governments of those countries are not elected by you, they're not answerable to you at the ballot box, and they're not supposed to be looking after your interests. They're supposed to be looking after the interests of their actual citizens.

And if those interests aren't compatible with yours then frankly, I think you should be losing out. Conversely, I think the interests of Romanian and Swedish businesses should, in the UK, be losing out to the interests of UK citizens in those situations where a conflict of interests arises.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

What is most valuable to you in a product?

I put that last one separately because it's one that's been bugging me a bit lately. Globalisation seems to have become a race to provide the cheapest product, not the one of the greatest value. A lot of the world seems happy to purchase a product that is a little bit shit so long as it's the cheapest option.

Often, "a little bit shit" is good enough. Often, cheap shit is better than no shit.

Telling me that there's more value in that product over there does me no good if I can't afford it, and it does me no good if I don't actually need the extra things it does.

Take kids' clothing, for example. It is easy to buy cheap shit, and it's easy to buy more expensive high quality clothes. Most of the time, I buy the cheap shit.

Why? Because they grow so fast, they grow out of it before it's worn out, so there's no advantage to more durable clothing. And if its cheap, I don't have to care when they rip it falling out of a tree, or stain it with permanent ink or anything. The extra value in higher-quality clothing isn't useful to me.

I'd agree that a consequence of the prevalence of cheap shit is that decent stuff tends to be more expensive than it otherwise would. If most price-sensitive consumers are buying the cheap stuff, there's not so much incentive for manufacturers to produce something better at a reasonable price - you often end up with a choice between cheap shit and stupidly expensive.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Conversely, I think the interests of Romanian and Swedish businesses should, in the UK, be losing out to the interests of UK citizens in those situations where a conflict of interests arises.

How far down does this principle extend? A Scottish business in England? A Yorkshire business in London? A Lambeth business in Southwark?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
But hey, England, if you were thinking of trying a charm offensive down here - how's about you send someone charming, not a hamster-cheeked loon who gets his suits second-hand from a used-car salesman, and, if the photographic record is correct, never actually closes his mouth.

I think we weren't actually sending him on a charm offensive. I think we have turned back the clock so far we were trying to exile him to the penal colony.

And he is not a sack of shit. A sack of shit has some possible use as fertiliser.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

And he is not a sack of shit. A sack of shit has some possible use as fertiliser.

Be fair. He'd work as fertilizer, too.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

And he is not a sack of shit. A sack of shit has some possible use as fertiliser.

Be fair. He'd work as fertilizer, too.
He would poison the soil.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm beginning to feel very uncomfortable about the way we speak of this man - and I have been guilty, referring to him as toadface, and commenting on the smallness of the back of his head. I believe I have used the word obnoxious. I was delighted when comments were made at the EU about his taking money from us for doing nothing. (I was unable to counter my friend's mother saying what a wonderful man he was and how he had spoken for her. She didn't listen to the reasonable points I did say, but talked over me.)

I'm not sure how one should be answering that of God in him, but I don't think we are.

And I don't think I should be making the remark about needing an MRI scanner, either.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm beginning to feel very uncomfortable about the way we speak of this man - and I have been guilty, referring to him as toadface, and commenting on the smallness of the back of his head.

I'm generally don't make personal remarks, but apart from that think most of the opprobrium heaped on him in this thread has been on point.

Watch the speech he gave today at the EUP, it was clearly designed to infuriate, do as much as possible to stymie any future agreement, all so he can keep himself in the headlines, and then come back and crow over how the EU had screwed over 'decent people' in the service of his fascist rhetoric.

There's a lifetime effect in terms of lower average earnings to those graduating/leaving school during a recession. Nigel will be fine though - he keeps his money offshore.

Voting Leave was less a vote in favor of a plan (of which there was none) than a vote in favour of whoever profited politically to make hay while the country burned.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I wonder how he will continue to argue that it is decent ordinary people re-enacting Kristallnacht in Lewisham, for example.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I note the besides the speech from the Human Tapeworm, there was also one from an SNP MEP which was received with a standing ovation. Loyal, gallant little Scotland suffering even more from the machinations of this fascist creep than the rest of you. There'll be hands rubbed in Bute House tonight.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think we weren't actually sending him on a charm offensive. I think we have turned back the clock so far we were trying to exile him to the penal colony.

