As it happens there are several precedents for European countries breaking up into parts during the past 25 years. Czechoslovakia split into two, Yugoslavia split into six (or seven), and the Soviet Union split into 15 successor states. How did it go? Well some fared better than others. In all cases there was an initial period of confusion, expense, uncertainty, and decline. Some states then began to prosper (e.g. Slovenia), others fell into catastrophic civil wars (e.g. Bosnia), or isolation (e.g. Serbia). Overall I would say they would nearly all have been better off united than disintegrating, in the long term. The reasons for splitting up were about political quarrels, sectional interests and settling old resentments; it was never about preparing ideal conditions for the future.
Farage really doesn't understand what 'independence' means, does he? Every independence movement (Scotland, Catalonia, Basques, etc) wants their people to secure independent nationhood within a united Europe; nobody wants total isolation, because that would be self-defeating. This must be obvious to everyone except Nigel. He is opposed to self-determination of peoples as a general principle - he only favours a special variety of "independence" as defined by him. Nigel Farage campaigning for NO is sure to push a few votes into the YES camp.
Eventually there will be no such thing as independent nationhood within a united Europe and the alternative to independent nationhood within a united Europe is not total isolation. It is still possible to have a sovereign nation that interacts with other sovereign nations, and that is what I believe Nigel Farage wants; and I agree with him.
I think he understands perfectly. Independent nationhood within the EU is a contradiction in terms. You can call it "a united Europe" if you like meaningless euphemisms but what you mean is the EU hegemony. Neither Farage nor any other proponent of UK withdrawal except far-left militants and the BNP has ever advocated isolationism. Ukip's position has always been that British interests are served by strengthening our links with markets beyond Europe not restricting them. At present under the terms of our EU membership (which as a signatory of the Lisbon treaty - thanks to Gordon Brown, our erstwhile unelected Scottish Prime Minister - Mr Cameron cannot renegotiate) the UK is prohibited from forming bilateral trade agreements with any nation or group of nations outside the EU. All our world trade must be conducted in accordance with EU criteria for the supposed benefit of the EU as a whole, not for the benefit of the UK. We are restricted now. To say Farage is opposed to self-determination of peoples as a general principle is tendentious tripe. Self-determination in the form of an unconditional referendum is precisely what he is calling for.
if i could believe he was genuine and could control his support and command a bit more respect i could have a bit of that. but i just dont trust his motives, probably same reasons why salmond is not trusted by some
No, I can help you with that, it's fairly straight forward. Most don't like Farage because he's a cunt Most don't like Salmond because he's a twat Very very similar but there are differences, that's a whole new thread entirely which may or may not go for as long as this one
i know:smile: who would of thaught a wee insignificant country like scotland could make such a storm in a tea cup, sounds like we are gonna cause the next rescission also.:Hilarious:. save the pop corn i am off in a bit.
I think he (Farage) is genuine, or as genuine as any politician, but the media has been traducing him for so long that his credibility has been seriously undermined. Unfortunately he also attracts quite a few eccentric, not to mention loony, supporters than the mainstream parties. His basic message, dislike of the EU, does however resonate with a large part of the population.
