Brexit: Left and Right Unite to Eject the Green EU from Britain

EU_flag-fractured

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

An astonishing thing just happened in Britain. UKIP leader Nigel Farage, a strong supporter of US Tea Party Politics, invited the radical left wing politician George Galloway to be his surprise guest speaker.

Their common cause: Liberate Britain from the unelected soviet style apparatchiks who run the European Union.

… On Friday I surprised, perhaps even stunned, some of my long term supporters by introducing a surprise guest: George Galloway.

On a whole host of political issues George and I are diametrically opposed. We could not have a cosy chat over coffee about Israel, economic policy or a host of other issues. But sometimes in life an issue comes along that is bigger than anything else and traditional opponents become allies.

Churchill despised Uncle Joe Stalin as much if not more than he did the German corporal. But they joined together to defeat a common enemy. It is that same understanding that George and some in GO have today.

We believe in our country and that it should be run by our own people through the ballot box.

We will all fight side by side to win this referendum and then to get back to opposing each other.

It’s called democracy. It’s worth fighting for. Come and help us.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/20/farage-for-breitbart-enemies-unite/

Galloway champions green causes. Farage once asked Lord Monckton to be UKIP’s climate spokesman.

Galloway was once banned from entering Canada, because of his radical sympathies and associations; he even appeared before a US Senate Hearing to explain his connection to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Farage is strongly critical of radical Islam and uncontrolled immigration.

The one thing Farage and Galloway both agree on, the cause which unites them, is whatever choices Britain makes, those choices should be decided by the elected representatives of the British people, not by a distant supranational organisation which does not have to answer to the people whose lives it ruins.

The European Union, which has no democratic legitimacy, has increasingly been embracing green issues, the politics of crisis, to bolster its faltering authority. George Galloway’s support for leaving the EU, his rejection of the totalitarian route to a green policy goal which he supports, is a compliment to the integrity of a man with whom I disagree, upon almost every issue of import.

210 thoughts on “Brexit: Left and Right Unite to Eject the Green EU from Britain

  1. from the comments on the main bbc article about the referendum announcement it seems many want an exit! I’m undecided myself but I do not want closer (imho we have too much already!) political integration with the EU, so if that means Brexit – so be it.

    • Well Kev I dont know how old you are But I know the UK when our own elected Politicians made and repeal laws for the benefit of the UK. As it stands now 90% of our laws are made and put in place by Brussels and our MP cant do a thing about it. Also we have to obey these laws like every other country in the EU. I will give you a law that come into force on the 1st Jan 2017. He it is – All commuters in cars, Motor cycles, lorries and more will have to pay £15 to enter all city centres the proceeds will be passed to the EU to pay for all these immigrants arriving in Europe. Now our MP and government cant do a thing about that and must implement it. They will pass this down to all cities and local councils to collect so one thing you council tax will go up and also they are scrapping the immisions take and charging on cars. I am convinced I will voe to Leave… You should also vote to leave and if you are married your kids and grand kids will have place to grow up in that is self governed.

      • David

        A levy paid by all vehicle passengers entering ALL city centres? To be paid to support immigrants? Really? Where is your link?

        A very real law from the EU that has just come into effect is that sea anglers fishing from the shore will no longer be allowed to catch sea bass. However commercial fishermen who hoover up thousands of times more sea bass will be allowed to continue.

        I am increasingly veering towards Brexit but it needs to be done on reality and not scaremongering.

        tonyb

      • You may leave, but I doubt you will know why, when I read your comment. The “law” you write about, if a real “EU law” would then apply to all member states, and would no doubt make a huge uproar in many countries, like Greece, Germany, and Finland. Sure you are not making this up?

      • I think I may have been a little unfair on David. Here is a link to the congestion charge plan

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3446450/New-EU-laws-impose-congestion-charge-urban-areas-RECYCLING-TAX-households.html

        However it is a suggestion not a law. It was also trailed by the Daily Mail, so not entirely an objective source but there is something about the story as it does emanate from one of the many EU committees. I can’t see it ever being approved, but it does illustrate well the tide of nonsenses that sometimes emanates from the EU

        tonyb

      • Rubbish. 11% of uk laws are Eu derived. Many more are derived from international requirements for trade/regulation of standards etc. In any case, when we depart, to continue trading we will have to either negotiate an entire set of new trade agreements or joint something like the EEA. In which case we will still have to abide by EU laws!

    • Kev, please understand this: If the people vote to stay in, then that WILL be taken by politicians both here in the UK and the EU that they want ever-closer union. They WILL use the vote as a mandate for all manner of things…don’t even rule out joining the Euro! They will keep saying that the people of Britain want to be part of the EU, and all that that means. This is our only chance to get out of the craziness that is the EU – the left-wing club of people with no vision, with breath-taking ineptitude, and no plans to deal with whatever is thrown at them. VOTE OUT.

    • Kevin, I have lived i France for many years, been a councillor and commissioner for tourism and finance. France has been moving toward intégration since 2006, locally. The future is a Europe with common culture and common language controled from Brussels. Current parliamentary system will be abolished or made redundent through the introduction of regional governors. These governors ill make up the Dumas or parlement of the EU. Ty will be controlled by the EU ommissioners, the kremlin. We have already lost all our mayoral powers.
      Remember, the politicians currently making all your FUNDAMENTAL laws have failed in heir own countries and been thrown to Brussels to get rid of them, much like the british civil service does. If your useless they’ll promote you.
      Europe is stagnating, you cannot believe their stats, the STATES, have always led about the economies for political consumption at home.

      Finally, rarely have I seen a more crasse, stupid piece of negotiation than that of your socialist PM Cameron. Mind you he fooled the french. All my friends thought he was anti-EU.

    • Consider this: 50% of UK exports are to Europe; 10% of Europe’s exports are to the UK. Who has the better hand in a post BREXIT negotiation?

      How will the UK replace all those exports that an angry post -BREXIT EU will do its best not to buy?

      What about Nissan and Honda? Will we be able to beat EU subsidies that will be offered to build cars in, say, Greece (good shipping links and its economy needs a hand)?

      And how will India react to EU/French approaches about the UN Security Council? Compared with India’s population, the UK’s is a rounding error. Why should the UK be at the top table. . . . ?

      You get the drift.

      Though I share many of the sentiments I read here, look before you leap.

      • Sorry, but your percentages are meaningless. It’s like trying to compare 50% of 100 with 10% of 1000 and imply that the 50% is greater! The reality is that in cash terms we are running a £44 billion trade deficit with Europe. We import more in value than we export thus it is more in the Interest of Europe to maintain current status quo and trade deals .

      • That’s an interesting way to present the numbers, I expect we’ll see a lot of that leading up to the vote.

        It would also be true to say we buy more from Europe than we sell to them, so if they decide to refuse a free-trade deal in the event of a Brexit vote it would hurt them more than it would hurt us. And 50% of UK exports already go outside Europe, we can independently persue trade-deals anywhere.

        In addition…..

        we’d save the £500 million per week membership fees
        our government wouldn’t be barred from supporting UK businesses during difficult periods
        we could refuse entry to criminals, and other undesirables, from within the EU
        we could instantly deport EU citizens who commit crimes in the UK
        we could stop paying benefits to recent immigrants & for dependents who love abroad
        we could require immigrants and visitors to hold health insurance on arrival
        we could prioritize immigration of people with skills we need, from anywhere in the world.
        we could control immigration numbers to fall in line with our infrastructure

        I live in the Southeast of England, I see huge numbers of scumbags hanging around the town centre and elsewhere, clearly not working, often up to no good, shoplifting, harassing women and assaulting people are the common issues. Five years ago they were mostly home-grown teenagers, now they’re mostly Eastern European men and they’re much more aggressive. We don’t need to be importing these people, we’ve got enough scumbags of our own. As things stand our government are not allowed to put controls in place even to refuse those with criminal histories. It’s a disgrace.

      • Little known fact (you are welcome to check it): the UK has a surplus on trade in goods and services with non-EU countries, but a deficit with the EU so large that it outweighs the surplus with the rest of the world. Other things being equal (which admittedly is an oversimplification), a complete cessation of trade with the EU would put UK trade into surplus at a stroke – and that is without counting the net payment of £10 billion per year we (in the UK) make to EU funds. So far as I know, we import nothing essential from the EU that we could not produce ourselves or buy elsewhere. We make some very good Brie in Somerset.

        As for the UN Security Council ‘top table’, why would we *want* to be at it? In any event, the EU is not a UN member and never will be: there is a clue in the title ‘United Nations’. France is already a permanent member of the Security Council, so remind me what was your point?

      • Nissan and Honda are subsidised by the UK taxpayer, even in an industry with massive over-capacity even since the mid -90’s. It’s why they are still there. If not, they would be out of the UK as fast as excrement off a stick.

        PS. I worked for Honda in their IT department in the mid-90’s.

      • You forget Richard that Britain is the worlds 5th largest economy, and in any event 50% of our trade is not with the EU, actually its 44% and that includes exports destined for say Japan, that go via any EU port such as Rotterdam and is know as the Rotterdam Effect. The UK is at the top table of the UN Security Council because when it was formed all the seats were held by Nuclear Powers. That has not changed, and whilst diminished Britain’s say in a lot of goes on in the world is listened to. Luxembourg no so much. Over 30% of the cars on British roads are either BMW, Audi, Mercedes or VW. Do you really think the CEO’s of those companies are going to happily accept NOT selling cars to their biggest market? Moreover, the UK is prevented from sitting at the real top tables like WTO, Codex Alimentarius etc, where we are asked to leave but countries like Norway can still have a hand in the making of international standards. Britain is still a member of NATO, G8 and G20. We are the originators of the worlds most widely spoken language – do you really, really think we’d be isolated? Lastly, it is not all about economics, important though they are. It is about who rules us. Are we forever to bend the knee to faceless bureaucrats abroad who know noting about Britain and care even less, who impose their ridiculous diktats on us, or are we going to fight to make sure that only laws made in the British Parliament, are by British MPs, elected by British voters for the inhabitants of Britain. It’s Freedom or eternal oppression.

