Should we have left the EU - Vote Below?

Will The UK Actually Leave The EU?

As we no longer have polls on the site, please just leave a comment on any page about your thoughts on BREXIT or Donald Trump

Thursday 28 April 2016

A Question of International Relations between Britain and the EU

A Question of International Relations between Britain and the EU


In his Chatham House speech setting out the UK’s demands for a renegotiated relationship, David Cameron argued Britain’s EU membership is not merely a question of jobs and trade but of national security.

Eurosceptics argue Britain’s leaders have too often allowed such foreign policy concerns to be put before domestic priorities, especially economic and democratic needs. Recent events in Paris and Brussels have raised questions about the vulnerability of EU member states, not least over the practicality of Schengen.

As the UK’s new Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) made clear, traditional state-based threats and renewed challenges posed by terrorist organisations do not recognise national borders. Britain’s security is – and has long been – shaped by EU membership, whether by enhancing the UK’s international power, allowing the UK to shape European geopolitics and transatlantic relations, or by holding the UK together.

As a result, as Ian Bond of the Centre for European Reform recently argued, ‘The British government’s obsession with the details of its relationship with the EU has led it to lose sight of the big strategic picture and of the EU’s role in managing the national security threats identified in the SDSR.’
European integration has long had a security side to it whether as Franco-German reconciliation or integrating former Communist states in Eastern Europe. To what extent the EU has itself been able to keep the peace is open to debate. Nevertheless, for post-war prime ministers such as Harold Macmillan, Britain’s ability to shape the world around it was declining as rapidly as its economic base.

Joining the then European Economic Community was, in part, a step forward for the security and stability of a country that had recently ended its retreat from empire and was struggling internally and externally to find a place in the world.

Support for membership amongst Conservative MPs in the 1970s was driven by hopes that EEC membership would lock Britain into a capitalist, free market club allowing the country to shed its ‘sick man of Europe’ label, a reason some on the left resisted membership.

Membership would also enhance Western European unity in the face of a still formidable Communist world, Saigon having fallen to North Vietnam only a month before the 1975 referendum.
Today, EU membership still means a lot to Britain’s national security. As the UK’s Strategic Defence and Security Review showed, Britain’s own economic and military capabilities remain substantial, but being able to draw on the EU as a force multiplier has become increasingly central as they have been stretched to their limits. For David Hannay, the EU allows Britain to better manage challenges as diverse as a newly assertive Russia through to climate change and instability in the Middle East.

Working through the EU is not without its flaws, but other options for Britain to pursue its interests such as by rebuilding the Commonwealth, developing the ‘Anglosphere’, joining NAFTA, or becoming a ‘Switzerland with nukes’, are either limited or overplayed. Leaders from around Europe and the world have regularly cast doubts on whether a BREXIT will boost Britain’s international standing and security.

Eurosceptics will argue that Britain is weak in the EU, frequently outvoted and sidelined. Such an approach views the EU through the prism of Westminster’s majoritarian politics: a zero-sum game where you either win or lose. Through such an outlook every EU member state struggles to win. The one thing that does set you up for failure is isolating yourself, an approach the UK has in recent years adopted more than ever before.
Close relations with the USA remain, despite all the arguments, the cornerstone of UK and European security. BREXIT is not going to end such arrangements as ‘Five Eyes’ or cooperation on Special Forces. But wider relations with the USA would be tested. Only a few on the fringe of the US political right think a BREXIT would be a sound idea for the UK, USA, EU and transatlantic relations.

As Condoleezza Rice, former Bush Administration Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, recently told Chatham House: ‘It is a very different Europe if it is a continental one’. The US has been a long-standing supporter of European integration and Britain’s part in it. A Britain that challenges both of these could find it damages relations with the USA and the USA’s commitment to Europe at a time of heightened US exasperation at Europe’s inability to think about geostrategic concerns – whether they be Russia, China or ISIS – and invest in the necessary defence commitments.
In his Chatham House speech David Cameron argued that the prosperity and security of the rest of Europe are vital for Britain. In doing so he came close to the often overlooked question of what BREXIT would mean for Europe. A BREXIT could change the European geopolitical and geoeconomic landscape in ways that would not be in Britain’s interests.

