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

Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

BREXIT - The Labour Conference

BREXIT and the Labour Conference 2016



By Dark Politricks

With the UK political conference season upon us there has undoubtedly been news about BREXIT coming from the mouths of our politicians and leaders, in between drinking and partying that is.

Last week it was the Labour conference where it was Jeremy Corbyn's turn to speak about BREXIT.

Here is a Labour leader who has just won an even bigger mandate to lead the party after the botched coup by disaffected Blairites and MP's, upset that he didn't manage to persuade every Labour voter to tick the box to remain in the EU.

Why they would think white working class voters who have historically chosen to vote Labour would see the EU as a beaming citadel on the hill, when it has been their jobs that have been shipped overseas, their wages suppressed by bosses using cheap immigrant labour, and their children with the lack of housing options and overwhelmed public services, due to under-funding and over-use, I have no idea.

However many people on the left went and voted to leave the EU and this article explains why.

So the Blairites went ahead with their coup and lost.

In fact Corbyn increased his share of the vote to 61.8% and with the influx of new Labour members, the party is now the biggest in Europe with over half a million members.

Maybe the Blairites will now shut up and get behind their leader. They should be promoting the policies he espouses which it was made clear from the leadership debates that hardly any difference existed between the coups sacrificial lamb, Owen Smith, and Corbyn. You can watch one below.


In his conference speech, Corbyn promised to raise taxes on businesses to fund an overhaul of the UK’s educational system, promising employers they would see a return on the investment, with a future workforce that would be more skilled.

He also outlined plans for a surge of council house building funded by the removal of borrowing caps on local councils and a broad program of public investment with the reinstatement of some trade union rights.

Corbyn said he was offering “a new deal for rebuilding Britain”, including borrowing to invest billions in infrastructure, which he said would benefit businesses.

However, he said, he wanted to see business play its part in return, by paying more tax to fund a proposed “national education service” – a lifelong service from preschools to adult education.

So we have one leader willing to borrow money NOT for wars, or to pay for the massive increase in social welfare bills due to the lack of decent jobs, or to just give to the banks for a bailout.

Instead Corbyn wants to borrow to invest in the country, reduce our debt by increasing GDP by creating jobs and taxing the rich who let's face it, hold much more responsibility for the 2008 banking crisis than the millions of poor and middle class electorate that have suffered during the Tory austerity years.

Plus Corbyn wants lower housing costs so people can afford to get on the housing ladder or obtain social housing that has been kept out of the reach of millions for so long due to the lack of building by previous Tory and Labour governments.

Most importantly he wants to invest in education, especially in areas most hit by the migration that has come in recent years.

By increasing the nations skillset, he will put them on course for high paid jobs, and make Britain a desirable option for countries to invest in.

Maybe if the Tories had carried out some of these policies then not as many working class people would have seen migrants as a threat to their jobs, housing options, school places and increased hospital waiting times.

Maybe if the Tories had spent the billions they wasted on stupid wars in Libya and their undercover support of the FSA, al-Nusra Front and ISIS, who basically control all other rebel groups in Syria, we wouldn't have doubled our national debt since Labour last lost power.

In fact the national debt has risen by £555 billion since 2010 due to Tory policies.

If we stopped allowing banks to rob from us by borrowing from the Bank of England at 0.25% and then make free money by loaning it back to the public at high interest rates e.g 1,261% APR if you look Wonga, then maybe they wouldn't have lost David Cameron as their PM, and therefore the BREXIT vote.

You only have to watch daytime TV in the UK to see that the only growth industries seems to be Payday Loan companies who are taking advantage of poor people's need for loans and online poker, bingo, lottery cards and gambling operations.

This truly has become a nation where we borrow money at stupid costs and then chance it on the roll of a ball in the hope of getting rich.

You can watch Jeremy Corbyn's speech at the 2016 Labour conference below.


What do you think about the idea that we should be investing in our country to grow our GDP instead of borrowing money to fill the growing national debt the Tories have caused from their austerity measures?

View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com.

By Dark Politricks

© 2016 Dark Politricks

Monday, 20 June 2016

David Cameron - "EU: In Or Out?"

David Cameron - "EU: In Or Out?"