Well ya missed then. NZ was never a penal colony, although escaped convicts did settle here from Australia, including my great, great granddad.

Huia
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Conversely, I think the interests of Romanian and Swedish businesses should, in the UK, be losing out to the interests of UK citizens in those situations where a conflict of interests arises.

How far down does this principle extend? A Scottish business in England? A Yorkshire business in London? A Lambeth business in Southwark?
It extends down as far as a nation state. I'm not engaging you in rocket science here. There's no such thing as a citizen of Lambeth.

[ 29. June 2016, 00:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I didn't know exactly who this man is. But his intemperate and insulting speech made The National on CBC. They labelled it a "ruckus". What on earth is his appeal except to the most base of attitudes and instincts?

The additional story tonight was about the racist attacks, showing several. Is England sliding into something horrible?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It extends down as far as a nation state. I'm not engaging you in rocket science here. There's no such thing as a citizen of Lambeth.

The end game of the European Project is a single nation state. The goal is that everyone is a European citizen, and you become a citizen of Germany, say, by being a European citizen and moving to Germany.

The EU is trying to get there by some kind of adiabatic process.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It extends down as far as a nation state. I'm not engaging you in rocket science here. There's no such thing as a citizen of Lambeth.

The end game of the European Project is a single nation state. The goal is that everyone is a European citizen, and you become a citizen of Germany, say, by being a European citizen and moving to Germany.

The EU is trying to get there by some kind of adiabatic process.

In a single nation state, the concept of being "a citizen of Germany" wouldn't make any sense.

Right now a person can be Scottish, they can live in Scotland, but they can't be a citizen of Scotland.

If the EU ever actually does become a single nation-state, a federation in the sense that places like Australia and the USA are federations, then a lot of the problems of the current system would no longer exist. It's being a halfway-house that actually creates some of the issues, because there are features of the EU that tend to be inconsistent with each other. Are the constituent nations sovereign or aren't they?

However, I'm somewhat skeptical that full federation will ever be managed. There are so many different linguistic and cultural groups that it's going to be extremely tricky.

The only thing that makes me think that it could ever be possible is the existence of India. Because it's the nearest equivalent. However, there's at least an argument that modern India only exists because of the way an external occupying force fused its component parts together.

[ 29. June 2016, 04:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In a single nation state, the concept of being "a citizen of Germany" wouldn't make any sense.

The US has the concept of "a citizen of Vermont" (or whichever state). It means exactly a US citizen who is resident in Vermont, but state politicians talk about "citizens of $STATE" all the time.

quote:
It's being a halfway-house that actually creates some of the issues, because there are features of the EU that tend to be inconsistent with each other. Are the constituent nations sovereign or aren't they?
Yes, that was my point. The EU is in the transition regime, where not everything exactly makes sense.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think we weren't actually sending him on a charm offensive. I think we have turned back the clock so far we were trying to exile him to the penal colony.

Well ya missed then. NZ was never a penal colony, although escaped convicts did settle here from Australia, including my great, great granddad.

Huia

I knew he would get lost. Anything outside the UK borders tends to befuddle him.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is England sliding into something horrible?

Yes. Without a doubt. Exactly what, I have no idea, but something very problematic.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

And he is not a sack of shit. A sack of shit has some possible use as fertiliser.

Be fair. He'd work as fertilizer, too.
Nah - what if you wanted to grow French beans? Or Spanish onions?
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
I only hope there may be some way back, maybe via Nic Sturgeon?

I want the nightmare to end. Please?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It extends down as far as a nation state. I'm not engaging you in rocket science here. There's no such thing as a citizen of Lambeth.

Give it time. Haven't you seen "Passport to Pimlico"? It'll be like that.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In a single nation state, the concept of being "a citizen of Germany" wouldn't make any sense.