It would see the departure of the EU’s largest and keenest supporter of Atlanticism and outward looking economic liberalism. The EU could become more inward looking and protectionist. The idea that BREXIT could lead to the EU and Eurozone’s disintegration is not to be casually overlooked given the likely costs for the UK and Europe.

As HM the Queen warned in June 2015 during a state visit to Germany, Europe’s division is in nobody’s interests. While a British exit is not going to lead to war, it would add to strains on an organisation which however imperfect remains with NATO one of the two pillars on which European politics and security have been built since 1945 and 1989.
At the same time, is the unification of Europe in Britain’s interests? For Eurosceptics, ‘ever closer union’ threatens Britain’s sovereignty, democracy and allows immigration to pressure its social unity, meaning Britain’s security and stability would be better preserved by leaving. But Britain’s departure could allow the EU to further unite.

One of Britain’s longest standing international aims has been to prevent any single power dominating Europe. The EU would be a benign power compared to previous attempts, but such an outcome warrants careful consideration.
Finally, if the first concern of any state is its own survival then the referendum could tear the UK apart. The immediate concern is Scotland:  a vote by the rest of the UK to leave the EU while the Scots vote to stay could trigger another independence referendum. This would lead to an avalanche of political, economic and social costs to say nothing of the costs for UK defence and national security, most notably over Trident. Northern Ireland might seem peaceful from the perspective of the UK mainland, but the peace process is under constant pressure and a BREXIT could test it to breaking point.

A descent into violence in the province should not be overlooked. BREXIT could also add to tensions within England. In focusing on Scotland we have overlooked that the part of the UK that is increasingly different is London. An international metropolis that doubles as the UK and England’s capital, London has thrived from immigration, Europe and globalisation, much to the chagrin of some elsewhere in England and Britain who feel they have been left behind.
For scholars of international relations and the EU, BREXIT confronts us with the need to theorise European disintegration. Theories are tools that allow us to focus on certain aspects of developments in the world around us, highlighting – and testing – their importance over others.

In a simplified way, a constructivist approach would point to the role of ideas as paramount in shaping how a BREXIT is handled in international relations. For example, will BREXIT push to the fore ideas of European disintegration or lead the rest of the EU to push forward with ideas of unification? For realists it will be economic and security interests, especially ones shaped by international pressures, that will define how the UK and EU handle a BREXIT.

Institutionalists will point to the role existing institutions and networks – the multiple links that are part of or defined by the EU, EFTA, EEA, NATO – will play in defining what happens to the UK and EU (or might not define it if BREXIT exposed any weaknesses in them).

Liberal inter-governmentalists will point to a mix of interests, institutions and ideas to show that Britain and the EU (especially Germany, France and other big states) are so caught up in a deeply enmeshed set of interdependencies that Britain (and the EU) suffer from the Hotel California dilemma: you can check-out anytime you like, but you can never leave.
View the original article on the site: LSE’s International Security Society

Wednesday 27 April 2016

Yanis Varoufakis on why Britain must stay in Europe

Yanis Varoufakis on why Britain must stay in Europe

This is a Guardian debate on the EU with the ex Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, on why Britain must stay in Europe.

He is a bit of a "pop star" economist since he became well known due to the Greek economic crisis where was filmed on the news riding around on his motor bike during his negotiations with the Troika, the European Commission (EC), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the European Central Bank (ECB).

Here he discusses the battle he had with these entities over their harsh austerity policies that were implemented despite a Greek referendum to reject the offer of debt and loans to supposedly keep the Greek economy afloat.

This is one of the things we must note about the EU and what happens when states hold referendums that provide results the EU doesn't like.