      • Being a U.S. citizen and not involved with EU politics (except that I feel sorry for you all with the immigration problems you are having… Welfare for people who do not wish to assimilate or participate), taking the decision and lawmaking powers out of the smaller bodies of government takes the power out of the average peoples hands and places it into the hands of people and interests who don’t have an interest in the average persons problems and don’t give a crap about the issues which concern local peoples. Bigger government means nothing gets done and there is no-one to hold accountable. Just try calling the EU when you have a problem.

        The bigger the government gets, the less service you get for the money you pay in taxes. Also, screw the UN. The more powerful they get, the more freedom we lose. Government should be in the hands of the people locally, in general, as much as can be. Otherwise, it is not just the freedom and access you lose, but also you have less say in what kind of government you get. You start out with a peacekeeping, democratic, lovey dovey UN and it becomes a fascist, racist, money sucking totalitarianism, etc, blah, blah, blah. You know what I mean. Bigger governments don’t care about you. But your neighbors do, especially when they do something you don’t like and you can stop by and give ’em a piece of your mind or bop ’em on the head if they don’t hear you.

        Of course there are larger issues to be dealt with between countries, but power given into the hands of unelected strangers with no interest in a local population is nuts. The power must to start from the bottom.

    • There are 27 states in the EU. The UK provides almost 20% of the EU budget. And we can’t fund hospitals and decent roads.

      As they say in the US, do the math……

  2. Don’t know if it will turn out to have been a good idea to share a platform with Galloway. Either way, I’ll be voting to leave.

    • that seems to be the general view (leaving, I mean) – but I prefer to see some real info before passing judgement. I suspect the ‘deal’ is mostly hype, but we will see. There are so many ins and outs to both sides that I do think too many folk will ‘rush to judgement’ based on incorrect assessment. And FYI I am a strong Eurosceptic – but strangely, I genuinely believe we can do ‘more’ being in rather than out!

      • We have been “in” for 40 years and achieved, IMO , nothing (and i actually voted to stay in last time), so the probability that we can change the mindset of the EU bureaucrats and politicians in the next few years must be regarded as very small indeed.

      • The ‘deal’ is an utter farce.

        Anything of substance still has enormous hurdles to jump before it can be taken seriously (e.g. passing through the treaty change process to have the UK explicitly opted out of “ever closer union” – something I don’t see is possible if the UK continues to be bound by EU directives. They won’t stop coming, after all) and much of the rest is just re-statements of things that are already EU policies. In at least one case, Dave has “negotiated” something even worse. The so-called ‘red card’ now moves from being presented to QMV by the council of ministers to QMV by national parliaments. Madness.

      • I sometimes think that there should be some benefits to staying in but I never seem to find any. The critical issue to me is that the EU is not democratic. If we can’t vote the leaders out then our only option is to leave them while we can. We do not get too many opportunities like this.

        Whatever deal Cameron comes up with, voting out the leadership will never be an option. If you think we won’t make it on our own see what Daniel Hannan has to say:

    • To all “leave” commenters above: “always be careful what you wish for” and “better the devil you know than the one you don’t”. For clarity, I am no fan of the EU and the Brussels “dead hand” and I’m not alone – anti-establishment parties throughout the EU are today radically changing the way in which the political game is played in countries ranging from France, to Holland, Denmark, Sweden and even Germany. In practical political terms the EU’s goal of “ever deeper integration” is stone dead.

      Reality is that following a Brexit, the UK will have to renegotiate free trade agreements not only with the EU but lest we forget, also with the US and any country with which the EU as a unit has a free trade agreement. Having just told the EU to f… off, it’s not hard to imagine the welcome the UK delegation would receive in Brussels, Paris or Berlin.

      For the Brits among you, consider for perspective that if Scotland had won its recent Nationalist – Hard Left referendum [yes Josephine, the SNP is Hard Left] to leave the UK, based on what has since happened in the oil and gas markets, that pipe dream would have turned Scotland into the Venezuela of Europe. Consider the possibility that the same fate waits the UK as a whole in a Brexit scenario.

      Look at it dispassionately, and you’ll maybe see that Cameron in fact negotiated a deal that comes very close to the UK having its cake and eating it too – putting it in a position to stop any further attempts by Brussels to impose its diktats by having made it clear to the other side that its the EU that cannot afford the UK leaving.

      As Capone taught us: “keep your friends close but your enemies even closer”. And as Michael Corleone famously said: “Don’t hate your enemies.., it clouds your judgment”.

      • “Reality is that following a Brexit, the UK will have to renegotiate free trade agreements not only with the EU but lest we forget, also with the US and any country with which the EU as a unit has a free trade agreement.”

        Hang on, that’s actually a huge benefit of Brexit.In the EU we do not have the right to negotiate free trade deals. We also do not have the right to a seat on the World Trade Organisation, which is far more important than the EU in terms of world trade rules.

        After Brexit, and as the world’s 5th largest economy, we should have a seat on the WTO, which would give us far more influence than we now have. We could relatively quickly negotiate new free trade deals with the US and any other country. We could join NAFTA as well as EFTA.

        Britain has a constant trade deficit with the EU, which strongly suggests there is no economic benefit of membership. The deficit means that the EU needs us more than we need them, because we import so many of their products. We would be in a very strong position when negotiating any new trade agreement with the EU. It’s worth remembering that two of the richest countris, Norway and Switzerland, are not EU members. They trade with the EU far more successfully than we do.

        We can do none of these things while we remain trapped in the slowly collapsing EU.
        Free of the corrupt and failing EU, Britain in the long term would be far more prosperous – and far more free.
        Chris

      • There was a time the GB had a free trade agreement with New Zealand and Australia, That was effectively scrapped when GB joined the EU. I do believe that those antipodean nations may be persuaded to re-enter such an agreement to everyone’s benefit.

      • Chris Wright:

        The UK is the 5th largest economy precisely because it has unfettered access to the EU – some 60% of its foreign trade is with the EU. Take those 60% away and see what’ you’ll have left to work with while unscrambling Humpty Dumpty.

        Like separatist Scots and Quebeckers, Brexit “Outers” are living in a pipe dream parallel universe where nationalist ideology and a [fully justified] dislike for Brussels are playing havoc with their judgment..

      • You must understand fudemental facts. Sovereign Parliament means the legitimate natives of the U.K. Vote for vote out members of parliament who make our laws and our Supreme Court of justice is inviolate. The eu commissars are unelected and are no better than that which existed under communist rule.

        Always look at the fundamentals. Details are plentiful and will be sorted out in due course.
        Regards

      • Tetris,
        Thanks – all noted.
        Many of your comments are strongly grounded in fact.
        For some, however, the need for democracy is important.
        Other commenters have noted that the UK [minus Scotland if – perchance- it wants to follow a Venezuelan path] would manage to sign decent trade agreements.
        Where does 40% of BMW’s profits come from – may I ask?

        Cameron’s ‘deal’ is not impressive – it looks like smoke and mirrors, with a choreographed negotiation – ‘We’ll stay up late to make it look like a good deal is being ‘hammered out’, Dave!’
        Certainly, it is hugely short of his 2013 claims for the re-negotiation.

        And this will be – I think – the last real chance to get out of a failed 1950’s – leftist – concept.

        Auto.

      • The SNP, and teh Sinn Fein, position is totally illogical. They wasnt independance for Scotalsn and Ireland ( respectively ), but are happy to accept most of their laws to be made in Brussels. About as logical as AGW!

  3. Anti-democratic politics is why Obama seems to like international, especially UN, agreements. Voting the zealots out is something the zealots themselves want to prevent, so getting foreigners support is critical. The only real course of action in either the US or Britain seems to be a change of government.

  4. I support your right to secede from the union. It didn’t work out so well when we tried it a century and a half ago.
    Maybe you chaps will have better luck.

    • Apples and Oranges. If there were an AU (American Union) made up of various American countries it would be similar.

      In such a case the USA would likely not be treated well by the Americana Parliament, and we would all be right to want to leave.

    • I always thought the EU was going to be the start of WW III. Germany and England can’t support all of Europe.

      • No sir, the WW episode 3 is reserved for Russians, which clearly want to overpower the EU.

        Brexit is something Putin wants. Thus, I hope Britain keeps in and EU changes instead in a way that keeps it strong.

        EU needs more direct democracy and less opaque elite-driven playground mentality. EU is not very good in direct democracy and people who know they are having a minority view, are protecting they advocates in the system. This is disastrous for democracy.

        But the worst is the belief in strong state and weak civil rights. As if Russia, Na2i Reich or North Korea were not strong states.

      • The EU isn’t going to allow more democracy, unless something forces that result.
        Socialists never give up power voluntarily and are always looking for an excuse to gather more power to themselves.
        If Britain stays in, Brussels will read that as a mandate against devolving power.

      • Hugs – I think you have it upside down. A Brexit empowers Britain to stand up to threats from Russia that WILL NOT happen inside the EU which has overextended itself Eastward into traditional Russian areas of influence. Russia will not stand for that and you are seeing the result in Syria and other places. Russia is hurting from the sanctions of the US and the EU and other countries including the Saudi oil price war. They will push for more violence and immigration of people fleeing war zones into Europe. At some point, the will become even more aggressive if the sanctions continue much longer. A Britain outside of the EU will be a much stronger, safer and more influential country. But then I am from Canada so this is just an outsider’s opinion.

        Cameron and Obama will soon both be gone from the political stage, one perhaps to a position in the EU and one to the UN??? What could possibly go wrong?

        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35634239

        In a two and a half hour statement to the House of Commons, Mr Cameron told MPs that, as a prime minister who was not going to seek re-election, he had “no other agenda than what is best for our country”.

        So, he isn’t seeking re-election but he certainly would be in line for a position in the EU.

    • I think that’s the first time I’ve seen the words “integrity” and “George Galloway” in the same sentence.

      The downside of all this is that there will now be a 4-month period of electioneering, instead of the usual few weeks, And at the end of that campaign, despite many twists and turns along the way, Britain will vote to remain in the EU.

