Please watch the video first to best understand the topic: [video=youtube;zq2Vp86ntlU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq2Vp86ntlU&feature=player_embedded[/video] Nobody told MP Gerard Batten the Brits are famous for understatement. He got off a couple of good ones that go right to the heart of the matter: I wish Batten and everybody else would stop confusing The Americans with our federal government. The two are separate entities. Batten was right in telling Hussein to flick-off; nevertheless, I have to say that he does not understand Husseins real concern. All of the talk about one telephone call and Americas interests is nonsense. Americas federal government NOT the American people have but one interest. Hussein is out to destroy Americas sovereignty along with destroying the very concept of sovereign nations. Naturally, Hussein & Company do not want to see a Sovereignty Movement get off the ground should the UK withdraw from the EU. Hell, those dumb limeys might even give a bunch of countries the idea that dropping out of the United Nations is in their best interests. Then where will the New World Order crowd go! Now, if only a few members of Congress would tell Hussein to mind his own freaking business. And please do not tell me that surrendering Americas sovereignty to a global government is the business of every president. Let me close with some good advice for everybody in Washington:
The CIA should keep its fat nose out of the UK and anyone else can sod off as well. Britain should be well out of the EU.
Sovereignty and ideas as such in 2013 are obsolete & clichéid when Google, Yahoo, I-Phones, MasterCard, VISA, Satellite TV are people's food. Sovereignty etc are too obsolete when I from the other side of Earth can purchase American products and services and influence American economy heavily without being a US citizen and vice versa. The idea of conventional state and ethnic sovereignty took shape in the Middle Ages when tiny groups of people responded to the natural need to manage and protect the scarce food and resources in a cruel, chaotic, barbaric world. The proud monarchies originating in the Middle Ages are nothing more than tribes with metal swords and castles wearing each other down in an ever perpetuating chaotic blood shed and I really mean this, in every technical aspect. There were tribes in Medieval Africa much larger in population than many if not all European kingdoms. But now this food & security side has spread across the entire planet involuntarily, because people now are civilized and since 1995 because they love the the global electronic market and evolve through it more than through anything else in history. Because they are free to access any ideas whether authority likes it or not, people have gone ahead of their sovereigns in managing the world electronically and have involuntarily rendered them obsolete. Google and Yahoo are successful mostly because people say so, a common voice that truly is people's voice and people's interest in the most sincere and accurate way, all 7 billion of us. They/us push sovereigns and companies back and forth in whatever way our common, TRULY HUMAN voice likes. I think globalism for the first time imposes the true voice of the people on the always controversial politicians and they can't do anything but obey us. Now, we, thankfully have too much in common to want to kill each other. Today we don't need so many local sovereignties. One here, one there are more than enough to keep an eye on things. Apart from that, the electronic market rules everything including them. If people want sovereignty of the old type, they should give up the internet and spread their messages via ink on paper mail and street posters like some annoying sects.
To Vlad Ivx: What the hell does that have to do with national sovereignty? If all of the technology you cite had never been invented you could still buy American products only not as quickly. And unless you can organize a worldwide boycott of American products the only influence you have is to NOT purchase American products. Incidentally, whatever anybody buys is not a free pass to come here. In fact, nobody gives a rat’s ass what you buy. Just don’t come here demanding entry on the strength of your credit card receipts. The rest of your response is the most absurd nonsense I’ve ever heard for abolishing national sovereignty. Your entire premise is based on rapid communications, rapid transportation, and touchy-feely environmental garbage like “. . . manage and *protect* the scarce food and resources. . .”. Get real. The problem is distribution not scarcity. Americans could feed the world if the government got out of the way.
I said sovereignty was invented in the Middle Ages to manage the local economy/money and now the economy and the money have forgot about sovereignty and gone way beyond them. I wasn't going to... And even if I wanted I could explore a lot electronically. You're reading between lines. Didn't mention anything environmental here, nor any scarceness relating to today. I was talking about the Middle Ages... I agree with this. How does this contradict anything I've ever said on the Political Forum? But I don't think your government is the real problem.
What I meant by this is that the need for managing food and security has become identical in terms of approach / style to all the planet while some governments still try to manage it locally. They're actually managing only a small bit of something much larger. Sovereignty itself has forced itself above the little state like a global being driven by the collective interests of largest masses of people. A better way to have said the quoted line is: But now this food & security cult has spread across the entire planet involuntarily - a perfected version of it, perfected by the very essence of humanity (it's been very much perfected - the originally local management that people specifically designed for themselves to survive is now global through the very economic tendencies of all the humans as a planetary mass). This is now possible, as opposed to the Middle Ages, because people now are civilized and since 1995 they love the global electronic market and evolve through it more than through anything else in history.