If the people vote "NO", countries such as will just hold another referendum until you vote the "right way", or like Greece, they just ignore the peoples will and go ahead with the deal that was being voted on anyway.

Greece was entered into the Euro after Goldman Sachs helped them fiddle the figures that made them seem more economically afloat than they really were. They are now loaded up with so much debt that they were forced to even sell off sell off parts of it's own country to raise money.

It had to "privatise", the sea coast at Afandou, which is part of the Greek government's attempts to raise money by privatising its vast portfolio of state-owned assets. It was called the largest firesale in history. Some 70,000 lots were for sale, ranging from pristine stretches of coast through to royal palaces, marinas, thermal baths, ski resorts and entire islands.

However Greece is now loaded up with so much debt it will take forever, unless it is written off, to pay back. Austerity in Greece caused mass migration of it's educated youth to flee to other European countries to find work, the closure of hospitals and whole shopping centres, and a massive unemployment rate (25.6% in March 2015).

We must remember though that even Germany and France have broken the "rules" that countries are supposed to keep to such as the amount of debt they have. Countries within the Euro cannot manage their own interest rates which the UK currently can.



Yanis Varoufakis mentions during the speech a quote by Tony Benn about democracy where he claims for a political body to be democratic you must be able to look your rulers in the eye and ask them three questions.

What powers do you have?
Who gave them to you?
On whose behalf are you using them?
And how can we get rid of you?

Do we have these powers now within the EU? 

No we don't, however Yanis believes the UK should stay within it until it is reformed, no matter how long this would take.

This is the problem we face with the EU vote. It has already been multiple decades since we joined the EEC which then turned into the EU and the state of democracy has not got better. Therefore how long should we wait within the EU until it becomes truly democratic?

The answer would be to give the European Parliament overall power over the European Union and create a true federal state. A lot of British people don't want this. Liberals and Conservatives both believe that democracy happens closer to the people.

As the Guardian commentator states, Yanis is really making a call for fiscal union and economic union under a German designed system. He does refute this and gives an answer where he states that a democratic federal union is the opposite of this, also if we disband the EU we will end up in a great depression.

He does admit this there is a massive democratic deficit in the EU but that actually we should turn our anger and desire to stick two fingers up at authority by leaving into a cross European movement to demand a true democratic European Union.

He mentions some easy things that could happen which wouldn't require any treaty changes.

He says all EU Council of Minister meetings should be live streamed on TV so that the people know what is being discussed. Also that the EU central bank has to record their minutes that are then published and that all recent TTP discussions are made public.

He also says that the ECB or Bank of England's quantitative easing should be used to grow jobs, invest in green energy, industry, new technologies and to help the people by generating growth rather than just buying up mortgages.

To get to this new democratic state however he admits that the current rulers must first be overthrown. He doesn't call for a revolution but the same kind of ground swell of public opinion that managed to defeat the Soviet Union.

Whether this can be done or not is a big question and a big chance to take if the UK votes to stay within the EU.

What do you think about Yanis and his thoughts on the EU and the forthcoming UK referendum.

Do you agree with him and is the risk worth taking that we can change the democratic nature of the EU?


What BBC won't tell you about the decline of Britain since 1973 EEC

What BBC won't tell you about the decline of Britain since 1973 EEC

This is a discussion from the radio with journalist, Tony Gosling, about BREXIT, and what the BBC won't tell you about the decline of Britain since joining the EEC in 1973.

He talks about the history of Europe going back to the World War and the de-Nazification of Europe. He reveals how the EU is really a fulfillment of some very old German Bankers desires.

Apparently German banks were buying up large stocks of French and other countries big companies before invading them. They then prevented their army and air forces from bombing or harming these companies during the occupation of the country they were taking over.

The German banks wanted a common market across the EU and Tony puts forward a view that the EU is a fulfillment of NAZI policies with the de-industrialisation of the UK and other European countries.

Remember this is one person's point of view but it's worth listening to.


