The red Kipper flies at midnight!*

[Husar]

InfoWars.com

Sorry but that's deep looney fringe territory of the most alarmist kind.
We all know that Obama wants Britain to stay in the EU because that gives him more control over the EU and he gets all the data Britain collects about the citizens of other EU countries. It's just a US outpost on an island from where they can firebomb unruly EU countries if other ways of controlling them fail.

Alex Hones on the EU:


As a bonus, a little compilation from Alex Jones:

[InsaneApache]

Sorry but that's deep looney fringe territory of the most alarmist kind.

Just one problem with that though, it happens to be a fact that Britain was lied to about the eventual outcome of the EU and is still being lied to today. The results should be interesting tonight.

[Husar]

Just one problem with that though, it happens to be a fact that Britain was lied to about the eventual outcome of the EU and is still being lied to today. The results should be interesting tonight.

If British people are so awesome, why was it so easy to lie to them? Most of the video has this undertone of how awesome Britain would be if it weren't for the filthy foreigners and the politicians who conspired with them.

[Greyblades]

If there's any reason to think of Britain as awesome it's that we have a good track record of not letting extremists gain power. Even that might be gone in 2 years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I presume you mean being in the EU improves trade. Whatever you mean, IIRC the EU bloc is by some distance the biggest trade partner the UK has, and certainly the biggest we'll have without contributing massively to carbon emissions. On that basis, we'll need to have trade agreements of some kind with other EU countries, whether we're part of it or not. If we're part of the EU, we get a say. If we're not, we'll need to have those trade agreements anyway, but they'll push the rest of the package along without us having any say whatsoever (compare with what John Major did at Maastricht). If we don't like social regulations, we can, and have, leave out some of it without losing our say in the rest of the package. If we're in the EU.

I prefer to have as little government in my life as possible. But I recognise there is need for it, and given a choice between big government and no government, big government wins out every time. Within a democracy, even in a representative one, I get to have some say should I care to do so. I prefer that to pretending to be out of it, but being affected by it anyway because I don't really live outside it. I respect those politicians who face this reality and don't try to dilute it for me. Whatever their failings, they face reality head on and try to cope with it as well as they can. I don't respect politicians who draw a divide between one or the other as though one of the choices is practical. It's not, and if they say so, they're either deluded and shouldn't be anywhere near anything that governs, or they're lying.

Yes, I did mean EU.

You're correct that it's better to be within a trading Bloc than without it, in principle, but the U is no longer primarily a trading Bloc - it is being developed into a Federal State.

That's not a bad thing, per se, but if you consider something like the EU Parliament, you have to consider that the people who elect the MEP's neither voted for the creation of the Body, nor did they vote on what powers it would have. The reason it was not put to a vote is that almost no one in any EU country would have voted in favour of more elected politicians.

This is the core problem of the "democratic deficit" within the EU, and it applies to all countries prior to the most recent enlargement - where the former Eastern Bloc actually DID decide to join an EU Super-State. Even then, however, in many cases this was not put to a referendum so far as I can see.

So, while trade is a major argument in favour of EU membership, it does speak to the arguments of Euroscepticism at all.

[Beskar]

Just one problem with that though, it happens to be a fact that Britain was lied to about the eventual outcome of the EU and is still being lied to today. The results should be interesting tonight.

I am not being lied to, it is rather written there in black and white. Britain has its self-interest and flirts with EU pull-out in order to maintain an overlarge leverage over the other EU nations for its own political and economical benefit and has done this for at least 30 years.

Where is the memo saying this isn't what is occurring, even 'Big Brother' America told Britain off for messing around like this constantly as it impacts their own relations within the European community.

[Beskar]

So, while trade is a major argument in favour of EU membership, it does speak to the arguments of Euroscepticism at all.

Many Euro Sceptics argue that the EU is stifling trade overburdening companies with regulation and that by leaving, Britain will lead in a new golden age of economic prosperity where including where companies do not have to apply such regulations and argue such regularly. It is a bold-faced lie.

[Pannonian]

Yes, I did mean EU.

You're correct that it's better to be within a trading Bloc than without it, in principle, but the U is no longer primarily a trading Bloc - it is being developed into a Federal State.

