I definitely think Nigel won the debate, but it certainly wasn't his best performance. He was nervous at certain points during the debate, but I think his message come across very well. Nick was better than I expected - meaning he wasn't a total disaster. I do think, particularly on the issue of a referendum, he left people confused as to what the Lib Dem position actually is. What the Lib Dems are really saying, is that the British people can't be trusted to make the in/out decision, due to lack of knowledge/misinformation on the EU - and he should have at least been honest about that.
But yeah, I remain firm in my eurosceptic stance, and I'm glad the EU debate is receiving more exposure.
Oh, and I have to add that Nigel showed he is more than competent to take part in the televised debates in 2015
I definitely think Nigel won the debate, but it certainly wasn't his best performance. He was nervous at certain points during the debate, but I think his message come across very well. Nick was better than I expected - meaning he wasn't a total disaster. I do think, particularly on the issue of a referendum, he left people confused as to what the Lib Dem position actually is. What the Lib Dems are really saying, is that the British people can't be trusted to make the in/out decision, due to lack of knowledge/misinformation on the EU - and he should have at least been honest about that.
But yeah, I remain firm in my eurosceptic stance, and I'm glad the EU debate is receiving more exposure.
Oh, and I have to add that Nigel showed he is more than competent to take part in the televised debates in 2015
It was Farage's first time. Clegg has done three already. I noticed he tried to repeat his 2010 style of looking directly at the audience member who asked the question, or the viewing public.
I give up with DS. Thought you were primarily a load of loopy leftie loonies. How did I get that so wrong?
Actually, I voted for "neither". I expected less of Clegg, who I thought did OK in some ways and much better than I expected (OK, my expectations were rock-bottom low). I thouht Farage could have toned his voice down a bit, and was generally a tad less than I expected. Still good, though.
It was Farage's first time. Clegg has done three already. I noticed he tried to repeat his 2010 style of looking directly at the audience member who asked the question, or the viewing public.
Yeah I noticed that too. I also thought it was quite rude how he almost refused to acknowledge Nigel was even taking part in the debate. Nick seemed to be using the debate as a platform to put across some sort of party broadcast.
I give up with DS. Thought you were primarily a load of loopy leftie loonies. How did I get that so wrong?
Actually, I voted for "neither". I expected less of Clegg, who I thought did OK in some ways and much better than I expected (OK, my expectations were rock-bottom low). I thouht Farage could have toned his voice down a bit, and was generally a tad less than I expected. Still good, though.
For 35%+ to say Nick won, must be a good result for the LibDems
It was Farage's first time. Clegg has done three already. I noticed he tried to repeat his 2010 style of looking directly at the audience member who asked the question, or the viewing public.
Farage won, a disaster total disaster in spades, for Cameron.
If Farage won the debate (about 60-40 according to commentators on the radio, a stat I'm willing to take at face value cuz I didn't catch a word of the actual debate) how is that a disaster for Cameron?
If anything doesn't that do Cameron a favour what with his 2017 referendum promise?
If Farage won the debate (about 60-40 according to commentators on the radio, a stat I'm willing to take at face value cuz I didn't catch a word of the actual debate) how is that a disaster for Cameron?
If anything doesn't that do Cameron a favour what with his 2017 referendum promise?
The problem is people don't believe Cameron. He promised a referendum on Lisbon and then changed his mind. Why do we have to wait until 2017 and what powers does he want Angie to help get us back. He has no idea or won't say. So why the delay cos no powers will come back as one of the 27 other member states will oppose the change as it likely to be their disadvantage.
Clegg supported an in out referendum before the 2010 election but is now opposed. Ed seems to have no policy at all.
If you believe Cameron's promise.I suspect he is hoping he can wriggle out of that possibly by trying to convince people that he has negotiated some changes from the EU.
If Cameron was serious we would not have to wait until 2017 for a referendom.We don't believe him simple as that.
Nigel won the debate.Nick Clegg's arguments were hollow as expected.
My view as to the EU was not in anyway altered by this debate.
I agreed more with Nick Clegg as I don't want a referendum and believe we should be in the EU but overall I would say Nigel Farage performed the best so he came out on top for me.