The US has the concept of "a citizen of Vermont" (or whichever state). It means exactly a US citizen who is resident in Vermont, but state politicians talk about "citizens of $STATE" all the time.
Exactly. And Vermonters vote in Vermont state elections, but not in the state elections of New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, etc. Each state has its own constitution, a state supreme court which interprets it as well as lower courts, a state legislature, a governor, etc etc. Most important, state laws govern a lot more of day-to-day life in the US than federal laws do. It very much matters that I live in California and am governed by its laws rather than in Arizona.

The concept of being a citizen of Germany or France or wherever would make total sense if a future united Europe used the American model. I don't know if they should do so, having never given it a lot of consideration, but something akin to the federal/state system in the US would allow for local regulation and government of things like agriculture and education in the component states of a united Europe.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
.. and of course, the sole UKIP member of the HoL (unelected elites anyone?), had this rather idiotically phrased idea to add this afternoon:

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: "My Lords, I am most grateful. Do the Government accept that there are about 3 million EU nationals living at present in the United Kingdom, but there are also 1.2 million British people living in the European Union? When present tensions have calmed down, why would either Brussels or London want to do anything to upset this mutually beneficial situation? Do the Government agree however, that if the EU were to get difficult with our nationals living there, it is we who hold the stronger hand if we retaliate, because so many more of them are living here?"
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In a single nation state, the concept of being "a citizen of Germany" wouldn't make any sense.

The US has the concept of "a citizen of Vermont" (or whichever state). It means exactly a US citizen who is resident in Vermont, but state politicians talk about "citizens of $STATE" all the time.
Exactly. And Vermonters vote in Vermont state elections, but not in the state elections of New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, etc. Each state has its own constitution, a state supreme court which interprets it as well as lower courts, a state legislature, a governor, etc etc. Most important, state laws govern a lot more of day-to-day life in the US than federal laws do. It very much matters that I live in California and am governed by its laws rather than in Arizona.

The concept of being a citizen of Germany or France or wherever would make total sense if a future united Europe used the American model. I don't know if they should do so, having never given it a lot of consideration, but something akin to the federal/state system in the US would allow for local regulation and government of things like agriculture and education in the component states of a united Europe.

Then how does one become a citizen of Vermont? If you're not born there, do you go through a ceremony? Do you have to renounce your citizenship of another state, or can you be a dual citizen?

Residency is not citizenship. If I lived in California, there would undoubtedly be a set of laws that applied to me that wouldn't apply to me elsewhere. But I would not be applying to become a citizen of California at any point, I would be applying to become a citizen of the United States while I was residing in California. And I became a United States citizen, I would register as a voter in California because I lived in California.

This is no different to Australian States, which have their own constitutions and their own courts and their own elections. All you are describing is a federation, like mine and like many other countries. That doesn't stop the United States of America being the single country, with a Supreme Court at the top and a national Congress and a national President. And a single citizenship in the sense that most people use the word.

[ 29. June 2016, 22:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. and of course, the sole UKIP member of the HoL (unelected elites anyone?), had this rather idiotically phrased idea to add this afternoon:

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: "My Lords, I am most grateful. Do the Government accept that there are about 3 million EU nationals living at present in the United Kingdom, but there are also 1.2 million British people living in the European Union? When present tensions have calmed down, why would either Brussels or London want to do anything to upset this mutually beneficial situation? Do the Government agree however, that if the EU were to get difficult with our nationals living there, it is we who hold the stronger hand if we retaliate, because so many more of them are living here?"

What a piece of wank-cloth. I doubt the EU would do anything about them, but they might find that, no longer being EU citizens, their life there was harder, and would want to return. Or something. The fact that currently they can have friends to visit or visit home is surely part of the appeal?

So OK, the EU sends all of the (retired, non-contributing to the economy) ex-pats back to us, and we send all of the (contributing to our economy, earning money, doing jobs) EU workers back? I think I see who wins in that situation.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:


quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is England sliding into something horrible?

Yes. Without a doubt. Exactly what, I have no idea, but something very problematic.
I guess it's the sack of shit the thread started with.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then how does one become a citizen of Vermont?

By being a US citizen and being resident in Vermont.
From the 14th amendment of the US constitution:
quote:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

quote:

That doesn't stop the United States of America being the single country, with a Supreme Court at the top and a national Congress and a national President.