Do you agree that the German economy and their industries have boomed since the EEC, EU, and that other countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy and the UK have suffered through de-industrialisation?

An Interesting Comment on the EU Referendum

An Interesting Comment on the EU Referendum

I am re-posting a comment I just got from a Peter Bowers on a recent article on the BREXIT Referendum.

I thought I would re-post as I suspect it will reflect the views of many people who like parts of the EU or Europe but not others.

Please feel free to comment with your own views on the EU vote.

I want to stay in the EU but just wish it would be reformed so it goes back to just being a trading block with some shared security and economic policies that are fair to all countries.
I don't like the fact Germany is the most powerful country in the EU and can stamp all over Greece. Both have fiddled their figures during their time in the EU but Germany gets away with it as they are the most powerful nation in the block.
I like being able to travel freely in the EU and don't want to lose the ability to go and move to Spain or France if I wanted to but I also don't want thousands of migrants jumping on vans at the EU tunnel.
It's hard as I know they won't reform as I want them to they have had 50+ years to do so and haven't yet so what hope is there that they will.
What gets me is we haven't heard much about David Cameron's "new deal" with the EU which was supposed to stop us wanting to leave. It obviously isn't worth the paper it is written on otherwise we would be hearing about it all the time.
I agree with quite a lot of that comment. The "Better Together" campaign talk about having to be within the EU to reform it from the inside but they have had over 50 years to make it democratic and all that's happened is that it's become less democratic over time.

I want to be able to travel and live around Europe easily and want free trade and co-operation on security and economic matters.

However what I don't want is a Federal Europe where we are just a state with little power and where our laws are not made in Westminster but Brussels. It is perfectly clear that David Cameron's new agreement with the EU doesn't do any of that. It just makes some small changes to our benefits system, nothing worth mentioning at all.

How do you feel about the "new deal" our Prime Minister made with the EU? 

The BREXIT Referendum

The BREXIT Referendum

This is a video about reasons to leave the EU.

The author of the video offers his reasons for leaving the EU which is basically our loss of sovereignty by the UK being in the EU.

However this is one persons view of the EU with some snippets and views from David Cameron and some other people. He fears that if we vote to stay in the EU that the Germans and French would speed up integration knowing that a UK threat of leaving had been neutralised.

They want a federal Europe and they have admitted this over and over again. They want a European army, flag, and shared sovereignty. If we voted to stay in the EU then this push towards a federal Europe could accelerate.

This person discusses what probably many people feel. That they like Europe, travelling to France, Germany and Italy, living and holidaying in Spain. Doing business with European countries and co-operating with them over security and other important matters.

However what they don't like is the concept of a "Federal Europe".

We have a different criminal justice system to most of Europe and don't want to be a "state" like Arkansas in a USA style, federal Europe where our laws are made over the channel and democracy seems further away than it already is.

It ends with a speech by Daniel Hannan in the USA about the rights of man and how the loss of UK freedom due to the EU can be linked back to the founding fathers.

 

What I must add is that even if we leave the EU we are still living under a Monarchy, a Queen who as "the crown", would probably never be prosecuted for a crime. Can you ever imagine a policeman trying to arrest her, whatever crime she had committed?

So if we want real full control over our lives we would be a republic with an elected President and not a monarch who gets their position by blood and birth and who owns the most land across the world. I do not believe that she is worth paying our taxes to support her luxurious life because she is just a "tourist attraction".

I believe that no-one is above or below me in the hierarchy of life and having a Royal family that our unwritten constitution puts above us is immoral and wrong.

So do you believe that the question of sovereignty is the most important factor in a decision to leave the EU or are other factors more important?


Tuesday 26 April 2016

Nigel Farage debating Nick Clegg at the Oxford Union over leaving the EU

Nigel Farage debating Nick Clegg at the Oxford Union over leaving the EU

This is part of a debate that took place at the Oxford Union over whether Britain should leave the EU.

