Boris Johnson needs to be Prime Minister
- Thread starter JJJA
- Start date
Misadventure
butt fros and asian purrs
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION]
I confess that politics in general aren't my strong suit, let alone politics in the UK. Making a basket overhanded from behind is quite impressive, but knowing you, I'm sure there are many other reasons why he would have your support. Care to share?
I confess that politics in general aren't my strong suit, let alone politics in the UK. Making a basket overhanded from behind is quite impressive, but knowing you, I'm sure there are many other reasons why he would have your support. Care to share?
This may sound quite ridiculous, but I have just read an article which just came out stating that British Conservative MP Liam Fox might run for leader of the Party. If that is the case, I will vote for him instead. Here are a few reasons why:
-He would guarantee future Anglo-American relations to flourish under his leadership as he considers himself tied to Atlanticism.
-He voted for Saddam's removal from power and criticised the post-invasion planning, but at least he understands the importance of defeating totalitarianism.
-He supports the defeat of ISIS without a doubt in his mind about their responsibilities and the crimes they have committed.
-He is socially liberal and fully supported the gay marriage legislation.
-He understands the real threat to world peace and wishes to never allow Iran to build capable nuclear weapons and also wishes to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent as he also understands that there are several states out there that wish to use nuclear weapons against Western countries.
-He is staunchly Euro-sceptic and realises that the European Union is now (and has been for some time) a politically-motivated Union with a failed monetary policy and will vote for Britain to leave the EU in the June referendum.
-He is a strong believer in the Special Relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States.
-He is critical of Edward Snowden's mass exposure of elements of the security services to public newspapers.
-He is against Nationalism of all kinds, including the newly developed Scottish Nationalism.
-Fox wanted Britain to do more to help the Syrians form their own destiny under a better government, and thinks more military intervention is needed via the establishment of 'safe havens' for Syrians which can protect them from Islamofascist thugs.
Overall, I think he is a very rational person with his head screwed on the right way. I take issue with his involvement in expenses issues, but it is nothing too far as to warrant him untrustworthy of leadership. He's no political fanatic, he isn't tainted by shabby deals and he certainly respects Western liberal values.
Despite all these points, it is more likely that Boris Johnson will be pitting against George Osbourne for the next leadership contest after David Cameron stands down. If that becomes the reality, I will vote for Boris because he holds many of the points I have raised above.
-He would guarantee future Anglo-American relations to flourish under his leadership as he considers himself tied to Atlanticism.
-He voted for Saddam's removal from power and criticised the post-invasion planning, but at least he understands the importance of defeating totalitarianism.
-He supports the defeat of ISIS without a doubt in his mind about their responsibilities and the crimes they have committed.
-He is socially liberal and fully supported the gay marriage legislation.
-He understands the real threat to world peace and wishes to never allow Iran to build capable nuclear weapons and also wishes to maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent as he also understands that there are several states out there that wish to use nuclear weapons against Western countries.
-He is staunchly Euro-sceptic and realises that the European Union is now (and has been for some time) a politically-motivated Union with a failed monetary policy and will vote for Britain to leave the EU in the June referendum.
-He is a strong believer in the Special Relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States.
-He is critical of Edward Snowden's mass exposure of elements of the security services to public newspapers.
-He is against Nationalism of all kinds, including the newly developed Scottish Nationalism.
-Fox wanted Britain to do more to help the Syrians form their own destiny under a better government, and thinks more military intervention is needed via the establishment of 'safe havens' for Syrians which can protect them from Islamofascist thugs.
Overall, I think he is a very rational person with his head screwed on the right way. I take issue with his involvement in expenses issues, but it is nothing too far as to warrant him untrustworthy of leadership. He's no political fanatic, he isn't tainted by shabby deals and he certainly respects Western liberal values.
Despite all these points, it is more likely that Boris Johnson will be pitting against George Osbourne for the next leadership contest after David Cameron stands down. If that becomes the reality, I will vote for Boris because he holds many of the points I have raised above.
For those that haven't yet Googled his name, Boris is the current Mayor of London and it is likely he will announce his leadership campaign once he steps down as Mayor. Here is a video of his speech at the Conservative Party Conference of 2015. He discusses the results of the General Election, PC culture, Jeremy Corbyn's mob of Social Justice Warriors, Regressive tactics of the Left, and cracks a few hilarious jokes.
