Wuffles":2mrr1arf said:
phil.p":2mrr1arf said:
No - he was rude, arrogant and a complete and utter prikk who shot his own side in the foot.
You're talking about Farage yes? We agree.
I am of course joking, you're never going to enjoy either his humour, or his point of view. Much like I'll never understand the fascination with Farage, nor his sense of humour, which I presume is buried somewhere inside that Arthur Daley exterior.
I don't like Farage either, but I watched almost all of the show: Farage was trying to make serious points and answer questions as put (mostly!).
Izzard, as far as I can tell was just trying to be awkward and playing for laughs. I know Izzard is bright - an intellectual if you will - and I was actually hoping for some sensible debate. I'd have respected him for it.
For what it's worth, Farage spent the first ten years or so of his political career spending time and money, talking to crowds of twenty in village halls across the country, pushing leaflets through letterboxes (that he'd paid for) and dealing with idiots in UKIP who had absolutely no idea how to do practical politics. He worked very hard, and it cost him a great deal. To me he is an enigma (and quite impossible to work with!) but he is sincere, and knows his brief very well. You might have noticed he was making no defence of the silly "350m weekly to Brussels" thing - behind the scenes he probably raised merry hell about it being used in the first place (what an avoidable own goal!).
I definitely wouldn't want him as prime minister, but I don't despise him either. And, as I've tried to show during these discussions, the answers that people say they want -- the facts -- are out there. The trouble is people so want the EU to be right and true, they often aren't prepared to take a realistic look at the available evidence, and the answers are not the things they want to hear.
Turn the question round the other way: if we were outside the EU right now and contemplating joining it, how would you vote?
We know we were deceived from the outset - why did our politicians feel the need to lie to the electorate and to parliament about loss of sovereignty, and continue to do so for at least 40 years ("shared sovereignty" being akin to being slightly pregnant)?
We know the Euro was a political project, that economically it's an utter failure, and that the house is about to come crashing down - the question is when, not if (probably when the Greek issue comes up again in two months time). Our treaty obligations mean we ARE on the financial hook even though we're not in the euro (don't take my word for it - go read the things. Osborne is very much hoping you won't!). Cameron's 'deal' isn't worth the paper, etc. as nothing he's negotiated stands without treaty modification first, and that is not going to happen in any universe I've yet come across.
Why does no Remain campaigner want to tell the truth about this "little local difficulty"?
We know immigration is unsustainable, and that we will _never_ be allowed proper control of our borders, We haven't since we signed the Maastricht treaty way back in 1992 (free movement 'n' all). Ask anyone working in inner-city healthcare or education or housing services where the overload is coming from. Yet the Remain campaign (and Izzard typifies this) refuse to let this be discussed, shutting it down with howls of racism. I'll admit they're finding this increasingly hard to do now, but it's a tactic that's been used for decades.
It's a simple fact: the current pressure on housing, healthcare and education resources is because there are too many people, newly arrived in the UK, requiring these things. We haven't planned for this, we haven't resourced it, and we simply cannot do so in either the short or medium term. This isn't a race, or even a cultural question, but a very immediate and practical one. And doctors, teachers and houses don't grow on trees, and you can't (in the main) buy them from China.
Regulation of ports has just been mentioned. Anyone else wonder if Rotterdam and Antwerp have been doing a bit of quiet lobbying recently? Then there's the remains of the coal and steel community: we made the best steel bar nobody (except possibly the Swedes). Ask anyone in South Wales about their steam coal and how it compared to the nasty brown stuff from Belgium and the Ruhr. Where are those British industries in this "free" market, and why? You'd think they should be prospering, after all people wanted their best-in-class products.
Then there's fishing. Even if you are magnanimous enough to say we were right to "share" our fishing grounds with our EU partners (following policy introduced <24 hours before we applied to join), the whole thing has been an utter disaster: our industry all but destroyed, the North Sea and Atlantic grounds all but emptied of fish and turned into environmental disaster areas. And how did the EU 'fix' this - it appointed a commissioner from landlocked Austria!
Don't get me started on the Common Agricultural Policy and the damage it has done to our farms.
Name one single aspect of life where the EU benefits us BECAUSE it's the EU - I struggle to think of anything! there's plenty of sensible law alongside the loony stuff, but look closely at the environmental law and so on, and you'll see it could just as well have been made in Westminster, with proper scrutiny and without the need for the EU at all. Nations don't need an EU to cooperate together in their mutual interest!
The House of Commons library recently stated that around 55% of our laws now come from Brussels. These are usually not subject to parliamentary scrutiny here, and we have no control over them and certainly no ability to repeal them presently.
I mentioned the Arrest Warrant and Europol - the apparatus IS being put in place for a police state (with the political and economic situation in Greece and Spain presently, the EU probably thinks it really needs this!). Our courts and our police are not 'ours' any more. The idea of a warranted constabulary is wholly alien to the EU's Corpus Juris. Where is this going? Scarily, we have some clues...
... The day after the referendum, literally, there will be a debate in Brussels on the formation of an EU army. It will pass as the EP has an overwhelming pro-superstate majority (they have to vote on it in Strasbourg of course!). That means any soldiers from here taking part in it will have to forswear any loyalty to the Crown (as British EU bureaucrats already do).
An EU army isn't needed for aid projects in the third world, on interdiction activities against people smugglers. And it won't be used to face down Putin either (well, some EU bureaucrats are crazy enough, etc.).
Are you ready for British soldiers, wearing EU berets, on our streets to put down an 'insurrection' against the EU?
Incompetency, coupled with paranoia, control freakery, corruption and a LOT of other people's money.
The closer you look, the more chilling it all is.
To come back to the real point: if we were contemplating JOINING the EU today, rather than leaving it, what on earth would make us do so - apart from yet more lies and deception?
E.