The problem is people don't believe Cameron. He promised a referendum on Lisbon and then changed his mind. Why do we have to wait until 2017 and what powers does he want Angie to help get us back. He has no idea or won't say. So why the delay cos no powers will come back as one of the 27 other member states will oppose it.
Clegg supported an in out referendum before the 2010 election but is now opposed. Ed seems to have no policy at all.
Many just don't trust them any more!
Lisbon was already ratified by the time Cameron became PM. I was of the opinion he said he'd trigger a referendum if it was still unsigned by the time he got in but I don't recall any definitive promise post Gordon Brown sneaking off to sign it.
Methinks that in the wake of all the Polish that rocked up there was a fair chance people would have been so focused on our fingers crossed, hope they don't swamp us, half arsed, open border agreement that it would have been nigh on impossible to get people to consider the pros of membership and the baby might well have been thrown out with the bath water on that single issue alone.
I don't think it's any coincidence that UKIPs popularity started to gain momentum around the time of that Polish influx and it's possible that the tories concluded the Polish "invasion" had the potential to cause more long term political damage to Labour (who spun their way out of their referendum promise by redefining what that treaty was in the first place) than it would them for not persuing one post said treaty being signed.
I think Cameron under estimated how the public would react and who they'd turn against and hes picked up more of the fallout than he anticipated with Labour pretty much getting let off the hook to some extent because they are now "yesterdays" government and has struggled a bit to appease some of his own euro sceptic back benchers without looking like he's running scared of UKIP (which is how the competition would call it) and convince a now dubious/cynical electorate that they can have their say in 2017 should the next GE return a tory (not a tory lead coaition) government.
I don't think Cameron will get any concessions out of the EU and I don't think he thinks he will either. I think he's banking on the economy having recovered to a point whereby people will be more open to making an "informed" choice in 2017 than they would an emotive one when they're having a rough time of things and prone to want to lashout and blame someone or something (as is human nature) for the situation they are currently enduring. I can sympathise with that logic judging by the simplistic arguments you hear from folk in all kinds of discussions.
Add to that the eurozone problems and the prospect of said zone crawling towards what looks like a more federal, centrally governed beast in order to support a single currency none of them seem to want to give up on (particularly the Germans cos it's great for german exports having what amounts to a devalued German currency in that regard) then the "what is it we're actually a member of?" question becomes more valid the longer you leave it and again more informed judgments can be decided in that event.
As you say people have trust issues, but who else do you turn to if you want the chance to have your say when the odds of getting a referendum by voting for anyone else are even worse? Certainly not UKIP. UKIP aren't about choice they're about getting out. If, for the sake of arguement UKIP won the next GE they wouldn't give you a referendum. They'd regard their victory as a public mandate to just up sticks and leave.
Whether you believe Cameron or not the tories are the shortest odds of delivering a referendum imo and the shortest odds by quite a margin.
Lisbon was already ratified by the time Cameron became PM. I was of the opinion he said he'd trigger a referendum if it was still unsigned by the time he got in but I don't recall any definitive promise post Gordon Brown sneaking off to sign it.
Methinks that in the wake of all the Polish that rocked up there was a fair chance people would have been so focused on our fingers crossed, hope they don't swamp us, half arsed, open border agreement that it would have been nigh on impossible to get people to consider the pros of membership and the baby might well have been thrown out with the bath water on that single issue alone.
I don't think it's any coincidence that UKIPs popularity started to gain momentum around the time of that Polish influx and it's possible that the tories concluded the Polish "invasion" had the potential to cause more long term political damage to Labour (who spun their way out of their referendum promise by redefining what that treaty was in the first place) than it would them for not persuing one post said treaty being signed.
I think Cameron under estimated how the public would react and who they'd turn against and hes picked up more of the fallout than he anticipated with Labour pretty much getting let off the hook to some extent because they are now "yesterdays" government and has struggled a bit to appease some of his own euro sceptic back benchers without looking like he's running scared of UKIP (which is how the competition would call it) and convince a now dubious/cynical electorate that they can have their say in 2017 should the next GE return a tory (not a tory lead coaition) government.