There were many more participants than the two videos I have shown here but these are two of the more well known voices from either side of the BREXIT debate.

Watch Nigel Farage leader of UKIP discuss his reasons why the UK should leave the EU at the Oxford Union.



Watch Nick Clegg lay out his reasons in the same debate why Britain is better together with the EU.



Both Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage have worked at the EU either as MEP's.

They will take huge pensions when they retire long before us and whilst working at the EU they would have had big expense accounts to fund their job, hire help and so on.

This is one reason many people dislike the EU because of the amount of money wasted on MEP's and their allowances. Also its payments have been consistently found subject to significant error for the past 18 years.

Which argument did you find more convincing, Nick Cleggs or Nigel Farages?

Does the threat of Scotland and maybe Wales leaving the UK if we pull out of the EU make you want to vote for staying in the EU or do you think they have the right to independence anyway?

Will you vote with objectivity or use logic and facts when making your decision. This will affect you and your children for decades to come so I hope it's the latter!

BREXIT - The Day After

BREXIT - The Day After

This video discusses the "day after BREXIT", for the English.

Would the City of London still be the Financial Centre of the world, would the EU then integrate further, would the British economy suffer?

It looks at trade, prices, politics, jobs and the daily life on both sides of the channel?

One commentator says "it's one of the most stupid decisions of the 21st century", and bad news for the English and the European continent.

The panel is made up of a pro leave campaigner, a German politician and someone in the centre.



A balanced discussion on the EU referendum and the possible ramifications of leaving the EU?

US Commentator admits Obama is hypocritical in his BREXIT comments

US Commentator admits Obama is hypocritical in his BREXIT comments

Watch this video that shows a US commentator, Pippa Malmgren, talking about Obama recently telling the British public that we should vote to stay in the EU.

She admits that the US would never allow the same sort of foreign interference as the EU therefore it's hypocritical for him to back David Cameron up.

She also believes the UK population will pay no attention to his views and that she believes that the wording Obama used was probably Cameron asking him to "just say this"....

 

Would the USA allow the EU to make it's laws, I don't think so.

Would the USA pay any attention to David Cameron if he told them to vote one way or another in their upcoming US Presidential election, nope, so why has Obama stuck his nose into the BREXIT campaign?

Did David Cameron ask him to make some pro-stay comments or was it purely his own opinion? The White House claims that it was but Pippa suggests that the wording he used in his speech such as "Britain would go to the back of the queue", rather than the more American "back of the line", suggests some UK influence in his speech.

What do you think of President Obama's comments?

Monday 25 April 2016

Bank of England says Banks would leave the City if we left the EU

The head of the Bank of England says Banks would leave the City if we left the EU

Mark Carney hints BREXIT could prompt banks to leave London if we voted to leave the EU.

He says major banks have already got contingency plans in place in case we do vote to leave.

Watch him talk about the threat to the City of London if we left the EU here.



Here is the response from a leave EU campaigner and Tory MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, who thinks the head of the Bank of England was out of line making pro EU statements in public.



And here is a BBC news report on the Bank of England's comments with Jacob Rees-Mogg again.

Here is suggests that there has been some element of collusion between the head of the Bank and David Cameron who has been applying pressure wherever he can to push for a stay vote from the public.



Do you think the head of the bank of England should be making pro EU political points, or should he stay out of the debate and be impartial as the Tory MP suggests he should?

Professor Patrick Minford on Economic Benefits to leaving the EU

Professor Patrick Minford on Economic Benefits to leaving the EU

Here is an economist, Professor Patrick Minford, talking about the costs and benefits of the EU to a Government Select Committee.

Here he discusses trade tariffs and agreements that will be signed with the EU and how the EU will have to sign agreements with us because they sell us so many goods such as German cars, French farm produce and so on.

It is an interesting talk by an economist you should listen to when thinking about the economic downsides or benefits to leaving or staying in the EU.


After watching the video has he changed your opinion or do you feel he is biased towards the BREXIT leave campaign?