The UK Prime Minister David Cameron faces some tough questions from Sky News journalists and members of the public in a big television event based around the EU referendum campaign.


What did you think of the debate? Did it help you decide which way to vote?

Do you believe every argument David Cameron makes or is his waffling and using fear tactics to scare people into voting to remain the EU?

Why was it that David Cameron was happy to talk about leading the leave campaign if he didn't get the deal he wanted yet he is now fear mongering and warning about financial Armageddon. What changed, his deal was pretty weak and I cannot believe he got the deal he wanted so why is he now using Project Fear to make people vote to remain in the EU.

The national votes are pretty close at the moment - how will you vote and who will you believe?

Friday, 10 June 2016

Nigel Farage v David Cameron - ITV Debate

Nigel Farage v David Cameron - ITV Debate

This is the debate from a couple of days ago on ITV between David Cameron and Nigel Farage.

Although described a debate it wasn't really as the two people were never on stage at the same time together.

Instead it was a politician v audience (with moderator - not that she did much) - format.

First Nigel Farage went on first to face questions from the Remain campaign and their supporters about the threats of leaving the EU to the economy, trade, NHS and security.

Then David Cameron went on to face questions from the Leave side and their supporters about the benefits of leaving. Questions on how he would deal with mass immigration that would see the UK have 80 million people living here by 2040, the lack of democracy in the EU and why he had changed his mind from speeches he had made before the EU referendum.

You can watch the full debate here.

Part 1 - Nigel Farage


Part 2 - David Cameron



Would it have been better if the two politicians were on stage together debating each other or do you think the format of one at a time v the audidence worked well?

Would you like to see more of these kinds of debates (if you can call it that), and if so, who would you like to see in them?

Don't forget to vote at the top of the page!

Tuesday, 31 May 2016

BBC Video on why we should stay in the EU

BBC Video on why we should stay in the EU


This is a BBC video on why we should stay in the EU.

Their description of the video is:

David Cameron has travelled to Brussels hoping to persuade other European leaders to back his plan for reforming Britain's relationship with the other 27 EU countries. It comes ahead of a referendum in which voters in Britain will decide to stay or leave the EU. That vote is expected to happen some time next year.
So what are the benefits of staying or leaving? UKIP's Suzanne Evans and Labour MP Alan Johnson have set out their opposing views for the Victoria Derbyshire programme. Mr Johnson, is fronting Labour's campaign to stay in the EU.



With the EU referendum only weeks away the BBC should be an impartial player in the debate but as the state news outlet for the country many people have complained that they are repeating the Conservative Remain message in their documentaries and news pieces.

What do you think are the BBC being an impartial player in this referendum or are they just the Conservative mouth piece for the Remain campaign?

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

EU referendum debate between Anna Soubry and Nigel Farage

EU referendum debate between Anna Soubry and Nigel Farage


This is Channel 4 debate between Tory Anna Soubry and UKIP leader Nigel Farage over David Cameron's recent speech about staying in the EU.

They have now given us a referendum and now David Cameron seems a bit scared that we might make the "wrong" decision.

Does this mean wrong for the British public or wrong as in bad for big business, wrong for Tory cronies, wrong for the USA and wrong for the push for TTIP and the overrule of our own laws by US corporations.

John Snow brings up an important point that the "deal" David Cameron brought back from the EU was really a washout and not worth the paper it was written on. Nigel Farage says its not legally enforceable and could be stripped down by the EU court of justice.

The point is - is that true? How do we know, one side says yes, the others say no.

How can the public decide?

All we can do is keep listening to the debates I put on this site and make up your own mind.


What do you think of David Cameron's deal from the EU?

Is it deliverable and enforceable or will it be stripped down by the EU court of justice?

Make you sure you vote at the top of the page whether you want to stay or leave the EU.

Friday, 13 May 2016

Nigel Farage calls David Cameron a "Conman"

Nigel Farage calls David Cameron a "Conman"

In a blistering attack on the PM the UKIP leader stuck the boot in as he urged voters to make a stand against Brussels. 

He may have had a few too many beers though!

Days after Mr Cameron continued his Project Fear by suggesting BREXIT could spark World War Three, Mr Farage ramped up the Leave campaign by mocking the PM.