      Green issues will hardly feature. Immigration is what will be the big discussion point for the man in the street

  5. First will come the fall of the over reaching E.U., followed by the collapse of the over bloated U.N. !! Finally, the world will have returned to sanity !

  6. It amazes me that people today believe freedom is free. Millions of your ancestors fought and died for your free vote and you just give it away. Shame on you deserve to be enslaved.

    • jimheath February 20, 2016 at 2:01 pm
      It amazes me that people today believe freedom is free. Millions of your ancestors fought and died for your free vote and you just give it away. Shame on you deserve to be enslaved.
      __________________________________________________________________________________________

      You have that completely backward jim, freedom is in fact free, politicians make sure that it isn’t free.

      Enough of the guilt-trip about anonymous ‘others’ alleged prior sacrifices ‘for us’ – BS! Most of those people were drafted, and/or systematically lied to, used and abused, and had no idea at all (on purpose) what they were getting themselves into.

      Watch less propaganda movies and state talk shows mate, the air waves and digit cables are full of them.

      As for voting, people stop voting because of scummy politicians and oppressive rorting policies, which continue no matter which side of the parliamentary scourge and policy enforcement as ‘law’ is used on the population of tax-payer slaves, who have been sold to banks to service state debts and deficits, that no one voted for or ever wanted. As usual, we are continually lied about actions and repercussions and then put on the hook for the cheats and crooks.

      Must you really be reminded of the facts?

      Type this into any search engine and spend a few hours waking up: “British Political Corruption”, and, “UK Political theft of Public funds”.

      The problem is not just nor even mostly with voters or why they vote as they do, or increasingly don’t vote at all. If voting worked as advertised, rather than as consensus-building exercises for a chamber of rogues, liars and crooks, who clearly actually despise voters, disrespect them in every way and work against there interests in numerous ways, people would take voting more seriously.

      Political Naivety, nor cynicism, help of course, but that does not mean we can be sanguine Muppets and sycophants to politicians that do things to rips us and trade us like they own us, Royal subject style, and put us on the hook for every dodgy rort and scheme they can get away with foisting on the population.

      Political power does not ask for your acceptance it requires your unwavering compliance and obedience to anything it dictates, or else it will destroy you. State Power you vote in, no matter who it is, has and will use just one ace, namely fear, open-ended coercion, force, and violence to guarantee you remain governable.

      That is the whole nature of state power and authority and if you don’t know that yet, you should not be allowed to vote, as you’re not mature enough to face the results of your voting.

      The vote I have is the one I make, and it’s not yours to oversee, so butt-out with your opinions on who people should vote for, and this abject freedom is not free drivel, we are mostly not children or fools that need vote coaching.

      Politics is congealed toxic thinking about how to use force to make others always do as they’re told.

      Get out the vote!

      • A person with your talent is wasted on a forum like this. Why don’t you write a very stern letter to ISIS, tell them to stop being naughty boys cutting all those heads of and go home. If you want to deliver it by hand I’ll pay your fare. After all it will only be one way.

    • jimheath February 20, 2016 at 2:01 pm
      It amazes me that people today believe freedom is free. Millions of your ancestors fought and died for your free vote and you just give it away. Shame on you deserve to be enslaved.

      You have that completely backward jim, freedom is in fact free, politicians make sure that it isn’t free.

      Enough of the guilt-trip about anonymous ‘others’ alleged prior sacrifices ‘for us’ – BS! Most of those people were drafted, and/or systematically lied to, used and abused, and had no idea at all (on purpose) what they were getting themselves into.

      Watch less propaganda movies and state talk shows mate, the air waves and digit cables are full of them.

      As for voting, people stop voting because of scummy politicians and oppressive rorting policies, which continue no matter which side of the parliamentary scourge and policy enforcement as ‘law’ is used on the population of tax-payer slaves, who have been sold to banks to service state debts and deficits, that no one voted for or ever wanted. As usual, we are continually lied about actions and repercussions and then put on the hook for the cheats and crooks.

      Must you really be reminded of the facts?

      Type this into any search engine and spend a few hours waking up: “British Political Corruption”, and, “UK Political theft of Public funds”.

      The problem is not just nor even mostly with voters or why they vote as they do, or increasingly don’t vote at all. If voting worked as advertised, rather than as consensus-building exercises for a chamber of rogues, liars and crooks, who clearly actually despise voters, disrespect them in every way and work against there interests in numerous ways, people would take voting more seriously.

      Political Naivety, nor cynicism, help of course, but that does not mean we can be sanguine Muppets and sycophants to politicians that do things to rips us and trade us like they own us, Royal subject style, and put us on the hook for every dodgy rort and scheme they can get away with foisting on the population.

      Political power does not ask for your acceptance it requires your unwavering compliance and obedience to anything it dictates, or else it will destroy you. State Power you vote in, no matter who it is, has and will use just one ace, namely fear, open-ended coercion, force, and violence to guarantee you remain governable.

      That is the whole nature of state power and authority and if you don’t know that yet, you should not be allowed to vote, as you’re not mature enough to face the results of your voting.

      The vote I have is the one I make, and it’s not yours to oversee, so butt-out with your opinions on who people should vote for, and this abject freedom is not free drivel, we are mostly not children or fools that need vote coaching.

      Politics is congealed toxic thinking about how to use force to make others always do as they’re told.

  7. Just watched David Cameron on BBC; he wants to remain in a “Reformed EU”. Green issues aside, there are advantages to remaining and not sure that the EU has “no democratic legitimacy”. Leaving the EU over Green issues is a fools errand. There is so much more to international relations than energy policy.

    • I would agree, in recent decades UK had two strong and successful leaders, Thatcher and Blair, like or hate them, neither would fall back on referendum to decide what is best for the country.

      • commiebob +1 — Switzerland is one of the best governed and most successful countries all around. Deciding specific policies by referendum makes so much more sense than voting for some phony slogans every four years and then watching helplessly from the sidelines the rest of the time.

      • In or out, whatever the result, as far as I can see it, it is going to be a wrong decision. It will not be people, but the same erring politicians who will be running the post event show.

    • I quite agree there is more to international relations than energy policy. How about democracy, which the EU is not so slowing stealing away? Do you really want a supranational overlord? I, rather, I should say do you really want to keep a supranational overlord, because you already have one.

    • >>not sure that the EU has “no democratic legitimacy”

      All laws in the EU are made by the Council of Ministers at Consillium, and then passed to the EU politicians to rubber-stamp, but not to change. And the Council of Ministers are non-elected bureaucrats, which is why the EU is not democratic in any shape or form.

      The system was devised in this fashion, because the founders believed that a fully democratic Europe would be deadlocked, and not be able to make and pass any laws. So they bypassed that little problem, by making the entire system non-democratic and unaccountable. And the ‘snout-in-trough’ EU politicians like it that way. When Vcav Claus, the Czech president, made a speech calling for more democracy in the EU, they booed him and walked out of the chamber.

      This is the problem we have with the EU. It is a good idea but – badly run; non-democratic; lead by Communists and Marxists; lead by political ideology instead of realism; plagued by fantasists instead of realists; and completely unaccountable to the people of Europe. For instance, the EU has not even signed off its own budgets and expenditures for the last 20 years. If the EU were a corporation, it would have been closed down and its managers jailed.

      And we are supposed to accept this institution without complaint?

      R

      • Perhaps these words from a famous document can help guide our British friends:

        “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — “

      • Or

        “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either form human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”

      • The Council of Ministers are unelected bureaucrats….

        Please know what you are talking about – they are the government ministers of each member state. The nonsense that EU laws are passed by the unelected continues to be propagated. The real governing and legislative power in the EU rests with the representative ministers (S o fro our US friends) of the member states, each of which are pursuing their own agendas. The lack of democratic accountability is not down to the apocryphal ‘Brussels’, but to the absence of any popular control over decisions reached by a cabbal of politicians.

        And the notion that we could continue to trade on current terms with the EU without agreeing to EU terms is a complete nonsense, as Norway can confirm.

    • It isn’t energy policy! T. Madigan – is this your first visit here? The policy is to use a non issue like CO2 and fossil fuels (which there is no way we can survive without unless it’s nuclear) to install a world elitist government to manage your life for you.

  8. Yuk. I am not sure I would want to even shake hands with Galloway – you don’t know where they have been. Back in the ’90s Galloway’s head was so far up Saddam Hussein’s arrsse, that many thought he had haemorr hoids.

    Galloway salutes Saddam Husein’s courage and indefatigability:

      • Is that Rumsfeld? I don’t remember Rumsfeld saluting Saddam’s courage and indefatigability.

        Although Rumsfeld did have the rose-tinted spectacles of a liberal fantasist, when he said the US would turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. I did splutter when I heard that one. It displayed a complete ignorance of the history, politics and religion of the region, that foretold complete failure in all the Western interventions in the region. How can you start an intervention or war, when you don’t understand what or who you are battling against? And how can you bring about a lasting peace, when you cannot understand the tribal, religious and cultural foundations of the region?

        Modern fools will say the British divided up the region ‘without considering its cultural differences and divides’. Popycock, they understood far more than any modern politician. They understood that the only way to rule the region was to incorporate three warring tribes into an unstable union, so they could ‘divide and rule’. But then the late 21st century US advisors, brought up on a diet of multicuIturaIism, thought that keeping Iraq together as one nation would be a viable policy – without having a supreme overlord (the UK or the US) to keep a lid on the inevitable tensions and troubles. To split Iraq would be an admission that multicuIturaIism was a failure, and they could not have that. So they let hundreds of thousands die in a bitter civil war, rather than admit that their fantasy politics were rotten to the core. What political fools we have bred, in recent decades.

        R

      • R, that is a very cogent analysis.
        A much simpler bersion of the same. The head of Exxon at the time described it as (I paraphrase rather than waste time googling the exact quote): ‘Iraq is not a country. It is a snakepit with three kinds of snakes. The choices are two: create three snake pits, or let the snakes do their thing.’ After US force of arms supplanted Saddam force of arms, but then left, the snakes have been happy doing their thing.