[video=youtube;j2jJQumLfg8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2jJQumLfg8[/video]
As many commentators have pointed out, there is a whiff of Churchill emanating from his persona, his views, his wit, and his talent for leadership.
[video=youtube;j2jJQumLfg8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2jJQumLfg8[/video]
As many commentators have pointed out, there is a whiff of Churchill emanating from his persona, his views, his wit, and his talent for leadership.
Last edited:
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] I guess you are a Tory which I can't say is a surprise, too bad. A few points
(1) The "special relationship" one that not only UK Tories, but Canadian Tories natter on endlessly about. Only thing missing is the Americans. You see they really don't care what the world thinks about them and they don't truly want allies. What they really want is use to use their leverage to make other countries in the world support whatever current intervention they think is important. This is nothing like an equal partnership, its more like shut up and do what we decide is best.
(2) Doesn't everyone support the defeat of Daesh? I haven't heard anyone think this group of criminals is a good thing. The question is how to get rid of them?
(3) Glad to hear Mr. Fox is socially liberal and doesn't support nationalism, on this we can agree.
(4) Maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent? I have to ask why and why this point is at all relevant. Does some country want to bomb the UK?
(5) Military intervention in Syria? Is there any support for this position in the UK? Does he mean troops in an advisory role like Trudeau is proposing?
(1) The "special relationship" one that not only UK Tories, but Canadian Tories natter on endlessly about. Only thing missing is the Americans. You see they really don't care what the world thinks about them and they don't truly want allies. What they really want is use to use their leverage to make other countries in the world support whatever current intervention they think is important. This is nothing like an equal partnership, its more like shut up and do what we decide is best.
(2) Doesn't everyone support the defeat of Daesh? I haven't heard anyone think this group of criminals is a good thing. The question is how to get rid of them?
(3) Glad to hear Mr. Fox is socially liberal and doesn't support nationalism, on this we can agree.
(4) Maintaining Britain's nuclear deterrent? I have to ask why and why this point is at all relevant. Does some country want to bomb the UK?
(5) Military intervention in Syria? Is there any support for this position in the UK? Does he mean troops in an advisory role like Trudeau is proposing?
"Too bad" - Very childish snarl. Too bad because I am not unanimously endorsing your bizarre determination to impose gender quotas in government cabinets and opposing capitalism because, as Boris said, you've forgotten what Communism was like.
I've had to tell you this several times before: I am not a Tory. I am endorsing an individual member of the Conservative Party whom I think can make a good leader out of himself in a Prime Ministerial position. Your collectivist mind is rather opaque as you show an unwillingness to separate the group-think consciousness of what makes a 'tory' and the fact that some people might view politicians and Party members through the lens of judging by the individual merit (I am seeing a pattern here with your disdain for meritocracy).
1. The alliance covers several international military, health, humanitarian and anti-criminal treaties and unions which were designed to help keep the world genuinely safe from a variety of threats. You seem to be pathologically obsessed with placing the term 'Tory' or 'Right-wing' onto every political idea you claim to despise without actually giving anyone a genuine point of argument. It is clear you have your own very personal political agenda because all of your questions and answers shift toward generalisations about the word 'Conservative'. The term is used to a variety of extents and effects, and the UK Conservative Party was (ironically) the first party to make gay marriage legal nation-wide, as an example of combating your prejudgement of the term.
2. Why call them Daesh? They're called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Key word: 'Islamic'. It is important to point out that whilst everyone can agree on the need for ISIS to be eliminated, many people refuse to tackle the core purpose of the organization and fail to criticise the theocratic ideas enshrined in the made-up constitution of Islamofascists; and it has everything to do with religion.
3. As I have already pointed out, the Conservatives in the UK are more socially liberal than US Democrats.
4. The nuclear deterrent will always be relevant and needed as long as rogue and/or borderline extremist states wish to lie about their involvement in the non-proliferation treaty (Iran) or actively seek war with Western countries and overtly express the intention to build nuclear weapons (North Korea).
5. I thought my posts explained this: the 'safe havens' I refer to means protecting civilians in Syria by setting up perimeters around towns and cities, as well as sending regular humanitarian aid and resources to the civilians whilst using ground forces to target ISIS strongholds. Win+win situation. The only thing stopping us is Assad's determination to wage war on his own citizens and the likely Islamic extremist groups infiltrating the resistance groups operating against the Assad regime.