He said: “My message is Dave you’re a conman, you’re a conman."



“You told us two months ago you might consider voting for BREXIT, now you tell us it could cause World War Three.

“If it’s that serious why would you ever take the risk in the first place.

“He is a cheap second-hand car salesman not to be believed and will finish up at the end of this utterly discredited and rightly so.”

The UKIP leader also took aim at Brussels bureaucrats and tore into EU regulations.

He said: “Do you think we should govern our own country, make our own laws, control our own borders and have our own Supreme Court or do you think it better we sub-contract out the running of our nation to a bunch of old men in Brussels we can’t vote for and we can’t remove?

"I know my answer. I want my country back, I want my borders back, I want my passport back, I want my pride and self-respect back.

“Don’t forget there are 5.2 million men and women in this country who run their own companies, act as sole traders, unpaid tax collectors for the Government.

What do you think is our PM a conman over his referendum over BREXIT.

His magic agreement with the EU was supposed to stop us voting to leave but it is so watered down and not worth the paper it is written on no-one believes him anymore.

And here is Nigel Farage on why Big Business love BREXIT....



So how are you going to vote?

Have you voted at the top of the page yet?

Let us know your thoughts.

Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Nigel Farage attacks Lame Duck President for sticking his nose into the BREXIT debate

Nigel Farage attacks Lame Duck President for sticking his nose into the BREXIT debate

This is Nigel Farage on Sky News attacking President Obama for sticking his nose into the BREXIT debate. 

He thinks the terminology used by President Obama e.g "back of the queue", signifies that he was parroting a UK line and that the idea that it would take 10 years to make a UK trade deal if we leave is just preposterous.

He also goes into the TTIP deal and why Obama is so keen on the UK staying in the EU and joining the TTIP deal which will allow giant US corporations to buy up the NHS and other UK public services.


What I want to know is why can't the Tory leader, David Cameron, debate leading BREXIT campaigners?

If he doesn't want Blue on Blue attacks, there are enough UKIP, Independents and Labour people to debate instead.

Why isn't David Cameron debating the BREXIT campaign. Surely his agreement that he managed to agree with EU leaders was supposed to prevent us from wanting to vote leave.

Therefore why haven't we heard hardly anything about it since he came back from the EU?

Sunday, 1 May 2016

Andrew Marr Interviews on BREXIT Campaigners

Andrew Marr Interviews on BREXIT Campaigners

This is a collection of Andrew Marr interviews with politicians and leaders of the Better In Together and BREXIT campaigns over the decision to vote to stay or leave the EU. 


David Cameron

I start off with the Prime Minister who obviously wants us to stay in Europe. He claims that there would be turmoil and uncertainty if we left the EU and that his "deal" with Europe has satisfied most people who were worried about economic migrants just looking for benefits.




Nigel Farage

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage gives Andrew Marr his reasons for leaving the EU. These include David Cameron's weak "deal", that merely limits benefits and has some elements within it that can be struck down by the European court without our say so.

The issue is NOT migrant benefits and NET migration running at 330,000 people a year when we were promised that this would be reduced to tens of thousands a year. I

Instead it is the fact we would be able to see who were making our laws, vote them out if we didn't like them and run our own lives and spend our own money without meddling from Brussel.s

Also giving back our sovereignty, he wants an Australian style points system that doesn't discriminate on locality so that we can give people from the Commonwealth higher priority if they have the skills over unskilled migrants that have waited in Europe enough time to get an EU passport so that they can enter the UK.


Boris Johnson

The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, believes that we can keep our free trade deals with the EU without the ever evolving movement towards a centralised federal state without us paying for it. It will also allow us to make our own trade deals with countries like China and India where the problems of the EU and Euro would not even on the table. Huge debt, deficit, bailouts and Greek islands having to be sold off to pay back German banks would not be an issue as they currently are during EU trade discussions

We are a big enough country to do our own deals, Iceland can, so why can't we. Our relationship with the EU and US would remain friendly and cordial, based on trade and shared security concerns. However we would not have laws enforced on us from Brussels and we would be able to do free trade deals looking after the interest of British industries with other countries and not hand this important matter over to EU bureaucrats.



What do you think about these interviews. 