That's not a bad thing, per se, but if you consider something like the EU Parliament, you have to consider that the people who elect the MEP's neither voted for the creation of the Body, nor did they vote on what powers it would have. The reason it was not put to a vote is that almost no one in any EU country would have voted in favour of more elected politicians.

This is the core problem of the "democratic deficit" within the EU, and it applies to all countries prior to the most recent enlargement - where the former Eastern Bloc actually DID decide to join an EU Super-State. Even then, however, in many cases this was not put to a referendum so far as I can see.

So, while trade is a major argument in favour of EU membership, it does speak to the arguments of Euroscepticism at all.

Welcome to the world of growing regulations. There are a number of areas in the British state that weren't specifically voted on either, but exist anyway because they were brought in to address certain issues at the time and have either been kept on, or they've not yet gone round to removing the dead wood (eg. have we beaten Napoleon yet?). Do you want to dissolve the British state?

We in Britain have it better than most of the EU, in that thanks to Maastricht, we're not subject to some of the worse failures of the EU's growing state. We've been one of the biggest supporters of one of the biggest changes in the EU, namely its expansionism in terms of incorporating new member countries. It remains to be seen whether that was a good thing or not, but it can hardly be disputed that it was our thing, so it's not as though we've been helpless in the face of EU decision making from afar. France and Germany have won the argument on some issues, and somehow we've managed to wheedle our way out of most of its effects (thankfully). We've won the argument on some issues, and your beloved UKIP still manages to blame the EU for that rather than own up to what we've done. Win some, lose some, that's the grown up world for you. But you're not happy unless you win on every argument in the exact way that you want, in hindsight.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Many Euro Sceptics argue that the EU is stifling trade overburdening companies with regulation and that by leaving, Britain will lead in a new golden age of economic prosperity where including where companies do not have to apply such regulations and argue such regularly. It is a bold-faced lie.

Well, not really.

There are areas where our trade is stifled due to EU regs - the CAP and CFP are the most famous, but there's a general problem that, because we are part of the EU, our internal and external trade goods must ALL follow EU regs, regardless of where they go.

The basic problem is that EU membership allows the extraction of British resources to the detriment of British business.

[Pannonian]

Well, not really.

There are areas where our trade is stifled due to EU regs - the CAP and CFP are the most famous, but there's a general problem that, because we are part of the EU, our internal and external trade goods must ALL follow EU regs, regardless of where they go.

The basic problem is that EU membership allows the extraction of British resources to the detriment of British business.

Are we a self-sufficient island whose good British resources are being exploited by foreign slave masters? Or, when you say "extraction of British resources", do you mean trade, and the exchange of one set of resources for another? Because I'm fairly certain there are numerous vital resources we are dependent on that we ourselves do not produce.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are we a self-sufficient island whose good British resources are being exploited by foreign slave masters? Or, when you say "extraction of British resources", do you mean trade, and the exchange of one set of resources for another? Because I'm fairly certain there are numerous vital resources we are dependent on that we ourselves do not produce.

I refer primarily to the fact that we are a net contributor to the CAP, and France is not, and that the CFP allows the Spanish (who have fished out their own waters) to take our Cod, which endangers my Cod and Chips.

I'm sure there are other examples.

[Pannonian]

I refer primarily to the fact that we are a net contributor to the CAP, and France is not, and that the CFP allows the Spanish (who have fished out their own waters) to take our Cod, which endangers my Cod and Chips.

I'm sure there are other examples.

From what I can find, the old Common Fisheries Policy was recognised as being problematic, and research and debate went into how it should be reformed, and reforms are due to begin this year. So what's the problem? That things weren't perfect from the start?

As for net contribution to the CAP, according to this, in terms of overall budgets, as of 2011 we contributed less net (5.5bn) than Germany (9.0bn), France (6.4bn) and even Italy (5.9bn), while Poland, one of those whom we backed for accession into the EU, was the biggest net recipient (10.9bn). Would I be happier if we contributed less net? Yes I would, but I also recognise that many of the net recipients are in the EU as a result of British politicking. We've done our bit in contributing towards this situation, and judging from your stance on Ukraine, you'd be up for further expansion towards the east, which would result in yet another net recipient being added to the pool which we have to pay for.

[Husar]

As though those few billions actually matter...