      • Ristvan.

        Interesting. A succint bullseye. You should obviously elect the head of Exxon, instead of the fools you have had, and have to this day.

        R

    • I am not a Galloway fan either but he was not alone in sucking up to Hussein. The west openly supported and supplied arms and chemicals to Iraq only a few years previously. Remember when we were all against the Ayatollahs in Iran? We liked Iraq then. How do you think we knew he had chemical weapons? We sold him the raw materials!

      I think that is partly why Iraq felt safe. They were supported by The West. The other reason he might have felt safe was because he did not have anything to do with 9/11 – but we killed over 100,000 of them anyway, just in case.

    • I gotta laugh at this video, while the US and UK actual governments put Saddam in place, armed him, Germany even sold him the gas he used on the Kurds (which was why he was hanged for 129 other murders rather than the ICC dragging Germany’s name through the mud by charging him for the several thousand murders), how on earth was Germany allowed to be making and selling gas after the recent history of the nation.

      The same nations (nothing to do with Galloway) goaded and cheered Saddam in his attack on Iran, chemical weapons and all.

      Some people have very selective memories

      but Galloway, who protested arming Saddam, is evil for trying to engage the despot, dialog, yes Galloway was sweetening him up, of course.

      But Galloway didn’t put him in power, the Anglo alliance did, and they armed him, not Galloway.

      Also, Saddam discussed the Kuwait attack with the US (matter of historical record) and was advised that he “do it quickly” and upon the invasion, a Kuwaiti ambassadors daughter was trained by a production company to act in front of the UN claiming iraqi soldiers threw babies from incubators onto the floow of the hospital. Complete fiction.

      Yes he was a bad guy, but hey ho, Galloway knew, as did Cheney in 1994, that if you removed a strongman from a volatile sectarian cesspit, all hell would break loose, but they went ahead anyway.

      Lets not forget, Afghanistan was invaded less than a year after the Taliban destroyed the opium crops, within months the US military was in the country.

      Huh.

  9. LA Times said today there will be no Brexit after the EU ceded to some demands by Cameron. Didn’t say what the demands were but quoted Cameron saying something to the effect “we will vote on who runs our country”. Energy policy IS a good reason to opt out of the EU as it controls the economy and the life of the country. Precisely why the EU and the UN want to be in charge of it…..it has nothing to do with temperature. Here in the colonies AGW is conspicuously absent from the political talk as the voters don’t care enough about it and I believe are tiring of the hype.

    • Markl, I was reading this afternoon about what the aeau concessions were. Pretty weak tea. So an EU citizen comes to Britain to pick up generous welfare benefits. That includes child allowances to send back to whereever the kids he left behind are. The ‘deal’ only themUK can scale them to costs of living in that other country. A smaller rip off, but still a UK rip off.
      EU as structured simply does not work. Unelected Brussels bureaucrats rule, the EU Parliament can niether propose laws nor budgets, there is no EU equivalent to the US government, and the various EU nations do not have the protections afforded by Article 4 and Bill of Rights Amendment 10.
      Euro works even less well, but not the Brexit issue.
      Don’t know how it will turn out. Do know how I would vote if could. Either they redesign EU governance fundamentally ( like the US did when the Articles of Comfederation were not working and necessitated the Constitutional Convention–unlikely given centuries of sovereign nation states) or it slowly falls apart starting now.

  10. I’m for out I’m for standing on our own feet It’s not left or right or green or non-green it’s democracy. The following link beginning from the sentence “My starting point is simple.” just after the first video and the initial wordy, gushing praise of David Cameron, UK minister Michael Gove hits the nail on the head about why Britan should be out of the European Union as it is constituted.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12166345/European-referendum-Michael-Gove-explains-why-Britain-should-leave-the-EU.html

  11. Geez, you Brits have an English-speaking world to ally economically with! They speak your language (sort of) and have similar values, culture, traditions and histories. Why in the name of common sense did you even contemplate throwing your lot in with a continental European hodge podge. Didn’t anyone anticipate the lack of economic discipline and ruinous social policies and issues of the entire region (Germany and Netherlands excepted, although I’m withdrawing my invitation to Germany until they throw Merkel out). Gee whiz, why do you think you have to speak a new language every 100 km or so when you travel. It’s because you have little in common. They are ruining Great part of Britain.

    • In 1975 when the British people voted to join the Common Market it was sold as that, a trading block to help trade. It then spent 40 years morphing towards an undemocratic, superstate.

      • That is true, that was the first time I was old enough to vote, I voted to stay in the COMMON MARKET, not the European Economic Community as it then morphed into, certainly not the European Union which it is now and definitely not the United States of Europe which it will eventually become. Our democratic system has evolved over 100’s of years, it is not perfect but it is better than being ruled by unelected commissioners whose diktats are rubber stamped by the European Parliament which costs us £19 billion a year. The EU is plagued by incompetence and fraud (the auditors have refused to sign the EU’s accounts for 20 years, because they were not convinced that these accounts were in order). EU laws have told us how powerful our vacuum cleaners can be, how much of our electricity comes from renewable sources, how much coal we can burn, even what type of light bulbs we must use and how our toilets must flush.

        I will be righting the 40 year wrong on 23rd June.

      • Heath took the UK into the common market in 1973 without any kind of mandate from voters. Wasn’t even in the election campaign. It was later voted on in, as you say 1975, and voters agreed to stay. And as in many cases, voters didn’t really under stand that they were, effectively, lied to.

    • Indeed. When Britain joined the EU, it effectively turned its back on the Commonwealth.

      All this contradicts the message we were given 40 years ago, when Britain signed up as a member of the European Economic Community. Then, the argument was that all the growth worth having would be in Europe, and Britain could safely turn its back on the Commonwealth. Now we face the opposite situation. Europe stagnates, while Commonwealth nations, with the other emerging markets to which they act as gateways, look much the brightest. link

    • I have a great deal of sympathy for the common law states drawing closer together. That would be Canada, USA, Britain, Australia, NZ, maybe even South Africa, Belize, and some Caribbean states, and it would have to be under democratically elected government with the rule of law. I have little time for the UN.

    • Some of know this Gary. In 1972 we were duped by the traitor Heath into signing up to what was supposed to be a trading agreement. Part of that deal was that we had to give up our fishing waters and cut our trade ties with the Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand. That Britain did that to its old dominions was utterly shameful, The EEC morphed into the EC, and then in 1992 to the EU, where treaty after treaty have removed power from the countries that made up the EU. Now we face being told what we can and cannot do by countries that have been trying to do us down for centuries. It’s unforgivable. We would find a much more comforting welcome in the arms of our brothers and the Anglosphere – we should grasp it with both hands.

    • EU may be worse, but it doesn’t change the fact that I had to keep checking to see if commenters are talking about EU or US. 90% of Congress is not voted in by my state, but they get to make the rules for my state. (Actually, that is good; we have an idiot as Governor (Brown), and crooks for our Assembly and Senate. And obviously, dopers for voters.)
      That’s so rad, Dude!

    • As Lao Tzu points out in the Tao Te Ching:

      Therefore the sage says:
      I do not act,
      And people become reformed by themselves.
      I am at peace,
      And people become fair by themselves.
      I do not interfere,
      And people become rich by themselves.
      I have no desire to desire,
      And people become like the uncarved wood by themselves.

      (perhaps 4,000 years ago — hard to tell exactly)

      • During the Vietnam War there was a politician in Australia who said ‘we should let the Asians solve the Asian problems in the Asian way.
        Not that China is part of Asia but after the collapse of Vietnam and Pol Pot I have wondered if leadership, debate and resolve on just principles may be more the answer to international problems than anarchy.

      • Material and democratic progress do not come from sitting on one’s hands. This is why Asia is politically backward, still. It’s necessary to lead by example, by putting one’s own money where one’s mouth is. If the investment fails, it’s the leader’s pockets that are empty.

        This is how technology has advanced: private individuals, or outstanding researchers in public institutions, sticking their own necks out, braving criticism and contempt, and trying what has not been tried before, and accepting personal responsibility for any failures. Electricity, microelectronics, all manner of discovery and development were achieved only by such courage as this.

        Never by a committee of bureaucrats or pollies, who can only obstruct, because they don’t have the wit to do anything constructive or helpful.

        Local councils are proof of that: quite happy to approve high rise slums to rake in more rates on the same block of land, and let the residents deal with the congestion and crime. But woe betide the home owner who dares to build a front fence one millimetre higher than regulation: that would be an unacceptable change to the amenity of the neighbourhood!

        University bureaucrats are even worse: they siphon all the the university’s income into their own departments, then claim “look, we’re the only divisions making a surplus, those teaching and research departments are a cost burden and need to be cut down or disbanded”. Really! That’s what they say and write! Clueless white ants!

    • Not the ones that stay in Europe. Mark Lowe: so what do you propose we do with these corporations, take their money away from them and give it to the government to spend? Yeah, I heard that’s been done before, now how did that turn out?

  12. Let’s recall that Sarkozy’s main achievements have been:

    1) reintegrate France’s military into NATO
    2) Ignore a popular referendum and bypass the popular will by ratifying the EU Lisbon treaty
    3) Oblige Gulf monarchies i.e. US in illegally attacking Libya

    Hollande has done no better:
    1) obey Washington diktat and commit economic suicide with sanctions against Russia
    2) Illegally intervene in Syria
    3) failed to protect the French people twice in one year

    Peter Sutherland, the UN special representative for international migration, blurted it:
    “The EU was never “all about trade”. From the beginning it was about integrating peoples. A noble objective being put at risk.”

    European people expressed their dissatisfaction during the EU Parliament elections in 2014 giving an unprecedented support to anti -EU parties. In 2015, they were punished with coerced engineered migration with indiscriminate, non chosen invasion of migrants. Andrei Korybko explains:
    “Kelly M. Greenhill, an Associate Professor at Tufts University and Research Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, published a groundbreaking 2010 book about “Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy” in which she proved that there are at least 56 instances in which states have purposefully generated, provoked, and exploited massive waves of human migrations as an instrument to further their respective policies. Excerpts from her book were culled to form a summarized article that’s available for free at the Naval Postgraduate School’s website.”