Who do you find the most convincing over the BREXIT debate?

Will you vote to stay in the EU or leave it?

Will you vote to stay in the EU or leave it?

Do you want to stay in the European Union or leave it?

By Dark Politricks

I hope you have taken the poll at the top of the page, if not do so and you can always come back and change your mind later on.

As the debate rages around the UK on whether we should leave or stay in the EU. The question is are people really thinking for themselves or are they just believing all the crap that the daily rags tell them to?

We have owners of multiple papers who live offshore most of the year just to get out of paying their fair share of UK tax, telling us tax payers what to do. Is this really fair? It's just the rich elite who are always going to go from strength to strength as long as no-one stands up to them enforcing their will on the people as they always do.

Will people who vote actually make a real decision or will they be swayed like the US electorate always is to vote for the person with the biggest smile, angriest most bullish comments and plans to "restore America to greatness" as if it had suddenly become a third world country without the biggest economy and military in the world?

So the BREXIT referendum all rests on whether people believe the "deal" Cameron brought back was worth the paper it was written on or not.

To me Cameron's "Deal", is just a tinkering around the edges that prevents migrants from claiming benefits for years, and allows Britain to cap the number of people entering the country. It really doesn't make much of a difference at all.

We will still will be bound by the European Court of Human Rights, pay our monthly millions to be part of the EU, and whilst the Euro zone members make important financial decisions we will now be left out of them and probably still be asked to pay towards any bailouts such as those for Greece and Ireland etc.

I never got to vote to join the EC in the 70's.

That was the Economic Community, a joining together of countries for free trade without tariffs between members and a supposed opening up of the many countries nationalised utilities and businesses.

It was not a vote on whether we should join a European Super State, with its own Defence Force, a 3 tier decision-making system where the most democratic body, the European Parliament, has the least power.

People complain about the number of EU migrants that enter Southern Europe and are then just waved through multiple  counties until they reach Germany or Calais hoping to get to England. However we must remember that about 1.8m Britons live in Europe, with Spain boasting an expat population of just over 1m UK citizens.

Of the Britons living in Europe, 400,000 are claiming a state pension from the UK.

The question is, if free movement is good for us, what will happen when it is shut down. We may be able to control the number of migrants from the EU entering the country but what will happen to the retired wrinkled leather tanned grannies of the Costa Del Sol?

leather tanned grannies
An ex Pat, enjoying the Sun and beach

Will these ex pats all have to go through some sort of immigration test as if they were trying to get green cards in the US?

I cannot even imagine many Brits passing any part of a test that expected them to know the hosts language and culture.

It could be that we manage to make arrangements that doesn't affect Brits with jobs OR money from going out to live in the EU however I am guessing a lot of EU members are really pissed off with us at the moment for getting a "special membership deal".

Whilst Germany and France wanted to keep us in the EU for the risk that it might fall apart, I can well imagine many newer members are thinking, why does the UK always try to get it's own way?

From my perspective it would have been good if Cameron had reached a consensus with other members that would have reformed the EU properly.

You know basic things like make it truly democratic, removed any moves to keep pushing for a super state, restored it back to a trading block that was good for business without all the imported laws and of course stopped all the massive fraud which has prevented a real audit for many years now.

There are lots of things wrong with the EU and the constant push towards a superstate is one of them. One of the original ideas was to try and make a block of states that was an equal balance to the power of the US but instead we have just turned into the USA's cross pond bitch.

So I believe Cameron's almost Chamberlain like "Peace in our time", excitement at having got his deal, is going to bite him in the butt just as Chamberlain found out when the NAZI's ignored his magic bit of paper and rolled across Europe.

This is small fry being pumped with steroids to make it seem like a massive change in our relationship with the EU. In reality it is some small changes around the edges.

If ever someone had made a worthless deal and wanted to sell it to the public as if it was a magic exemption from all the EU's meddling in our lives, like the EU Human Rights Law that protects us from this Police State country over reaching in its step, then this is it.

When I was younger I liked being able to hop on a plane and just go to Spain to live. I had no job but that didn't matter, free movement of people and workers meant we could all go where we wanted when we wanted without border checks, citizenship tests and green cards.