Batten is an MEP. He's a member of the European Parliament, not the British. He's a UKIP member. They have no seats in the Houses of Parliament, because they are a party of oddballs, nutjobs and rightwing lunatics.
UK is now a multicultural craphouse. Five hundred years of Anglican Church (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ry, two wars with their German cousins, and leftist governments. Sad.
Don't worry. The EU is here to correct all that. Regarding multiculturalism, it will at least be even across Europe rather than all of it jammed in the UK.
I gotta admit I enjoyed the video, from the American point of view of course... To see how some UKans would resort to destroying their relations with the USA and Europe as well, 2 surrounding superpowers in the name of an idea even they can't grasp: the UK is not a state but four and yes multiculturalism is there and says 'we' regarding Britain, as we can see in the video as well so what point is UKIP trying to make here.........? America is right as usual There is nobody who discovered it is not and lived to tell about it
Hussein & Company screwed up everything they touched in the first term. From the way the second term is starting out it seems they will continue the countrys losing streak: British sovereignty is obviously linked to a global government ideology. Aside from the Brits, the Arab Spring, terrorist groups in Africa, riots in European cities, etc., look like a global government scare tactic to me. The violence is real enough, but I have to believe it was all engineered by intelligence agencies controlled by ruling elitists. To believe otherwise is to believe that the people running First World governments all have a collective death wish. Or else they are so dumb, and so powerless, they can only standby and helplessly watch Islam march towards a worldwide caliphate unhindered. The question is WHY is it happening? Answer: Seemingly uncontrolled violence is the best way to stampede the American people into finally saying We need a global government to end the violence for our own self-protection. Im sure there are Muslims heading Islamic governments who will benefit from a global government as much as will Americas traitors. Unfortunately for the average Muslim they are being setup as cannon fodder. Before the deceivers are in position to unleash all of the military force they command, Muslims would do well to ask why they have been allowed to infiltrate so many countries? Why every government in the countries theyve infiltrated welcomed Muslims, protected them; and stood by when they began to tear down their host country? What questions would Muslims be asking if Muslim governments did the same thing with Christians? Remember, the EU working with national governments is responsible for mass migrations from the Muslim world to Europe. The UK getting out of the EU will bring the house of cards down in Europe. The ripple effect has to spread to the UN and the move towards global government. That is what Hussein is trying to stop, Just so Im not misinterpreted let me be clear about one thing. Jihad must be defeated once and for all. Global government is the NOT the way to do it.
I'm not sure why the UK remaining in the EU is in America's interests. I think the President should at least explain why it's a US national interest or ****.
If what he said made sence I might believe it, although his record on that isn't very encouraging. More bothersome to me is that he doesn't feel he needs to bother to explain himself and the press can't keep their mouths off his johnson long enough to ask.
The last American president, George W. Bush, was strongly opposed to the idea of a European "super-state". A thread from 2003 in another political forum where they are talking about why a EU would not be in the best interests of America: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23100
Do you live in 2003? That was 10 years ago. Back then even Barroso was seeing the idea as unrealistic. However the world today looks so much different than back then. Let me give a few examples: Since 2003, the world's population grew by over a billion and is accelerating. Over 2 billion joined the e-commerce since then. The cheaper and cheaper technology in these last 10 years made the already international companies expand their business tenfold beyond their original national borders. Local politics exists to manage local economy and money and whether you like it or not all the economy, commerce, money, businesses, products circulate in full disregard of the old borders. This is the reality whether ppl like you can accept reality or not and the deepening international economy naturally drags politics along and demands readjustments from it. Why? Because politics are just an extension of economics, designed to help economics fit and work properly in the area where they manifest. If politics now stay the old way it means we have an erratic world where we let the biggest companies do the politics more or less consciously for us. It is a natural process that made the EU open the talks about political union. Otherwise how come it didn't come up with this in 1981 or 1990 or whatever??? Why would anybody appear out of the blue with an idea of a United Europe right now without valid reasons that all countries can see? In the past the EU did not because times did not demand it that badly.
Sense? The Church dates back, allegedly, to Joseph or Arimathia's coming here, and we had innumerable wars two wars with imperialists and one with nazis, followed by popurlar government, however brief. Are you sober?