    Now people of Europe are rejecting the Soros elite, its globalist agenda and the politician/tools who serve it.

    • TomRude commented: “…Now people of Europe are rejecting the Soros elite, its globalist agenda and the politician/tools who serve it….”

      I hope you are right. It’s like a bad conspiracy theory coming true before your eyes.

  13. …he even appeared before a US Senate Hearing to explain his connection to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein…

    British politicians are schooled in House of Commons politics, which involves a lot of active debating. Consequently, they are (generally) very good at speeches – both prepared and impromptu. I understand that US politicians specialise more in committee work and cutting deals, so they are (again, generally) not so good at speaking.

    In 2005 George Galloway attended a Senate Committee hearing where they expected to admonish him for his pre-war connection to Iraq. Instead, this is what happened…

    • Donald trump said the same thing a couple of days ago. He said that invading Iraq was the worst decision for the USA EVER.

      He called GW Bush a liar. He said there was no WMD, and that he made it up.

      Is Trump a left wing radical too?

      • Bush was planning the Iraq invasion before he was president, and we know about the Gore Bush elections, a sham as bad as any despot nation elections

      • The Donald has selective narcissist memory. Archives are a bitch. A radio interview he did prior to the invasion shows he had no opinion either way. He did not come out against the war until afterwards.

      • Tom in FL,

        At this point it doesn’t matter to me. Mr. T is the reason the illegal immigration debate isn’t on the back burner.

        His proposals:

        1. Mandate e-verify
        2. Strengthen interior enforcement
        3. End visa overstays
        4. Stop amnesty
        5. Rebuild the military
        6. Reduce illegal immigration rewards
        7. Build the wall
        8. Create Illegal Alien Hotline
        9. Cut off Federal Funding for Sanctuary Cities
        10. Create “Sheriff Joe Prisons” for Illegal aliens convicted of committing crimes in the U.S., beyond the crime of actually being here illegally

        What’s wrong with that?!

      • dbstealey February 21, 2016 at 9:16 am

        I don’t see anything wrong with those goals. What I don’t see is the details in how Mr Trump is going to accomplish those goals and how he is going to get the Congress to go along. The Congress is not going to be a bunch of yes men that he can fire if they disagree or oppose him. He is going to have to show me that he can work with people, follow the Constitution and compromise for the good of the Country. If he cannot, then we just have another Obama in different clothing and the U.S. will continue down the path of destruction.

      • Tom,

        Obama set the precedent. It’s a terrible precedent, but there it is.

        The country’s chief Administrator can direct the Army corps of engineers to build the wall. He’s also the C-in-C, no?

        Likewise, many of his other proposals can be done by executive order.

        Besides, your argument applies to whoever gets elected.

        I made a pledge a long time ago that I’ll support any candidate who opposes the current Administrations policies (and IANAR). But my #1 and #2 concerns by far are the rampant, unchecked flood of illegals, and the deliberate gutting of our national defense. Whichever candidate makes those their own priorities gets my vote.

      • re: dbstealy @ 11.56
        I agree with you sort of. Trump would be preferable to the Hildebeast or Bernie, especially on Supreme Court nominees. I am in the horrid position of being a small “l” libertarian who sort of formerly backed Rand Paul on domestic issues, but had real probems with him on foreign policy. Anyone left in the Republican race has some positions I disagree with, but I have to rank my concerns on how much damage the person can do or not do in his term. Cheer up, everyone, though. It is still early in the process.

      • dbstealey February 21, 2016 at 9:56 am

        I don’t really disagree with you except that funding still has to come from Congress. Will enough of those in the House and Senate risk their cushy lifestyles and guaranteed retirements if the voters of the border states do not fully support the wall effort. I also think that the establishment politicians will want to stop an outsider like Trump from being successful to discourage the voters from going that route again. They will protect their territory at all costs. I wonder if Trump, as President, would support the States in passing a congressional term limit amendment to the Constitution. I wonder why no one has asked him that yet.

      • Radical, maybe not. But liar, he definitely is.
        There were WMDs found, both chemical and biological. They also found mothballed nuclear programs ready to be reactivated as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which leftists were at the time demanding.

      • Evidence for WMDs please. No, assertions won’t suffice. If they had been found, GWB would be claiming vindication.

        Saddam used to have WMDs: he bought them, used them all up killing Iranians and his own people, then ran out, which is the only reason he stopped.

      • dbstealy, just two years ago, Trump was pushing full amnesty and a path to citizenship for all illegal aliens.
        What makes you think he won’t return to this long standing position as soon as he has fooled the voters?

      • MarkW,

        Got some quotes? Not that I doubt you, but I like to see the exact words.

        As I said, I’ll support whoever gets the nomination. That’s the best I can do. Only time will tell how diligently anyone will do as promised.

        But one thing is certain: if not for The Donald, the immigration problem would be on the back burner. He brought it front and center, and it’s crystal clear that the flood of illegals is, if not the #1 problem to most Americans, then it’s in the top two or three.

        The problem of the huge flood of illegals is tied with the gutting of our military. It’s a dangerous world out there. We need the world’s strongest military — or nothing else matters.

        Finally, I keep asking myself: who would really do better? Except for Cruz (who I also like), the rest are all part of the same crowd that caused the problems we’re facing now; they’re all career politicians. I’d like someone new. We need to shake things up. Because the good ol’ boy/girl gang has flunked the test.

  14. My advice and counsel:
    Vote immediately and emphatically to run not walk from the EU…and do not look back.

  15. The EU – aka – Synchronised Swimming with Sharks!

    9 – Great Whites
    8 – Bulls
    6 – Tigers
    3 – Whitetips

    Plus of course

    2 – Orcas

    Who do you think calls the shots?

    • …Who do you think calls the shots?…

      Like all large corrupt organisations, the shots are called by nameless faces in the bureaucracy, all fighting for their jobs and privileged mode of life…. Much the same as happens in Washington of London…

  16. Trump has won South Carolina.
    No one has ever won New Hampshire and South Carolina and failed to win the nomination.
    Is it too soon to start learning to say President Trump?

    • Hopefully when the 3rd tier candidates start dropping out soon, most of their supporters will go to a candidate that can actually win the general election, like Rubio. So maybe this time will be different.

      • Yes that is what I thought also. The bottom three candidates pulled 23% of the vote. I think it would be fair to assume that the larger % of that number would then choose between Cruz or Rubio, if the bottom three had dropped out before, it is possible that Cruz might have won in SC. It would also be likely that all three candidates would have pulled 30+% of the votes, and so leaving the contest fully open for the future to decide.

      • William R
        February 20, 2016 at 5:55 pm

        Yeah, I’m worried about that. Trump is the only candidate for which nothing is too big to fail and that’s what is needed urgently in the US. Otherwise, the bits and pieces of the new world order survive and the shift leftward is slow but steady. You don’t need a new broom, you need a bulldozer to begin the enormous task of pushing back against the EU/UN-ification of the nation, control your borders, immigration, eliminate anti-industry regulations and maybe clean up a real environment with 10% of what you are paying the UN’s global warming Trojan horse. All this Euro UN initiative arises out of anti-Americanism and you guys pay the lions share of their expenses. Everyone’s bashing Trump except the main population of the beleaguered citizenry who are more tuned in than the educated class. Putin even enjoys some admiration, not necessarily because of his domestic policies but because he has guts and stands up to all this EU-UN nonsense. I’ve been recently looking to India to lead the English-speaking world with the job sitting there vacant. Don’t be afraid of Trump. Indeed, we’ve had enough fear and all of the wrong things. Take Nike’s advice: just do it.

    • How do we put so much emphasis on 3 primary States with a grand total of 19 electoral votes? Why do we allow these few people to dictate whom shall be the candidate? Way too early in the process. Let’s see how it all sets up by the end of March.

      • The problem with Trump is the same sort of problem that the Brits have with the UKIP and that leftist Saddam-lover–just how skanky can an ally be and still be within your personal/political ethics to use. Purity of purpose is a nice goal, but some intermediate term issues are so serious one must take one’s allies where one finds them. As the Democrats and EU bureaucrats support the Green Blob (among other unworthy causes), it is a judgement whether one can tolerate allies long enough to win on that issue. It would be nice to not need allies, but reality says otherwise.

  17. I have little sympathy for Britain’s problems arising from her joining the European Union.

    Born in 1945, I was named for an uncle who, as a member of the New Zealand Army, died in North Africa in November 1941. Alongside his name can be added thousands of other Kiwi citizen-soldiers who lost their lives for the British cause.

    Earlier, the part played by New Zealanders in the Battle of Britain was unmatched on a per-population basis. And for those who believe that Britain was at that time saved by the fighter pilots of the RAF, the man who truly earned his statue in Trafalgar Square is Sir Keith Park.

    From start to finish of WW2, New Zealand was a fully committed ally.

    OK, that’s a long time ago and obligations don’t last forever.

    But Britain didn’t even wait for the Kiwi generation who had put their lives on the line to grow old before she told their countrymen, “Up yours, colonials. We’re throwing our lot in with the Frogs and the Krauts.” New Zealand, set up as Britain’s south seas farm and sending something like 90 percent of her exports to the Old Dart, copped the news in 1961, when the returned men were still in their 30s and 40s.

    Tough negotiations followed but the Brits were determined to ditch their long-term allies, people with whom they shared a common heritage, a monarch, a language, family ties and more; people who, in my lifetime, referred to Britain as “Home”.

    And for what? To be told how to run their lives by bureaucrats in Brussels?

    Britain cannot claim to have been misinformed in the 1960s and ’70s; that what has come about was not what they signed up for. Britain was intent on ditching their fellow British citizens around the Commonwealth to become part of an organisation dominated by France (who didn’t want them) and Germany (who a generation earlier had tried to destroy them). All this was known.

    So, how’s it worked out for you?