I don't think Cameron will get any concessions out of the EU and I don't think he thinks he will either. I think he's banking on the economy having recovered to a point whereby people will be more open to making an "informed" choice in 2017 than they would an emotive one when they're having a rough time of things and prone to want to lashout and blame someone or something (as is human nature) for the situation they are currently enduring. I can sympathise with that logic judging by the simplistic arguments you hear from folk in all kinds of discussions.
Add to that the eurozone problems and the prospect of said zone crawling towards what looks like a more federal, centrally governed beast in order to support a single currency none of them seem to want to give up on (particularly the Germans cos it's great for german exports having what amounts to a devalued German currency in that regard) then the "what is it we're actually a member of?" question becomes more valid the longer you leave it and again more informed judgments can be decided in that event.
As you say people have trust issues, but who else do you turn to if you want the chance to have your say when the odds of getting a referendum by voting for anyone else are even worse? Certainly not UKIP. UKIP aren't about choice they're about getting out. If, for the sake of arguement UKIP won the next GE they wouldn't give you a referendum. They'd regard their victory as a public mandate to just up sticks and leave.
Whether you believe Cameron or not the tories are the shortest odds of delivering a referendum imo and the shortest odds by quite a margin.
I can't find anything worth opposing in what you say but there's a couple of points that never if ever get mentioned. The signing of EU treaties isn't done in what I would consider a fair and normal way. Rather than all national representatives sitting round a table and passing the treaty round for signing, it's done on a kind of ad hoc basis by members signing at different times. This has what I think of as the "snowball effect" where the more signatures that are added, the more the pressure to agree. And then, when someone decides not to sign, all sorts of pressures and threats are made, not necessarly direct from the EU but from vested interests from within the nation states. In Bitain's case, Blair avoided a referendum merely because the changed the category of the agreement. Cameron should have held a referendum as a matter of urgency, immediately after the general election as to whether we accepted the Lisbon Treaty.
Feel Nick was allowed far too much time to talk gibberish and wasn't told to answer the question by the adjudicator.
Unbelievable how Nick denied the point about uncontrolled immigration and the numbers allowed in and tried to change it to benefit claims!
Had to laugh when the media hacks were saying Nick had won (With dodgy facts) and moaned about Farage sweating. They must have been so upset when the poll results came in!
Comments
But yeah, I remain firm in my eurosceptic stance, and I'm glad the EU debate is receiving more exposure.
Oh, and I have to add that Nigel showed he is more than competent to take part in the televised debates in 2015
The questions were very inspired by the anti types. 'Why do we3 follow the rules while other countries don't bother?' is just junk.
Farage won, a disaster total disaster in spades, for Cameron.
And what has that got to do with the EU?
Apparently, he's too busy running the country to take part in any television debate on the EU and Miliband is just silent.
No?
It was Farage's first time. Clegg has done three already. I noticed he tried to repeat his 2010 style of looking directly at the audience member who asked the question, or the viewing public.
Actually, I voted for "neither". I expected less of Clegg, who I thought did OK in some ways and much better than I expected (OK, my expectations were rock-bottom low). I thouht Farage could have toned his voice down a bit, and was generally a tad less than I expected. Still good, though.
For 35%+ to say Nick won, must be a good result for the LibDems
As far as I can see anyone advancing a eurosceptic position is great for the conservatives.
Yeah calling them by their name too.
If Farage won the debate (about 60-40 according to commentators on the radio, a stat I'm willing to take at face value cuz I didn't catch a word of the actual debate) how is that a disaster for Cameron?
If anything doesn't that do Cameron a favour what with his 2017 referendum promise?
The problem is people don't believe Cameron. He promised a referendum on Lisbon and then changed his mind. Why do we have to wait until 2017 and what powers does he want Angie to help get us back. He has no idea or won't say. So why the delay cos no powers will come back as one of the 27 other member states will oppose the change as it likely to be their disadvantage.
Clegg supported an in out referendum before the 2010 election but is now opposed. Ed seems to have no policy at all.