Or, as some would suggest, that was all the real plan from the beginning, and it was more about manipulating public opinion, first easing them into a monetary union (which never delivered on the promised benefits), and then waiting for the inevitable crisis to create a sense of urgency for greater political unification, which would otherwise have not been possible.
My question to those who suggest that is: What grounds does this conspiracy theory sit onto? Why would that be? Are these the same people who note that the queen of England, George W. Bush etc are reptilians in disguise that come from space to rule the world in secret? I'll tell you what the plan was from the very beginning: Europe was in such piles of rubble after World War II and all its people couldn't see beyond tomorrow. They didn't actually know whether tomorrow would ever come and if it did everyone was genuinely sure it would bring a new war, even bigger war, in the same way WWII was way bigger than WWI. Remember that we're talking about the same generations that witnessed the end of the First World War, A great hell that will never happen again, or at least that's how everybody chanted when it ended. Don't you make the connection between the 50s and the interwar period when in less than 20 years after 1918 people could already foresee the Second World War? When this one too was finally concluded, with entire regions, populations & countries having been drained of everything, people were so sure extremism would rise again to cope with that and it would just create new rivalry and a new war. On the other hand they couldn't possibly imagine how USA and USSR would exist on the same planet without eventually trying to annihilate one another. People were so convinced that a third phase, a Third World War was on the way as the next sequence of a natural cycle of human behavior... a war that this time will be nuclear. People had started seeing humanity and altruism as joke ideas out of philosophy books. The terror of WWIII didn't stop until the early 70s. Before then were times when people lived in terror, anticipating the ultimate nuclear war. Many thinkers, sociologists and analysts believed it's impossible for people to be at peace anymore now that technology has evolved in such a way that complex prolonged attacks can be launched on rivals. People genuinely feared, were 100% convinced it's just a matter of time before the new one comes. This European design was launched in an effort to pull people together somehow and safeguard them and their leaders from war and famine on the long term, to shift the odds in favor of peace.
Peace is not always better than war, you know. There is a reason wars are fought in the first place. Peace at what price, and at what risk? The first world war was waged by belligerent powers which were not democracies, while the axis powers that waged the second world war had not enough time for democracy to establish itself. Can you find any examples of belligerent powers in recent world history which were also places where democracy had been established for more than 30 years? We should take as much lesson from the world wars as we should from the Soviet Union. What if the Soviet Union had turned into a state like North Korea? Would there have been anything stopping this from happening?
Yes, the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was since 1918 officially accepted as democratic by the international community. Yet it is a prime example so well polished in the victor's justice that everybody misses the facts. The UK is such a belligerent power on its own that on the 10th of May 1941 it rejected a peace proposal from Germany. Hitler knew he was the demon of Europe that nobody believes so he sent a flesh and blood peace proposal to the United Kingdom in the form of one of his finest men, Rudolf Hess. The top ranking Nazi Rudolf Hess landed in the United Kingdom on May 10 1941 unarmed with an unarmed plane carrying a diplomatic message of peace and Churchill threw him straight into prison, in the Soviet Union style, where he also died. No wonder the hate of the Germans for the UK grew so much from invisible to great after that event. The UK is a country that recently waged war and wasted lives for the sake of some rocks sticking out of the ocean. Some lost rocks in the South Atlantic. The Falklands War. What has the United Kingdom got to do with the Malvinas? What has the UK got to do with Greece in 1945? What has Nazi Germany got to do with Algeria, Libya and Egypt in 1942? You may wear the democratic badge or you may not. That won't change any of your intentions. Also it was 'democratic' UK together with France that wanted war with Hitler not the other way around. France btw was pretty democratic when the First World War started. The Soviet Union in Stalin's time was just as bad as North Korea is today.
Hitler wanted to neutralise at best Britain or bring it onto his side against Russia. Churchill hardly rejected a 'peace deal'. The Malvinas? You mean the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands are an overseas territory of the UK and the people of the islands have the right to self-determination. Argentina was a very unwelcome, but short lived occupier, there in 1982. The UK defended them, so who waged war?
If UKIP is a party of oddballs, nutjobs and rightwing lunatics then what does that make the SNP? I'd be careful what you say about UKIP. Cameron said something similar about them but they are so popular at the moment - they have overtaken the LibDems as the UK's third party - that they are threatening to take votes off the Tories and now he's regretting what he said.
Europe isn't a superpower. It's a continent, and one with no military to speak of but, apart from Britain, full of lots of second-rates militaries that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Stop this delusion that Europe, a continent in demographic and economic decline, is some sort of important player in the world. The UK is one state, not four. If it was four there would be 30 member states of the EUSSR rather than 27.