Sure, and it also doesn't stop the states being in competition with each other. States routinely take actions which are intended to benefit their own citizens over the citizens of some other state.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Yeah. To the rest of the world that's residency in Vermont. I understand that in the USA they use the word "citizen".

All I'm saying is that to the rest of the world that is not citizenship. And when I'm talking about the possible future of the EU, I'm not going to incorporate an American linguistic quirk.

The whole point is that the EU is currently not a federation in the sense that the USA, Australia, Mexico, Canada, India etc etc etc are federations. If it ever becomes one, then residency will determine eligibility for lower-level elections in a way that doesn't work BETWEEN countries. Because between countries, you can't switch citizenship merely by moving house as the 14th amendment provides.

[ 29. June 2016, 23:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole point is that the EU is currently not a federation in the sense that the USA, Australia, Mexico, Canada, India etc etc etc are federations. If it ever becomes one, then residency will determine eligibility for lower-level elections in a way that doesn't work BETWEEN countries. Because between countries, you can't switch citizenship merely by moving house as the 14th amendment provides.

Of course the EU is not such a federation. I thought we were talking about what it might become in the future.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
England will be the 51st State before that happens.
 
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :
 
Farage has quit as head of UKIP (again)
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Walking away from the mess you helped create seems to be a theme, does it not?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Teresa May is going to have stacks of plausible deniability if she becomes PM, is she not? "I am not responsible for undertakings given by Nigel Farage/ Boris Johnson/ Michael Gove (delete as appropriate)" will become a wearying refrain at the despatch box.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I did wonder whether his resignation has anything to do with Andrea Leadsom refusing to rule out possibly giving him something to do if she became PM.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
It looks like his views haven't changed much since his school days.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah. To the rest of the world that's residency in Vermont. I understand that in the USA they use the word "citizen".

I have never heard somebody over the age of about 10 refer to a "citizen" of Vermont or a "citizen" of Oregon. We are residents of states, citizens of the United States of America.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have never heard somebody over the age of about 10 refer to a "citizen" of Vermont or a "citizen" of Oregon. We are residents of states, citizens of the United States of America.

I have heard many people refer to citizens of individual states. On the other hand, all those people were politicians. I'll let you decide what that means for your ten-year-old criterion.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have never heard somebody over the age of about 10 refer to a "citizen" of Vermont or a "citizen" of Oregon. We are residents of states, citizens of the United States of America.

I have heard many people refer to citizens of individual states. On the other hand, all those people were politicians. I'll let you decide what that means for your ten-year-old criterion.
That I listen to more children than politicians?
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have never heard somebody over the age of about 10 refer to a "citizen" of Vermont or a "citizen" of Oregon. We are residents of states, citizens of the United States of America.

I have heard many people refer to citizens of individual states. On the other hand, all those people were politicians. I'll let you decide what that means for your ten-year-old criterion.
That I listen to more children than politicians?
Or more children than lawyers. In my line of work, it's common to talk about citizens of states. The Constitution and laws of my state refer to citizens (or the citizenry) of the state. I would guess the same is true of other states.

A resident of the state and a citizen are often used interchangeably, but they are not necessarily the same thing. For example, convicted felons are residents of a state, but often lose the rights of citizenship. In such cases, the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote, are primarily rights under state law, not federal law.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I stand corrected.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
Farage has quit as head of UKIP (again)

Everyone else is having a leadership contest, why shouldn't UKIP join in the game?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
Farage has quit as head of UKIP (again)

Everyone else is having a leadership contest, why shouldn't UKIP join in the game?
Not the Liberal Democrats! In fact I fully expect to see someone's hot take on all this to be that my not having a leadership crisis at this juncture they are out of touch with the public mood and therefore unfit to govern.