Many just don't trust them any more!
If Cameron was serious we would not have to wait until 2017 for a referendom.We don't believe him simple as that.
Nigel won the debate.Nick Clegg's arguments were hollow as expected.
So did Farage. It was a pretty condescending tactic employed by both.
I agreed more with Nick Clegg as I don't want a referendum and believe we should be in the EU but overall I would say Nigel Farage performed the best so he came out on top for me.
Lisbon was already ratified by the time Cameron became PM. I was of the opinion he said he'd trigger a referendum if it was still unsigned by the time he got in but I don't recall any definitive promise post Gordon Brown sneaking off to sign it.
Methinks that in the wake of all the Polish that rocked up there was a fair chance people would have been so focused on our fingers crossed, hope they don't swamp us, half arsed, open border agreement that it would have been nigh on impossible to get people to consider the pros of membership and the baby might well have been thrown out with the bath water on that single issue alone.
I don't think it's any coincidence that UKIPs popularity started to gain momentum around the time of that Polish influx and it's possible that the tories concluded the Polish "invasion" had the potential to cause more long term political damage to Labour (who spun their way out of their referendum promise by redefining what that treaty was in the first place) than it would them for not persuing one post said treaty being signed.
I think Cameron under estimated how the public would react and who they'd turn against and hes picked up more of the fallout than he anticipated with Labour pretty much getting let off the hook to some extent because they are now "yesterdays" government and has struggled a bit to appease some of his own euro sceptic back benchers without looking like he's running scared of UKIP (which is how the competition would call it) and convince a now dubious/cynical electorate that they can have their say in 2017 should the next GE return a tory (not a tory lead coaition) government.
I don't think Cameron will get any concessions out of the EU and I don't think he thinks he will either. I think he's banking on the economy having recovered to a point whereby people will be more open to making an "informed" choice in 2017 than they would an emotive one when they're having a rough time of things and prone to want to lashout and blame someone or something (as is human nature) for the situation they are currently enduring. I can sympathise with that logic judging by the simplistic arguments you hear from folk in all kinds of discussions.
Add to that the eurozone problems and the prospect of said zone crawling towards what looks like a more federal, centrally governed beast in order to support a single currency none of them seem to want to give up on (particularly the Germans cos it's great for german exports having what amounts to a devalued German currency in that regard) then the "what is it we're actually a member of?" question becomes more valid the longer you leave it and again more informed judgments can be decided in that event.
As you say people have trust issues, but who else do you turn to if you want the chance to have your say when the odds of getting a referendum by voting for anyone else are even worse? Certainly not UKIP. UKIP aren't about choice they're about getting out. If, for the sake of arguement UKIP won the next GE they wouldn't give you a referendum. They'd regard their victory as a public mandate to just up sticks and leave.
Whether you believe Cameron or not the tories are the shortest odds of delivering a referendum imo and the shortest odds by quite a margin.
I can't find anything worth opposing in what you say but there's a couple of points that never if ever get mentioned. The signing of EU treaties isn't done in what I would consider a fair and normal way. Rather than all national representatives sitting round a table and passing the treaty round for signing, it's done on a kind of ad hoc basis by members signing at different times. This has what I think of as the "snowball effect" where the more signatures that are added, the more the pressure to agree. And then, when someone decides not to sign, all sorts of pressures and threats are made, not necessarly direct from the EU but from vested interests from within the nation states. In Bitain's case, Blair avoided a referendum merely because the changed the category of the agreement. Cameron should have held a referendum as a matter of urgency, immediately after the general election as to whether we accepted the Lisbon Treaty.
Feel Nick was allowed far too much time to talk gibberish and wasn't told to answer the question by the adjudicator.
Unbelievable how Nick denied the point about uncontrolled immigration and the numbers allowed in and tried to change it to benefit claims!
Had to laugh when the media hacks were saying Nick had won (With dodgy facts) and moaned about Farage sweating. They must have been so upset when the poll results came in!
I doubt many people changed their view - after over 3 decades most people have a fairly settled view of the pros and cons of EU membership.
Are there actually many undecideds?