Right Wing BREXIT Views

Right Wing BREXIT Views

If you viewed the earlier piece about left wing points of view on BREXIT then you may want to hear some right wing views.

The two most often heard voices are from UKIP leader Nigel Farage and the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan.

Here we listen to their views on leaving the EU. Here is Daniel Hannan discussing why we should leave the EU, debating Sky TV presenter Lucy Thomas about the free movement of people, Goldman Sachs and the City of London.

 

Here is Nigel Farage giving one of his famous speeches in the EU parliament which often makes the other MEP's bang their heads into their tables.

He discusses the migrants coming into the UK and the possibility of ISIS infiltrators due to their getting EU passports after staying in an EU country for enough time to then gain entry to the UK.

 

And for fun here is a collection of clips of the two of them together on BBC's Question Time taking on the stay campaigners.



Here is Tory politician, and anti big brother campaigner, David Davis talking about why he is for leaving the EU.



So some politicians from the right wing and their views on why they want to leave the EU.

David Cameron may have got US President, Barack Obama, to state that the UK should vote to stay in the EU, which has really got the backs up from a lot of people.

He wouldn't allow the UK to interfere with US politics so why should we allow him to do so with ours?

Do big names stating that we should stay or leave the EU convince you to vote one way or another or do foreign politicians sticking their noses in make you want to do the opposite just to spite them?

Left Wing BREXIT Views

Left Wing BREXIT Views

Don't let anyone tell you only right wing UKIP or Tories want to leave the EU.

Here is a collection of left wing politicians who want the UK to leave the European Union.

For example the great Labour figure of old, Tony Benn, discusses at the Oxford Union why we should leave the EU.

 

Here is the always unafraid to speak his mind, left winger, George Galloway detailing his opinion on why we should embrace BREXIT.

He was actually sharing a stage with UKIP leader Nigel Farage and when he came on many right wing supporters left the building in disgust!

 

Surely BREXIT should not be a left or right wing point of view but a logical decision made on facts.

It shouldn't matter if the only thing Nigel Farage and George Galloway agree on is leaving the EU.

Surely if you believe we are better off out of the system then it shouldn't matter who is making the argument.

Just to finish off the left wing BREXIT campaigners, despite the half hearted speech by Jeremy Corbyn the other week about the need to stay in the EU, he has always been in the part of Labour that disagrees with the EU project.

Here is a speech he made about leaving the EU.



So don't think the idea of leaving the EU is just a right wing view it crosses the divide between political parties, race, creed and religion.

People of all sorts want to leave and also to stay.

Are you a left leaning BREXIT voter or do you want to stay in the EU?

Some Points To Think About - BREXIT

Some Points To Think About - BREXIT

As you consider whether to vote yes to leaving the EU or no and staying within it have you thought about all the consequences?