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] When you said you were intent on voting for Mr. Fox as leader of the Conservative Party does that not make you a member of that party? Do individuals who are not party members allowed to vote for the leader? If that is the case, then you have my apologies for calling you a Tory, otherwise being a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party you can safely be called a Tory.
1. I object to the special relationship idea. There is no such thing as a special relationship with the Americans, as I have said before. Americans act in their own interest and as a country and the UK (and Canada) would do well to act in their own national interest first and foremost and not worry about preserving some relationship that truly doesn't exist.
2. I call them Daesh because that's what they are. I give them no respect by calling them "The Islamic State" because they in no way represent or are representative of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Just because they call themselves the "Islamic State" and claim to be establishing a worldwide caliphate doesn't mean we should accept their pretentious claims. Cameron, the French Foreign Ministry has started called them Daesh which they hate. Daesh started to be used as an acronym for the IS group in Arabic. .A principal reason for using the acronym was to remove the words “Islamic” and “State” in reference to the group.The term "Daesh" is also considered insulting, and the IS group itself doesn’t like the name one bit. “Daesh” sounds like the Arabic term “Daes”, meaning “one who crushes something underfoot”, as well as “Dahes”, which means “one who sows discord”. They have threatened to "cut out the tongues" of people using this term.
3. Yes I know. Canadian Conservatives are also for the most more liberal than many US democrats.
4. Ok. It seem like a remote possibility that North Korean or even Iranian missiles are going to rain down on the UK.
5. Yes this is what Trudeau has proposed and what Canadian troop will be doing in the near future.
1. I object to the special relationship idea. There is no such thing as a special relationship with the Americans, as I have said before. Americans act in their own interest and as a country and the UK (and Canada) would do well to act in their own national interest first and foremost and not worry about preserving some relationship that truly doesn't exist.
2. I call them Daesh because that's what they are. I give them no respect by calling them "The Islamic State" because they in no way represent or are representative of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Just because they call themselves the "Islamic State" and claim to be establishing a worldwide caliphate doesn't mean we should accept their pretentious claims. Cameron, the French Foreign Ministry has started called them Daesh which they hate. Daesh started to be used as an acronym for the IS group in Arabic. .A principal reason for using the acronym was to remove the words “Islamic” and “State” in reference to the group.The term "Daesh" is also considered insulting, and the IS group itself doesn’t like the name one bit. “Daesh” sounds like the Arabic term “Daes”, meaning “one who crushes something underfoot”, as well as “Dahes”, which means “one who sows discord”. They have threatened to "cut out the tongues" of people using this term.
3. Yes I know. Canadian Conservatives are also for the most more liberal than many US democrats.
4. Ok. It seem like a remote possibility that North Korean or even Iranian missiles are going to rain down on the UK.
5. Yes this is what Trudeau has proposed and what Canadian troop will be doing in the near future.
Call me what you damn well like, it doesn't mean that is what I stand for. Whatever helps you sleep at night. You can call me a fascist if it helps you feel any better.
I really do wish you would stop lying on a public forum. It is clear that you don't actually know the purpose of the Special Relationship, nor do you understand its history. It developed out of World War 2 between Churchill and FDR when they signed the Atlantic Charter - basically signifying an Atlantic alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom. Like it or loathe it, this relationship is a real thing, it does exist and no amount of projecting will make it go away. Just because the US government acts on its own interest does not mean there is no Special Relationship. This alliance stems from our shared culture, language, values, as well as the points I raised in my previous post on the shared treaties. We basically protect each other via this alliance; why would you want to remove it?
It seems that you get your facts about Islam from Ben "It's gross, it's racist!" Affleck.