For those who have never lived abroad and have only gone to Ibiza on your holiday or maybe a trip to Paris on Valentines day then you won't really think about the difference between a holiday and actually being able to pick up your bags and literally run off to any part of Europe with no questions asked.

However whilst Spain has always been the old stereotyped destination for our UK retirees it seems over recent year the US, Australia and the rest of the world have overtaken Europe for the primary destination for those with one foot in the grave.

The top 10 destinations for Britons to retire to are now:
  • Channel Islands: 73,030
  • Germany: 96,938
  • France: 172,806
  • Ireland: 253,605
  • South Africa: 305,660
  • New Zealand: 313,850
  • Spain: 381,025
  • Canada: 674,371
  • United States of America: 758,919
  • Australia: 1,277,474
So maybe the modern "cultured" Brit is changing their retirement plans and thinking a bit more further than the Costa Del Crime nowadays.

Spain has always been our number one destination for holidays and retirees. A place where you can enjoy the 40° heat and drink British beer in pubs frequented by famous English gangsters on the run.

So many famous British gangsters have been out to the Costa Del Sol no wonder we call it the Costa Del Crime.

However it seems we are looking wider than Med for our retirement plans - that's if we get any pension money. I doubt I will ever see any from the thousands I have put into the system over my working career. It seems the Tories want us to work until our 80's and the age is constantly being pushed upwards.

There have been rumblings from Tory think tanks for years now from people already on hundreds of thousands of pounds a month pensions who believe we should do voluntary work in our retirement to collect our hard earned pension.

Leaving the EU won't stop any evil Tory plans from coming to fruition and if we want a REAL CHANGE in our democracy and the way we act in the world we should be thinking about NATO. 

What would we do if Turkey start a war with Russia over Syria, we would be forced to fight on their side whether they started the war by deception or not. I am more worried about World War III happening due to duplicitous NATO allies at the moment than the amount of money we pay in and get back in rebates from the EU.

We should also be thinking about how the Tories have tripled our national debt in the years they were supposedly "fixing the roof whilst the sun was shining", and supposedly cutting the ever so important deficit. The deficit may have dropped but the total amount of debt has increased hugely due to the Tories thinking that the poorer we all are, the more money we will spend.

They have failed us. In Europe, on the world stage and most importantly at home.

Austerity hasn't worked at all and the national debt has ballooned because of the Tories core voters (the grey brigade), will vote against anyone who dares to cut their pensions.

These take up a vast proportion of the social security budget and will undoubtedly be ignored whist the disabled and poor are forced to suffer through the bedroom tax, universal credit, and the severe lack of social housing we have in this country.

Europe has no control over these areas of our lives and if we want to sort out our country we really need to get rid of the failed Tories and try their method of printing money, not at 0% interest rates so the Banksters can lend it to us through companies like WONGA at 5,853% APR, but to invest in infrastructure, building new homes and putting people through education. If we can do it for the banks why can't we do it for the people?

Remember we were in a much worse off state in the years after WWII. We only just finished off paying our debt to the US a few years ago under Gordon Brown.

Despite that we still created the NHS, cleared the slums of London and built thousands of new houses and multiple new towns for the people moved out of London. Plus we ushered in an age of economic prosperity that latest decades.

It is only short-sighted Tory thinking that keeps us in the current trap we are in. One where bankers must be bailed out even though they should be in jail, and the poor are paying off the national debt, despite having no money.

If only we would just wipe any national debt on citizens like Iceland did to many mortgage holders that were linked to inflation. It sounds crazy but would put money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it, plus create a huge demand for goods and a rise in GDP.

Having a "National Bank" that can print money as long as it's for investment in houses and jobs could give us full employment, cheaper rent and accommodation costs and more money in the pocket to spend to increase GDP.

At the moment our whole economy, just like it was during Labours time in office, is built on the house of cards made from debt. People remortgaging houses or taking out loans to spend on goods. An unsustainable recovery. Screw the bankers who say it cannot be done. We did it for you, why can't we do it to actually help rebuild our country?

So the question is, are people going to think with their heads or their hearts about this exit from the EU.

A lot has changed with the European project to stop a further European war after WWII, with France and Germany the two main actors in this union coming together to ensure that the rest of Europe sticks together and shows "solidarity".