Although, to be fair, the SNP, Plaid, the DUP and, indeed, Sinn Fein are currently untroubled by leadership campaigns. Given Mr Farron's Cumbrian heritage I can only conclude that this demonstrates the stolid and responsible nature of the Celtic people, as opposed to the effervescence and emotionalism of the Anglo-Saxon race. (A jibe rather wasted given that no-one from Victorian England, AFAIK, posts on the ship but in the unlikely event that Charles Kingsley is reading this [Razz] )
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
FWIW I reckon Farage is taking soundings around the lunatic fringe of the Conservative party to see if he can kick-start his career there.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have never heard somebody over the age of about 10 refer to a "citizen" of Vermont or a "citizen" of Oregon. We are residents of states, citizens of the United States of America.

I have heard many people refer to citizens of individual states. On the other hand, all those people were politicians. I'll let you decide what that means for your ten-year-old criterion.
That I listen to more children than politicians?
Or more children than lawyers. In my line of work, it's common to talk about citizens of states. The Constitution and laws of my state refer to citizens (or the citizenry) of the state. I would guess the same is true of other states.

A resident of the state and a citizen are often used interchangeably, but they are not necessarily the same thing. For example, convicted felons are residents of a state, but often lose the rights of citizenship. In such cases, the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote, are primarily rights under state law, not federal law.

Assuming they were citizens before their convictions, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.") seems to say that those felons are still citizens of the US and of their state of residence, whatever the restrictions on their voting rights.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
Farage has quit as head of UKIP (again)

Everyone else is having a leadership contest, why shouldn't UKIP join in the game?
Not the Liberal Democrats!
I should have put the emphasis on game. As in, playing silly buggers to amuse themselves and a few political anoraks while the country goes to the dogs around them.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Assuming they were citizens before their convictions, the first sentence of the 14th Amendment ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.") seems to say that those felons are still citizens of the US and of their state of residence, whatever the restrictions on their voting rights.

True. I muddled things a little, so thanks for the correction. They remain citizens, but lose certain rights of citizenship.

But it's probably worth highlighting/repeating for the purpose of this discussion that the XIV Amendment does say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens . . . of the State wherein they reside." Prior to this amendment, states could deny state citizenship to persons who had United States citizenship, such as free blacks.

[ 04. July 2016, 16:59: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Yes, it certainly supports the position that state citizenship is "a thing" (as they say), though it's not clear to me what that entails.

I have found, though, that Googling "citizen of a state" is a quick way to find lots of sites with banners like "The Real Truth - What are they hiding? Stuff the government doesn't want you to know!" I suspect that state citizenship is both "a thing" and also not really the thing that a lot of swivel-eyed loons would like it to be.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I have found, though, that Googling "citizen of a state" is a quick way to find lots of sites with banners like "The Real Truth - What are they hiding? Stuff the government doesn't want you to know!" I suspect that state citizenship is both "a thing" and also not really the thing that a lot of swivel-eyed loons would like it to be.

Half of those sites are maintained by Texans who think they're going to secede from the Union, right? And the rest by survivalists in Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and western Montana.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I have found, though, that Googling "citizen of a state" is a quick way to find lots of sites with banners like "The Real Truth - What are they hiding? Stuff the government doesn't want you to know!" I suspect that state citizenship is both "a thing" and also not really the thing that a lot of swivel-eyed loons would like it to be.

Oh yeah. Of course, many of those sovereign citizen-types also insist that the XIV Amendment is itself somehow unconstitutional.

[ 04. July 2016, 23:24: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Wasn't the Civil War meant to more or less establish that the USA really was one country? I'm sure that's what Ken Burns told me.

Anyway, the UK is working hard to outdo you on the whole question of unity or lack of it. They've been doing it in sporting competitions for years.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wasn't the Civil War meant to more or less establish that the USA really was one country? I'm sure that's what Ken Burns told me.

In terms of states being able to secede yes. (And it was after the Civil War that we went from saying "the United States are" to "the United States is.") Of course, the XIV Amendment—which standardized qualifications for citizenship across the country and which acknowledged that people are simultaneously citizens of the United States and citizens of individual states—was one of the results of the Civil War.

BTW, while it may not be the norm world-wide, the US is not the only country where sub-national citizenship is found. In Switzerland, one is a citizen of one's municipality/commune, canton and of the Confederation (assuming one is a citizen at all). Can't say if there are other countries where sub-national citizenship exists.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0