I understand the meaning behind the word 'Daesh'. It practically means the exact same thing as ISIS, but some politicians prefer to use the term 'Daesh' for entirely political reasons; wishing not to be heard speaking the truth. Goodness, no! Why would you want the truth? Well, here it is: There are indeed 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, but flaunting this statistic doesn't tell us why ISIS are trying to dominate the world. They are murdering anyone in their path that isn't a Muslim because they've been taught every word, letter and syllable from the Qur'an and Hadith in its most literal translation. To better understand how this translates into barbarity is simple: Just like Roman Catholicism, Islam is the bedrock of barbaric ideas stemming from a illiterate, borderline-paedophile warlord called Muhammad which derives its teachings from the middle of the desert during a very intolerant and bigoted moment in human history. These religious Islamic fascist zealots now think they own everything because Allah owns everything, and the last true messenger of God died hundreds of years ago, so all of these fighters are following the orders of, and worshipping, a dead person. The claims of ISIS to restore a caliphate are not just pretentious. They are real threats to the West. I refer you to some writing I did on religion and how it can harm the writing and learning of history with reference to North Korea as the ideal state for a Muslim interpreting their scripture: http://unofficialrantings.tumblr.com/post/120448585741/why-religion-ruins-history-and-facts
The reason the majority of the 1.6 billion people don't go around murdering people is also very simple: They realised that not all of Islamic doctrine is particularly peaceful and decided to grow a conscience. However, if one blatantly ignores Islam as a religion and how evil it really is, one is deliberately distorting the truth and hiding behind false justifications. For instance, blaming ISIS on Western foreign policy is simply bogus; it ignores the attempts by liberal Muslims in Western societies attempting to reform elements of their religion by discussing it openly and honestly. They want to destroy us and not because we 'attacked' them, but because we stand for everything they despise. People such as Maajid Nawaz (The person that coined the term 'Regressive Left'), a Muslim reformer and scholar who was actually an extremist in his younger years had actually stepped into the real world and now works at the Quilliam Foundation in the United Kingdom. These are the people that identify their cause with people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali in openly criticising and ridiculing the fascist totalitarian theocracy that Islamic State represents. They represent Islam's literal and original interpretation. You are choosing to narrow your own mind by ignoring these crucial facts.
Last edited:
Excuse me, but this response is filled with half-truths ignorance about Islamic culture and the Muslims. I don't where you get your so called knowledge of Muslims and Islamic culture. Your off cuff the insult about my ideas coming from Ben Affeck are beneath you, surely you can do better. I was much more amused by the "cultural pessimist" remark
Its mostly swallows the narrative of Daesh whole. Your comments suggest you actually believe that this small group of thugs is somehow representative of Islam and represents "Islam's literal and original interpretation". That's just a total crock. Not every Muslim is a Sunni, not every Sunni is a Wahabi, not every Wahabi is a Jihadist. You support Daesh by unwittingly buying into their narrative. They want everyone to believe they represent all Muslims when they are just a loud tiny minority with grandiose and outrageous claims that the overwhelming majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims reject. Just because they say it doesn't make it true.
At one point in your statement you make the claim that Islam is inherently evil, at another you suggest it can be reformed. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
Its mostly swallows the narrative of Daesh whole. Your comments suggest you actually believe that this small group of thugs is somehow representative of Islam and represents "Islam's literal and original interpretation". That's just a total crock. Not every Muslim is a Sunni, not every Sunni is a Wahabi, not every Wahabi is a Jihadist. You support Daesh by unwittingly buying into their narrative. They want everyone to believe they represent all Muslims when they are just a loud tiny minority with grandiose and outrageous claims that the overwhelming majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims reject. Just because they say it doesn't make it true.
At one point in your statement you make the claim that Islam is inherently evil, at another you suggest it can be reformed. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
I support ISIS? That's the conclusion you reach from all of what I just said?
All of my arguments are backed up with facts. All of them. Name one that isn't.
Continuing this discussion is a façade.
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] I would say you are right about one thing, continuing this discussion is a façade.
D
Deleted member 10171
Thought of this thread when I was reading the article below...so posting it here for others to enjoy/comment on (should you wish to do so).....
Boris Johnson: Americans would never accept EU restrictions — so why should we?
Barack Obama's plan to urge voters to remain in the European Union is a 'piece of outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy', Boris Johnson writes
I love America. I believe in the American dream. Indeed, I hold that the story of the past 100 years has been very largely about how America rose to global greatness — and how America has helped to preserve and expand democracy around the world. In two global conflicts, and throughout the Cold War, the United States has fought for the founding ideals of the republic: that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.
"There is no country in the world that defends its own sovereignty with such hysterical vigilance as the United States of America"
So it is on the face of it a bit peculiar that US government officials should believe that Britain must remain within the EU — a system in which democracy is increasingly undermined.
Some time in the next couple of months we are told that President Obama himself is going to arrive in this country, like some deus ex machina, to pronounce on the matter. Air Force One will touch down; a lectern with the presidential seal will be erected. The British people will be told to be good to themselves, to do the right thing. We will be informed by our most important ally that it is in our interests to stay in the EU, no matter how flawed we may feel that organisation to be. Never mind the loss of sovereignty; never mind the expense and the bureaucracy and the uncontrolled immigration.