    • As a colonial myself, I find it quite ironic the Britain, one of the greatest colonial powers, is now subjugated by a greater ‘colonial power’, the EU!

    • I fully agree.

      I didn’t know about Park. One could argue that he was responsible for winning the Battle of Britain and perhaps the war.

      He was the only man who could have lost the war in a day or even an afternoon.

      Keith Park though had such a clear grasp of air strategy that even with the benefit of this hindsight from decades of research little could be done to improve on his performance. wiki

      Leadership matters.

    • I’m a yank, mate. Got nothing but praise for you kiwis (sorry if that’s not PC). The world is what the world is, because we never gave up. And now we’re giving up? I/we are saying it is not ok or the time to give up! IT IS TIME TO SPINE-UP Anglos!

    • The UK joined the EEC (as it then was) in 1973 not 1961, and with a deal for access for NZ produce to the whole of the EEC. And again, the EU is run by the Ministeras of each member state, and not by the ‘faceless bureaucrats’.

      • Quite true, Steven Swinden. Britain did not join until 1973. But they announced their intention to join in 1961. That it took another twelve years for the deal to be consummated can be put down to two main factors. The first is that France (specifically, Charles de Gaulle) blackballed Britain’s application. This not only kept the Brits out but meant that, as outsiders wanting to join an organisation that didn’t want them, they were negotiating from a position of weakness. The second is the glacial nature of European bureaucratic decision making.

        Britain is still paying for #1 and #2 remains a curse to sound government.

        And, despite NZ’s guaranteed access for some produce to the entire EEC (hobbled, of course, by tariffs), my point remains that the guys who’d survived campaigns in North Africa, Crete, Greece and Italy, who’d returned after flying Hurricanes, Spitfires, Lancasters and Wellingtons, who’d manned the Achilles in the South Atlantic, were still in their late 30s and early 40s — the prime of life — when Britain told them, “Thanks for that but we prefer to deal with these European guys.”

        There was a third factor keeping Britain out until 1973. The British public knew the contribution New Zealand had made during the war years, and not only in young men’s blood. Surprising as it may sound, butter was rationed in New Zealand from 1943 to ’50. The war years rationing is understandable but that it wasn’t lifted until 1950 was to keep Britain supplied. Meat rationing, for the same reason, lasted until 1948. Your average Brit knew all or most of his country’s recent history and wasn’t about to let the political class abandon people he knew to be his friends.

        And as for the people pushing Britain’s case to join, all, every single one of them, had lived through the years 1939 to ’45.

        What was their thinking?

    • You are quite right, and I agree with you. If it makes is any easier for you then I am ashamed by what British Politicians did at the time – and I’m hardly alone in that. Farage mentioned it only this weekend just gone. The ordinary people of this country recognise that we have more in common with Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis and even Indians than we do with the French and Germans. The British system of parliamentary democracy, system of Justice and the rule of law are STILL going in all those countries. So yes we do share a common heritage, Monarch (stand fast the yanks), language and culture. The sacrifice of commonwealth families is NOT forgotten in Britain, not by us ordinary folk.

  18. Mr (Chancellor George) Osborne today told the BBC: ‘It delivers a special status for Britain in the EU where we have the best of both worlds – we get the benefits of free trade without the costs of the eurozone, we get the benefits of free movement and travel whilst at the same time dealing with the something for nothing culture in welfare.’

    That certainly seems to be a throwback to the haughty days of British imperialism and broadcasts to all the EU partners that fealty to the UK shall be a condition of Britain’s remaining an EU partner. Britain and her European empire?

    He added: ‘The alternative is a huge leap in the dark with the risks that entails for our country, for our economy and for our security.’

    This said with no hint of irony given the vast unknowns of tossing in with the EU in the first place, and the certain negative impact on British self-government and sovereignty.

  19. The world has changed in the 40 years since UK joined the EU. The UK was a crumbling, strike ridden failing state and joining the club may have allowed us to match growth and standard of living enjoyed by the then other members.

    Roll on 40 years – the EU has massively widened its scope and membership through treaty changes – to which the UK agreed!.

    There is much still wrong with the EU which Camerons changes will have only marginally impacted … but the UK is now at the top of the league table alongside Germany. Low unemployment, low interest rates, and having retained the £ has avoided the Euro woes. Much has gone right.

    Like any complex relationship or club membership we may not agree with all the rules, but this is not necessarily grounds for divorce.

    Exit is a step into the unknown. Remaining EU members are very unlikely to give the UK an easy ride in setting up new agreements, and like Switzerland and Norway if UK wants to be part of the free trade area the UK will need to adopt many of the existing EU rules – eg: free movement of labour. To do otherwise would be to give UK preferential treatment over the other members.

    Brexit proponents trivialise these risks – they are at best being disingenuous and at worst knowingly dishonest.

    • Exit is a step into the unknown. Remaining EU members are very unlikely to give the UK an easy ride in setting up new agreements, and like Switzerland and Norway if UK wants to be part of the free trade area the UK will need to adopt many of the existing EU rules – eg: free movement of labour. To do otherwise would be to give UK preferential treatment over the other members.

      Brexit proponents trivialise these risks – they are at best being disingenuous and at worst knowingly dishonest.

      Alternative view…

      EU Referendum: papering over the lies

      http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85934

      • The arguments in the blog are like f… so many straw men. In fact Cameron succeeded in getting the powers that be in the EU to acknowledge that the shoe is rapidly moving to the other foot because with rapidly growing anti-EU parties throughout Europe, Brussels simply cannot afford to let the UK leave. That reality gives the UK very significant leverage.

        The fact is that Cameron got pretty much what he set out to achieve and the reality now is that the UK truly has a position of exception within the EU – no other country has even close to the outs, exceptions and preferential treatment the UK negotiated.

        The real question for the apparatchniks in Brussels is which country will line up next. Hint: keep an eye on the upcoming referendum in the Netherlands – at first glance it’s about the Ukraine but in reality about the country’s place in the EU.

    • Forty plus years ago, Britain told New Zealand it was cutting the apron strings; that Kiwis were on their own and would have to find other markets for their butter, lamb, cheese and wool.

      Given the protectionist policies that virtually the entire industrialised world has for their individual agricultural sectors — treating them like pampered pets in most cases — New Zealand was being sent on Mission Impossible. And not by choice. For a small agricultural country, far removed from potential markets and frozen out of most of them anyway, it was a close to a death sentence.

      And you reckon that Britain leaving the EU has “risks”? Of course there are risks. Anything worthwhile has risks.

      Britain staying in the EU is like a 38-year-old man still living at home with his parents . . . because striking out on his own is too “risky” — he might get taken advantage of by strangers. Yes, he might. But he might also make something of himself, an outcome impossible if he refuses to give up his low-rent comfort.

      Now, what happened to New Zealand when it was told to fend for itself?

      A little bit of pain, a lot of hard work and a good dose of ingenuity turned the nation around in a relatively short time. Diversification became the keyword and today average New Zealanders enjoy a standard of living their counterparts in Britain can only dream about.

      Finally, New Zealand produces people like Brendon McCullum and Richie McCaw; England Ian Bell and Jonny Wilkinson. I rest my case.

    • Terry
      February 20, 2016 at 5:44 pm

      That wins the Chicken Spit award. Poor Britain jumping into the unknown and risking everything by leaving the pitiful EU. If that’s what Britain has come too, the propaganda of the EU and UN has been very successful in reducing the once greatest nation on earth with an empire that spanned the earth, that gave us the Magna Carta, that was the brightest star in the age of enlightenment, that created the industrial revolution, that … Well Terry, you are a fearful chap and that’s what is wrong. Take a risk, re-create an economic, scientific, technological, bloc of free people, speaking the same language, with the same traditions, the same dynamic productiveness, boldness, adventuresomeness, to lead the world. God, I hope there aren’t a majority of your fearful type in old Blighty.

      • I’m with you Gary. Terry, you participate, quite mightily, in winning 2 world wars. You assist in holding back the communist scourge. And even witness the demise of the soviet! But you have to think that you have to cozy up to the EU marxist collectivists to ensure your survival? You blokes brought modern western civilization to the world. We may have bolted, but that was incremental improvement. Your best lot is with us, because we will soon shed our deal with the leftist devil! Come, join your progeny!

  20. Here I stand. I can do no other.

    Why let the green mummery of unelected office monkeys ruin a proud nation that has stood the tests of time and fire and brimstone and brought by example law and order and prosperity wherever it left itss mark.

  21. Membership of the EU, or European Economic Community, as we were told at the time, certainly helped reduce alcohol prices in the UK.

    But the supporters of the Treaty of Rome Solemn Declaration to progress towards an ever closer union some how always manage to avoid the concept of an ever closer language. There won’t be any meaningful union until then.

    The choices are either English, or American, but the Eurocrats just won’t bite the bullet. The EU is still an interpreter’s wet dream.

  22. What will it profit British democracy if, after leaving the EU, Britain reverts to the tradition whereby the “supremacy of Parliament” means in practice that any prime minister with a majority of seats can change the constitution by an ordinary statute. That’s how the UK joined Europe.

    Parliament’s decision to join Europe was the most radical transformation of the constitution since 1689, greater even than the Act of Union with Scotland. Joining Europe was a decision taken over the opposition of two thirds of the electorate, including me.

    The following is only partly in jest: England, Scotland and Wales might join Canada as the 11th, 12th and 13th provinces and thus gain entry to a more powerful trading bloc (NAFTA), a better health care system, and a Charter (of Rights and Freedoms) that is more in line with British traditions than what the UK has now.

    Canada’s Parliament is still supreme within its own sphere as defined in the Constitution Act. And provincial legislatures are supreme in their spheres. Canadian provinces have entrenched powers, including the right to exemption from certain provisions of the Charter under certain conditions. Any statute, Federal or Provincial that exempts the Crown from compliance with constitutionally entrenched rights and freedoms must do so explicitly within the Act itself and renew the exemption provision every 5 years. Thus, Canadian provinces seem to have already as much or more sovereignty as the EU is willing to allow the UK. But, unlike the UK, Canadian provinces are not declining in power relative to higher-level government.

