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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Alternative view…
EU Referendum: papering over the lies
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85934
+10
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.
God bless you Kiwi (I see it is ok (forget PC)). I buy your lamb, and it is quite tasty on my barby (;!
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!
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.
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.
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!
Be careful of what you wish for. Boris Johnson was born in the USA!
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.
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
England is not an island, you must be from the US with that level of geographic understanding. 🙂
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.
‘Brexit: The Movie’ is being made. See https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
Thanks for highlighting this, they still need funding. Sign up to get a pin, DVD, tee shirt or more. Martin Durkin deserves support.
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
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.
Markl is spot on with his response.
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.
I would not vote for anything promoted by Galloway, Putin, Farage and the right wing of the Tory party.
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
@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…
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.
Perhaps George is hoping to raise the publics perception of him and rise to the rank of fogey 🙂
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.
Now there’s a thing!
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).
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.
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
Mob Rule
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
Parry politics are why representation is a joke, your local rep must adhere to the party leadership, so they are powerless to represent you.
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
PS: remember the EU are the ones who gave you food riots due to first legislation for bio fuels!!!
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.
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.
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.
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…”