For countries the size of Germany, France and Britain that's hardly more than change. Meanwhile the recipients such as Poland can probably use it to good effect. That propping up those who are worse off can actually work and won't drag you down was shown by the German reunification and the fact we are still economically strong even after paying a lot to bring the East up to a modern standard.

[Beskar]

In assisting in the efforts in Poland for example, you solve the issues such as "All those Poles coming over and taking our jobs" which the anti-immigrant crowd complain about. This is partly why some immigrants who came to learn in this country with its opportunities took that knowledge back to Poland, and making that country a better place for them whilst economy/business benefited from the cheaper labour costs. Also, we benefit from the good produced in Poland when it comes to farming and raw materials, which is being done by our investment in their economy.

It is really far more than pointing at a figure then go "Look, a loss!" without actually analysing the results and benefits of such a thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

From what I can find, the old Common Fisheries Policy was recognised as being problematic, and research and debate went into how it should be reformed, and reforms are due to begin this year. So what's the problem? That things weren't perfect from the start?

As for net contribution to the CAP, according to this, in terms of overall budgets, as of 2011 we contributed less net (5.5bn) than Germany (9.0bn), France (6.4bn) and even Italy (5.9bn), while Poland, one of those whom we backed for accession into the EU, was the biggest net recipient (10.9bn). Would I be happier if we contributed less net? Yes I would, but I also recognise that many of the net recipients are in the EU as a result of British politicking. We've done our bit in contributing towards this situation, and judging from your stance on Ukraine, you'd be up for further expansion towards the east, which would result in yet another net recipient being added to the pool which we have to pay for.

My problem is lack of control, and lack of democratic consultation. The CFP was a disaster for British fishermen and North Sea fish stocks. It took about 2 decades to acknowledge the problem and set up fishing exclusion zones - something which the UK might have done a decade earlier on it's own, but couldn't. Certainly, we were talking about it in the Devon fishing towns when I was a child, it would not have been popular but could have been pushed through.

If the British public had been asked about the CAP and the CFP then the policies would have had to have been better scrutinised to begin with.

[Beskar]

On a slightly related note, the by-election in Newark. Usually, I don't have an interest in these by-elections and don't care, even though Conservatives and UKIP are fighting their socks off for the seat.

The weird part was when I recognised the name of one of the candidates. I thought "It can't be that Labour Stooge/Brown-noser from University.." and well, it is.

[HoreTore]

InfoWars.com

You forgot the best one:



So, IA gets his information from a guy who thinks that 666 is the double of 33, and that 33 is pi. Wonderful.

[InsaneApache]

So, IA gets his information from a guy who thinks that 666 is the double of 33, and that 33 is pi. Wonderful.

Pathetic.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Pathetic.

Quite. On the upside, hopefully his woeful lack of numeracy stands out as a big, giant warning marker to others: "warning: nonsense ahead".

[Pannonian]

You forgot the best one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9_gUDQe4uE

So, IA gets his information from a guy who thinks that 666 is the double of 33, and that 33 is pi. Wonderful.

Just because someone is irretrievably thick doesn't mean they're not right. Why are you biased against stupid people?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.... Why are you biased against stupid people?

Because so many of them are in government.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Couldn't disagree more. UKIP is just sane. The EU is deeply undemocratic, could also make a case for the EU being downright fascist.

Go UKIP, have one on me

Europian elections are an illusion of democracy. Everything has already been decided by unelected eurocrats. As Pat Condel nicely put it, sitting with a toy wheel in the backseat pretending you are actually driving. I am really glad with people like Nigel Farrage and his UKIP party. Geert Wilders is too stupid, he's not of any use. Farrage however is an abolute boss.

Needs a little edit, 25% of the Dutch simply wants to leave the EU, about 50% doesn't care, the amount of people actually want more Europe is pretty damn low. These are just numbers of course. But 'we' already made it very clear what we think of the EU a few years back. Democracy, such an inconfedience for eurocrats.

The EU might need some libertarians if they really are that undemocratic. Problem is that the UK is very democratic. It's a case of poisoning the town's water supply to kill your neighbor...

[Husar]

The EU might need some libertarians if they really are that undemocratic. Problem is that the UK is very democratic. It's a case of poisoning the town's water supply to kill your neighbor...

You think a surveillance state that has loads of "no protest zones" and likes to club down protests is "very democratic"? Labour and Bliar really dragged that country down.