    When casting a vote for or against Brexit, we ought to think about where the EU is headed and how fast it is moving.

    Consider that EU law and Directives now take precedence over UK law. (Extensive property damage in the Somerset Levels was the result of an EU directive that prohibited traditional river management, specifically dredging to allow drainage of low-lying land.)

    Consider that the EU Parliament does not have power to initiate new laws nor to repeal existing laws, but only the power to vote yes or no to bills presented by the EU President.

    Consider how much UK law is now based, not on detailed statutes, but on EU civil codes that specify general principles to be detailed by bureaucratic directives (orders).

    From a British perspective, EU law is handed down by the executive branch located in Brussels, not by the EU Parliament located in Strasbourg..

    If UK law has already been superseded by so much EU law as now, what can we expect after another 30 years? This is a rhetorical question, because it is obvious to anyone who follows the course of UK integration with Europe that in 30 years, UK law will become extinct, except perhaps for issuing dog tags, but even that is in doubt.

    Leading law lords (equivalent to supreme court justices) pointed out long ago the need for the British constitution to be codified as the “British Constitution” so that the judiciary has some standard by which to judge whether or not specific laws comply with norms of democratic governance. ((Such as re-entry into the EU after exiting following the referendum in June.).

    You say, “Why let the green mummery of unelected office monkeys ruin a proud nation that has stood the tests of time and fire and brimstone and brought by example law and order and prosperity wherever it left itss mark.”

    I say why allow a future Prime Minister and his close Cabinet cronies make radical changes to the British constitution without consulting the British people. If Britain was able to help Canada adopt a Constitution that has stood the tests of time and fire and brimstone and brought by example law and order and prosperity, then why, oh why, cannot Britain do as well for itself?

    • You might be better off, by orders of magnitude, swallowing your pride and applying for statehood in your once prized colonies!

    • You either vote for or against a Prime Minister (indirectly), or abstain. Did you vote for or against Juncker (directly or indirectly), or did you abstain by not voting for him? Oh, wait, you haven’t seen his name on any voting paper. The EU (being the left-wing institution that it is) isn’t democratic. They don’t believe in democracy for a simple reason. If you allow democracy then the people get in the way of important decisions that politicians need to make. Labour (classic example) wouldn’t even give you a referendum…because Labour doesn’t believe in democracy. If you vote to stay in the EU then your power to change things by democracy will be eroded even further. Rules will be implemented ‘for the greater good’ like never before. You won’t have a say.

      Britain is no longer the country it was, its demographic. We have been powerless to stop migrants coming in thanks to EU rules. We can only hope to stop that, and allow a points system, if we regain control of our borders. If we stay in the EU, then Britain, as you know it, is finished.

      VOTE OUT.

    • Frederick Colbourne
      February 20, 2016 at 10:20 pm

      “What will it profit British democracy if, after leaving the EU, Britain reverts to the tradition whereby the “supremacy of Parliament” means in practice that any prime minister with a majority of seats can change the constitution by an ordinary statute. That’s how the UK joined Europe.”

      Look Frederick, it doesn’t have to revert to the status quo. What is needed after this era of madness is not to just resume the old parliamentary ways. You need a constitution with loads of boilerplate. Even the US Constitution, which served for over 200yrs, didn’t anticipate an invasion of outsiders like the UN and manipulators/destroyers like the present administration in the US. This document needs to be recast with recognition of moral turpitude and how it is to be protected against. It needs more definition – it’s not enough for sure to assume good will and national interest by its own governments. The system for appointing Supreme Court ‘justices has to be totally changed. Freedom of the Press needs to be revisited with at least asking the question “freedom to do what?” How does a press usurped by foreign based propaganda specialists in NGOs, elites, corrupted academics, corrupted institutions. No, US and UK need to do a major overhaul of the set up. Write up iron clad rules that won’t permit a Pres. to cut out Congress and the Senate in enacting laws that subvert the country’s sovereignty.

      One must start as a given that today’s Englishmen (and Americans) aren’t the same as yesteryears’. We need more protection from our government than when governments were largely motivated by national interest and at least had to argue that to put stuff forward. Not anymore.

      If anyone thinks that UK would be making a scary decision in leaving, comfort yourself that far more scared would be France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Eastern Europeans. UK could sign multilateral agreements with Eastern Europe to some benefit to both sides – these people have seen the real horror of the rule of the Marxbrothers and are not just musing about it like egghead academics and bureaucrats.

  23. you all miss the point here (sweeping statement I know, but I always wanted to be a politician )

    England is a large ISLAND with a long history

    they don`t do subservience

      • You need to change Wiki:
        Great Britain
        Great Britain, also known as Britain, is an island in the North Atlantic off the north-west coast of continental Europe. With an area of 209,331 km², it is the largest island in Europe and the ninth-largest in the world

      • skeohane:

        No, Gareth Phillips and Wicki are both right but you are wrong.

        An amusing, entertaining and informative 5 minutes that would correct your misunderstanding would be provided by your watching this: although it gets a couple of minor technical points wrong, it is a very good summary of the complex matter.

        Richard

      • Richard, Gareth and Wiki are 180° apart, and they are both right? I had no opinion, merely quoted Wiki.

      • The island of Great Britain is not equal to England. At least my Welsh friends would not think so. England is not an island, Great Britain is.

    • Thanks for highlighting this, they still need funding. Sign up to get a pin, DVD, tee shirt or more. Martin Durkin deserves support.

  24. we did not want that european union – who had that idea, ? who gave orders to Monnet – Schuman and Delors ?

    I do hope that Nigel Farage is going to win, and in France : UPR – François Asselineau – and after no more representative democracy (would be democracy) – but direct democracy

    and enough of the city

  25. I reckon North Americans are bound to assume that the EU functions rather like the USA, and therefore must be a positive thing. Not so, because in the USA although you have State Law and Federal Law, both are arrived-at by a democratic process. In the EU, the majority of ‘directives’ are issued by the Council of Ministers, and are not subjected to any voting process.

    Furthermore there is the sheer imbalance between local laws in EU member states and the Brussels Directives. Federal USA legislation generally confines itself to matters which affect everyone, leaving individual States to decide on local matters. In the EU, Brussels constantly attempts to ‘harmonise’ everything, as they call it, forcing ‘one size fits all’ regulations onto every locality, even when these are totally inappropriate to some.

    We now have a situation where the vast majority of UK statutes came from Brussels, many times more than our own legislators have enacted. These EU ‘directives’ were written by people with no appreciation whatsoever of the likely effects in the regions where the directives apply.

    Examples of the effects of EU directives are the recent disastrous floods, the diesel pollution fiasco, the requirement to cable all houses with brown/blue wiring and to use black as live on 3-phase systems.
    Crackpot, is the word. In the case of black as 440-volt live, dangerous, crackpot.

    • Ian Macdonald commented: “…I reckon North Americans are bound to assume that the EU functions rather like the USA, and therefore must be a positive thing. Not so, because in the USA although you have State Law and Federal Law, both are arrived-at by a democratic process. In the EU, the majority of ‘directives’ are issued by the Council of Ministers, and are not subjected to any voting process…..”

      I can only speak for myself /the US in North America but we are having the same problems. Except ours is Federal government overreach. Our problem is more self inflicted because we voted the current administration into power. There’s a constant battle between state’s rights, federal power, and the interpretation of the Constitution. We have an estimated 10 to 20 MILLION illegal aliens residing here. Fortunately the majority of those are from South of our border and share our religion and work ethic but they still drain the welfare coffers because of their undocumented status. And yes, we have ability to change the status quo through the ballot box. But will we? Our upcoming presidential election will be much like your Brexit vote. Do we want to be governed by a Liberal or Conservative government? Our current President continually touts the EU and “that’s the way it’s done in Europe” as a goal we should aspire to. Socialism is on the march.

  26. British lamp posts used to have a bar sticking out where the lamp lighter could lean his ladder. Now obsolete they were perfect for dealing with the likes of George Galloway. The fact that I can remember gas lighting means I am old. The fact that I am old means I can remember that we only joined the Common Market because that ghastly General de Gaulle didn’t want to let us in, probably because he in turn remembered us sinking the entire French navy with everyone aboard in a treacherous sneak attack. Germany seems to have opened the migrant floodgates to people who hate us and in 3 years time they will all have free access to every country remaining in the EU. Germany’s past treatment of non-Arian immigration is bad, the Romans had no end of trouble. I don’t think these new migrants are up on European history.

    • Robin Hewitt

      Not sure you are up on European history. Mers-el-Kébir was only a ‘sneak attack’ if you consider six hours of negotiation trying to persuade the French to join us against the Germans or at least surrender their ships out of reach of the Germans during which the French went to battle stations and tried to bring up reinforcements from Oran to be a ‘sneak attack’. It was a small but important part of the French fleet and ‘The times were desperate; invasion seemed imminent; and the British government simply could not afford to risk the Germans seizing control of the French fleet…. The predominant British motive was thus dire necessity and self-preservation’. Some of the vessels sunk were refloated and joined the main French fleet at Toulon where they were scuttled in 1942 by the French to keep them out of German hands.

      • I am no expert on European history, I was merely speculating how de Gaulle might have remembered it.

    • Gareth Phillips
      February 21, 2016 at 2:19 am

      I would not vote for anything promoted by Galloway, Putin, Farage and the right wing of the Tory party.
      ***************************************************************************************************************************
      But you will abstain or vote with Jeremy Corbyn?

      SteveT

  27. @Gareth Phillips
    I would not vote for anything promoted by Galloway, Putin, Farage and the right wing of the Tory party.

    And if they are promoting freedom? It seems to me that if politicians at opposite ends of the political divide are supporting an action, they must be doing this for more fundamental reasons than simple political advantage, and it would be worth understanding what those are.