From stopping a war to free trade agreements and a central bank. Then a EU flag, courts and parliament. Then laws enforced on us which we don't want. All whilst we pay billions to be part of a club that's money could be better spent on hospitals and schools. That is one argument for leaving.

The problem is that war fades in people's minds, especially those who never fought in WWII or who had family who did.

"What does the EU have to do with WWII" many people will ask. 


Now that the EU project is more about creating a super state, it spies on us and hands over all bank transactions to the US as well as traces of our Internet history and anything else the NSA overlords demand. However even if we leave the EU I guess due to our "special relationship", with the US, we would still carry on letting our GCHQ be the NSA's bitch, so nothing would change on the police state front.

Also whilst we may collaborate as a big trading block to face China, the BRICS and North American trading blocks, can the BREXIT crew really convince us that on an economic scale we would really be better outside this trading block.

Selling tea to India, ornaments to Russia and other small manufactured products across the world is the BREXIT plan. We don't build big things anymore. Our ship building industry is almost gone and we have offshored so many jobs that actually make things, you know jobs good for all those skilled manual workers we are trying to find jobs for, that we are just a service economy. Selling ideas, concepts and of course bank trickery.

If we leave the EU will we survive without the cheap gas and electricity we import from the EU, or will we get extra tariffs put on them putting us even further into debt. The French/Chinese nuclear power stations that were supposed to be on their way have only just been signed off.

It will take another 20 years at least until we see these new power stations so we will be relying on our dwindling North Sea Oil stocks and imports seeing that we never really bothered investing in green energy.

This is despite being an island surrounded by multiple ways of making energy from natural sources such as the sea, wind and sun. We have loads of places to put under sea turbines that use wave power and windmills off shore to take in their blustery winds. We really never tried as we suffered from a  "not in my back garden" mentality, whenever a wind farm was proposed to be build anyway near a house.

So will people even consider the financial terms of leaving or will they think what the Sun, Daily Mail and other trash papers tell them to think?

The EU is a debt ridden collection of states that turned the thumb screws on Greece, Italy and Spain all so that they could enforce austerity, increase taxes and pay back Goldman Sachs and that other evil trio, the European Bank, IMF and World Bank.

Do we want to live in a place that see's solidarity between nations as one that involves throwing the poor to the dogs so that their rich Banksters who caused the mess can be fully compensated. Plus solidarity is not where Germany gets to bend the rules but smaller states can't lest they risk German austerity plans as the cost of remaining in the Euro.

This financial crisis that has still not been solved since 2008 is just waiting for another explosion. When it comes it will make 2008 look like a picnic.

Will the UK, the hub of banksters from the terrorist supporting, Mexican drug dealing, al-Qaeda funding HSBC to the corrupt Barclay's brothers, really be better inside or out when the next economic explosion occurs.

As the City of London is basically it's own country within a country, where the leaders of the companies and banks get to sit on their special council and can "command" the Chancellor to appear before them, they will probably see no difference in their money making schemes whether we leave or stay.

To me it all depends on who is in charge.

The Tories seem to want to put the strain of any recovery on the backs of the working class whilst rewarding their rich friends.

Their recent budget removed £30 from the disabled people of our country that gave them support to get dressed and move about and instead they have given the richest more tax breaks. It is clear where their priorities lie. Voting Tory is like voting for a gang rape on yourself. Why people do it I have no idea.

On the other hand Labour, SNP, the Greens and Lib Dems feel that a more even policy that involves banksters going to jail and splitting up the banks between Casinos and Savings is called for.

On top of that more measures that don't punish the poor but instead help them climb up the ladder whilst the rich who have become more wealthy in the last 5+ years are made to contribute their fair share.

Whether they will actually stick to their words is a totally different matter. We just have to look at the Lib Dems when they got their taste of power to see how power corrupts and good promises become faded memories.

So what will make you vote yes or no when the time comes?

EU Democracy or the lack of it?

The prospect of war?

Finance and austerity?

Migration?

Not being held to account to the European Convention of Human Rights (an act the Tories wrote after WWII to show how civilised we are)

Or something else?

Let me know.

View the original article at www.darkolitricks.com.

By Dark Politricks 

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

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

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?

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?

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?