Here are a few points to consider which people bring up all the time when debating BREXIT.
  • The economic benefits or pitfalls of leaving. How much will it hurt your wallet or will you actually have more money if we leave the EU?
  • The democratic decision making that lets laws that affect us come from the EU. The most democratic part of the EU, the EU parliament which we vote our MEP's to, is the least powerful part of the EU. Major decisions are made in the Council of Ministers or the EU Commission.
  • What really are the pro's and cons of being able to control our own borders. Maybe we will stop some migrants that shouldn't be allowed in the country but will France just wave them onto the Eurostar if we leave?
  • Would still have to pay the EU money to be part of the free market as Norway and Switzerland do. This is a major claim of the BREXIT campaigners that we just want a free market and none of the EU super state excess. However there maybe a cost to this and the EU countries may decide we would have to pay to access this market. Do we really have enough countries outside the block to sell our goods to. Can we really make reciprocal arrangements with hundreds of countries or is the benefit of having a single trading block that we deal with more important.
  • What will happen to ex pats living abroad in Spain and other EU countries. Will they have to go and get Visa's and re-apply for citizenship? If we kick out people that shouldn't be here will other countries respond in kind.
  • Would an Australian points style system benefit us or would you miss your cheap £10 car wash and valet at the local garage by the Polish workers running around like bee's for a pittance. Would they be able to get into the county if we had a points style system?
  • What about NHS workers, cleaners and manual workers that we all depend on. Will they be able to stay in the UK?
  • Are benefits really the biggest issue? We spent a trillion pounds in the last decade on wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. That money could easily pay for the hole in the pension pot and any benefits we desire. Remember it wasn't the poorest people who caused the economic collapse it was the Bankers. How our taxes are spent should be up for debate and the EU plays a very small part in that when you look at the big picture.
  • If we leave the EU we will still be handing over our banking transaction details (SWIFT) to the USA as we currently do through the EU. GCHQ is the NSA's foothold in Europe, would we lose out on invaluable security information or would the flow of data to and from the USA remain the same?
  • Can we honestly believe a Tory Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act (which the Tories created after World War II) would be worth the paper it was written on. They promised us a rollback of Labour police state policies when they were in coalition with the Lib Dem's who had proposed their own Freedom Bill. However when the combined bill came out it was watered down so much the only important part was the stopping of private car parks to clamp your cars. Compare the original Lib Dem's bill to what we got. Would a Bill of Rights be a new version of the American Bill or a watered down version that gives parliament and corporations more power over us?
These are just a few points to consider. 

Please add your own in the comment box.

London Mayor Boris Johnson Says Obama Should Stay Out of BREXIT Debate

London Mayor Boris Johnson Says Obama Should Stay Out of BREXIT Debate

London Mayor Boris Johnson called U.S. President Barack Obama a hypocrite on Monday (March 14) in his column for the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

He called Obama's plan to urge British voters to remain in the European Union a "piece of outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy".

"There is an irony in that America is a country that defends its sovereignty, its democracy with more vigilance than any other country I can think of, it refuses to allow its citizens to be subject to any other international jurisdiction whatever. It would not for a minute countenance, pooling its national sovereignty in any way. And so it's curious that we should be urged further down that path," Johnson told reporters during an official visit to London's Olympic Park.

He refused to repeat the word "hypocrite", but when pressed on whether Obama's position on Britain remaining in the EU was hypocritical, Johnson said: "It is, it is. It is not something the United States would dream of doing themselves."

It is reported in UK media that Obama will come to London in April and will likely air his views on a possible Brexit in the upcoming June referendum.

Last year Obama told the BBC that the Britain should stay in the European Union to remain influential on the world stage.

A group of politicians in Britain have told President Obama to stay out of the BREXIT debate.

In a letter, the members said any move would be an “unfortunate milestone”. It was signed by Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, Labour MPs Kelvin Hopkins and Kate Hoey, Tories Tom Pursglove and Peter Bone and the DUP’s Sammy Wilson, according to The Express.

“We have chosen to respectfully request he recognizes matters of sovereignty are best left to the citizens directly affected. We would certainly never think of visiting the United States and telling the U.S. public how to vote in an election,” said Hoey.

President Obama says we should stay in the EU

What do you think about Obama telling us to stay in the EU?

Does the US President have any right to tell us whether or not to leave the EU?

How would the USA respond if the British told them to open their borders with Mexico and allow free movement of people both ways?

They would probably tell us to Fxxk off it's none of our business.

Is it any of the Americans business whether we leave the EU or not?



How do you think the Americans would respond to us telling them what to do politically?

Does the special relationship go both ways or is it just a one way street for the US to get the UK to help them out in their wars and illegal spying?

They have Obama we have Australia - Australian MP stand up for BREXIT

Australian MP Defends BREXIT campaign

This is a video of an Australian MP discussing the BREXIT campaign and saying the UK should leave the EU to become more prosperous.



What do you think about an Australian MP telling us in the UK what to do?

Does it counter balance US President Obama saying we should stay in the EU?