    The whole ethos behind WUWT is to examine climate science objectively, and not be driven by authority or political bias. If you support (or don’t support) things simply because important people say you should, then you are on the wrong board, and should go to Michael Mann’s ‘Real Climate’, where I am sure you will be welcome…

  28. I’m sorry, Eric, but perhaps you have the wrong end of the stick.

    “Liberate Britain from the unelected soviet style apparatchiks who run the European Union” sound like the laudable cause as it does, but it’s a bit of an exaggeration.

    Most British people consider that any cause which has the support of George Galloway must, by necessity, be a rather bad one.

  29. In or out, whatever the result, as far as I can see it, it is going to be a wrong decision.
    Some people will be jubilant for few days, some people won’t care either way (either too rich or to poor, to make any difference for them), but after euphoria of winning or agony of loosing it will be back to same dreary old politicians running the show.
    My view is that if there is ‘IN’, the negotiated ‘deal’ will be soon forgotten and ignored, if there is ‘OUT’ disentanglement is going to be so complex and prolonged, that ‘out’ will slowly fade into oblivion.
    All the excitement will come over from across the pond provided by Mr. Trump, before and if he wins after the next November.

    • Leaving will be quite straightforward as Flexcit shows. The main thing is to get out even though it will require keeping a lot of things in place to start with. Then we can work on sorting out what to keep and what to change. People are not aware that a lot of things attributed to the EU are actually World level agreements which as a free country again we would participate in at the top table instead of passing a note to the EU representative (and thence to the bin usually).

  30. All this talk about Halal Dave’s so-called ‘deal’ is just an annoying distraction from the most important reason to vote to leave the EU, which is so that we can control our borders, sharply cut back on immigration and deport all the foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.

    A bit of child benefit or tax credits saved here or there will not butter any parsnips whatsoever.

  31. The EU is nothing but a sham. Twice removed from Democracy. Mind you democracy aint so great either.
    Representation should be devolved.

    Just like the States in the US, the old federal system, meant more representation, before the Fed took over.

    Federalised set up means higher representation otherwise in elections a 51 to 49% win means 49% are not represented by government

    • Imagine what a central unelected global government would be like! 99%+ of people would not be represented.

      intellectual bean counters long departed from reality would rule us all.

      And we know, the more centralised power is, the more powerful the corruption.

      Examples, World Bank, IMF EU IPCC, all headed up by fraudsters and sex fiends

  32. Parry politics are why representation is a joke, your local rep must adhere to the party leadership, so they are powerless to represent you.

  33. Out is the only real choice here. To remain in the EU means more unaccountable politicians, more crazy laws, ever greater union towards one super state.

    For those who fear an exit, should consider if they want to remain in the EU which has given us the euro crisis – still ongoing, the migrant crisis – still ongoing, 50% youth unemployment in Spain and Greece – still ongoing, Greek pensions being cut time and time again – still ongoing, EU countries breaking free movement rules due to fears of mass migration erecting fences – still ongoing.

    For Cameron to think that the financial pre-eminence of the city of London is now guaranteed should recall that 2 years ago there was talk of ‘a robin hood tax on share deals’ and our EU partners were quite keen on imposing this tax and ‘moving’ London’s financial functionality to Frankfurt.

    There is a lot of jealously in EU countries.

    Do not accept that, what little Cameron has agreed, will or can, last for long.

    The EU accounts have not been agreed or signed off for over 20 years.

    It is a corrupt and corrupting place which will implode eventually, it is better for the UK to exit now rather than be part of an unsightly explosion later.

    • Virtually everything Cameron has “won” will need to be ratified by all EU member countries at some point (almost certainly AFTER we have voted). If we vote IN, what incentive is there for them to ratify what has been agreed The excuse could so easily be “that promise was made by my predecessor not me”. The refusal by just one country means that we will not even get the paltry “concessions” that are currently in the frame and which do not address any of the original objections to being in the EU.

      The EU will continue to dream up crazy laws (after light bulbs and vacuum cleaners, the list of proposals includes kettles and hair dryers!) and will say – they voted to stay in so they must agree with us and our plan.

      There will be no stopping them. If you think saying OUT will be risky, wait until after an IN vote.

      SteveT

  34. Interesting that the reasons that Farrage and Galloway jointly give for opposing EU membership are the same in essence as those used in promoting the Independence of the United States from Britain.

  35. Cameron has tried and failed to get a “deal” which would unquestionably be embraced by the UK voters. Now he must put the best face on what he has, and try to emphasize the “uncertainties”surrounding Brexit. As a supporter of Brexit, I was hoping that UKIP and others would make an organized effort to put together some convincing narratives which would make the future seem more cozy and less scary. Thus far, I haven’t seen much.
    But there’s still three months for them to fashion some good PR. With the population split on “climate change”, the less said about it the better, in this particular contest.

  36. This is why we need to leave the EU:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_directives

    No democratic vote for any of them.
    Most agreed to by EU Commissioners who are failed Politicians ejected from their own democratically elected parliaments. See Neil Kinnock for example.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_European_Commissioners

    As Red Foreman would say, You would have to be a real dumbass to want to perpetuate that system.

  37. Nigel, George say, “We believe in our country and that it should be run by our own people through the ballot box.”

    They should flower that up a bit and send it off to Brussels with a couple dozen signatures by local big wigs.

    It could start out something like this, “When in the Course of human events…”

  38. Sovereignty for the UK and not for the EU does look necessary for democracy in the UK.

    Sovereignty for the USA and not for the UN does look necessary for democracy in the USA.

    Sovereignty for individual rights of each individual human and not for any collective of humans does look necessary for individual human protection from democracy.

    Lots of work to do.

    John

  39. Whatever happened to Lord Monckton’s claim that this website was about science, not politics? I put “WUWT Monckton science politics” into the search box to get the link to his statement but nothing relevant came up. So, sorry, I can’t give the link.

  40. All empires disintegrate sooner or later. The EU is under severe stress and lead by corrupt non-entities. I was conned at the ’75 referendum and we are being conned again now. Its OUT for me.

    • “The EU is under severe stress and lead by corrupt non-entities”
      The EU is ‘led’ by the heads of government of the 28 Member States. Perhaps you think they are ‘corrupt non-entities’. And how are you being ‘conned’ now?

  41. The people who have to explain their connections with Saddam Hussein are the ones who supplied him with chemical weapons when he was using them to mass murder Iraqis and Iranians.

  42. Steven Swinden commented: “…Please know what you are talking about – they are the government ministers of each member state. The nonsense that EU laws are passed by the unelected continues to be propagated……..the EU is run by the Ministeras of each member state, and not by the ‘faceless bureaucrats’……The EU is ‘led’ by the heads of government of the 28 Member States….”

    The European Commission is the executive body of the EU that instigates laws. They are appointed by the European Council, not elected. Because they may be elected in some other capacity doesn’t mean they were elected to formulate laws for the entire union. But it does because that is what the EU narrative is all about. But that is not how it was sold. Sovereignty was guaranteed but quickly forgotten. Promises to fool the gullible and useful idiots propagated by a bought and willing media got them this far. And I know, they are “approved” by other branches up and down the line and they all promise to be without bias so it all sounds legitimate. Read “And Not A Shot Is Fired” for the successful implementation of the same plan. You don’t know you’ve been conned until it’s too late.

  43. No countries in or attempting to join the EU have ever gone to war with each other despite their previous histories

    For all the EU’s bureaucratic deficiencies that must be a positive.

    • GregK
      February 21, 2016 at 8:05 pm

      No countries in or attempting to join the EU have ever gone to war with each other despite their previous histories

      For all the EU’s bureaucratic deficiencies that must be a positive.
      *************************************************************************************************************************
      Yet.
      Don’t forget that the EU is only around sixty years old. and I’m not sure your statement is technically correct.

      The Ukraine was proposing to try and join the EU and went to war internally – then supported externally by Russia on one side.

      SteveT

  44. might i suggest how the separation announcement should start?

    “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    y’all should know the rest.

  45. The expression “The wogs begin at Calais” was originated by George Wigg, Labour MP for Dudley, in 1945. In a parliamentary debate concerning the Burmese, Wigg shouted at the Tory benches, “The Honourable Gentleman and his friends think they are all ‘wogs’. Indeed, the Right Honourable Member for Woodford [i.e. Winston Churchill] thinks that the ‘wogs’ begin at Calais.” Wigg’s coinage is commonly used to characterise a Europhobic viewpoint, and more generally the view that Britain (more commonly England) is inherently separate from (and superior to) the Continent. In this case, “wog” describes any foreign, un-English person.

  46. When the UK leaves EU it would be pathetic for the rest of us still to ( or a least try to ) speak English together. But we can’t speak, og read, anything else… The task of trying to find a new common language for EU alone will bring down whats left… and will probably also be the reason for the French to build a new Maginot line.

  47. My enemy’s enemy is my friend? No, but politics does make for strange bedfellows.
    Galloway & Farage are two sides of the same coin.
    Stay in because we fear change or opt out and embrace uncertainty?
    Either way its lose-lose but in one we keep our sovereignty.

    The likelyhood is that the EU will unravel due to the stagnation of the internal economies and the pressures of the migrant crises. So perhaps its better to take the lead ?

  48. Over weekend I was talking to my neighbour retired c.s. who said that along with the French, the British were most prolific imitators of new EU laws and regulations, culminating in the late 1990s and during 2000s. It was not surprise to me to hear this morning that for many environmental regulations, that we associate with the green lobby, were actually responsibility of the now Brexit’s star politician’s father.
    Some years ago my daughter spent six months at the EU Brussels offices working on the digital (online) trading regulations.
    latest: pound sterling fell 2% against US dollar by the early afternoon (this is a big stuff said one of the tv’s financial commentators)

  49. GregK February 21, 2016 at 8:05 pm
    No countries in or attempting to join the EU have ever gone to war with each other despite their previous histories

    For all the EU’s bureaucratic deficiencies that must be a positive.
    ******

    Do you not think NATO may have a lot to do with this & not this EU no one in the UK ever voted for ?

    Google The Red House Report

    http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/Intelligence_Report_EW-Pa_128.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich–EU.html

Comments are closed.