The American view is very clear. Whether in code or en clair, the President will tell us all that UK membership of the EU is right for Britain, right for Europe, and right for America. And why? Because that — or so we will be told — is the only way we can have “influence” in the counsels of the nations.
It is an important argument, and deserves to be taken seriously. I also think it is wholly fallacious — and coming from Uncle Sam, it is a piece of outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy.
There is no country in the world that defends its own sovereignty with such hysterical vigilance as the United States of America. This is a nation born from its glorious refusal to accept overseas control. Almost two and a half centuries ago the American colonists rose up and violently asserted the principle that they — and they alone — should determine the government of America, and not George III or his ministers. To this day the Americans refuse to kneel to almost any kind of international jurisdiction. Alone of Western nations, the US declines to accept that its citizens can be subject to the rulings of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. They have not even signed up to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Can you imagine the Americans submitting their democracy to the kind of regime that we have in the EU?
Think of Nafta — the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement — that links the US with Canada and Mexico. Suppose it were constituted on the lines of the EU, with a commission and a parliament and a court of justice. Would the Americans knuckle under — to a Nafta commission and parliament generating about half their domestic law? Would they submit to a Nafta court of justice — supreme over all US institutions — and largely staffed by Mexicans and Canadians whom the people of the US could neither appoint nor remove? No way. The idea is laughable, and completely alien to American traditions. So why is it essential for Britain to comply with a system that the Americans would themselves reject out of hand? Is it not a blatant case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?
Of course it is. As for this precious “influence”, so dearly bought, I am not sure that it is all it is cracked up to be — or that Britain’s EU membership is really so valuable to Washington. Since the very foundation of the Common Market, the Washington establishment has supported the idea of European integration. The notable state department figure George W Ball worked on drafting the Schuman plan in 1950. He was a pallbearer at the funeral of Jean Monnet, the architect of the European project.
The Americans see the EU as a way of tidying up a continent whose conflicts have claimed huge numbers of American lives; as a bulwark against Russia, and they have always conceived it to be in American interests for the UK — their number one henchperson, their fidus Achates — to be deeply engaged. Symmetrically, it has been a Foreign Office superstition that we are more important to Washington if we can plausibly claim to have “influence” in Brussels. But with every year that passes that influence diminishes.
It is not just that we are being ever more frequently outvoted in the council of ministers, and our officials ever more heavily outnumbered in the Commission. The whole concept of “pooling sovereignty” is a fraud and a cheat. We are not really sharing control with other EU governments: the problem is rather that all governments have lost control to the unelected federal machine. We don’t know who they are, or what language they speak, and we certainly don’t know what we can do to remove them at an election.
"There is a profound difference between the US and the EU, and one that will never disappear"
When Americans look at the process of European integration, they make a fundamental category error. With a forgivable narcissism, they assume that we Europeans are evolving — rather haltingly — so as to become just like them: a United States of Europe, a single federal polity. That is indeed what the eurozone countries are trying to build; but it is not right for many EU countries, and it certainly isn’t right for Britain.
There is a profound difference between the US and the EU, and one that will never disappear. The US has a single culture, a single language, a single and powerful global brand, and a single government that commands national allegiance. It has a national history, a national myth, a demos that is the foundation of their democracy. The EU has nothing of the kind. In urging us to embed ourselves more deeply in the EU’s federalising structures, the Americans are urging us down a course they would never dream of going themselves. That is because they are a nation conceived in liberty. They sometimes seem to forget that we are quite fond of liberty, too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12192893/Americans-would-never-accept-EU-restrictions-so-why-should-we.html
Boris Johnson: Americans would never accept EU restrictions — so why should we?
Barack Obama's plan to urge voters to remain in the European Union is a 'piece of outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy', Boris Johnson writes
I love America. I believe in the American dream. Indeed, I hold that the story of the past 100 years has been very largely about how America rose to global greatness — and how America has helped to preserve and expand democracy around the world. In two global conflicts, and throughout the Cold War, the United States has fought for the founding ideals of the republic: that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.
"There is no country in the world that defends its own sovereignty with such hysterical vigilance as the United States of America"
So it is on the face of it a bit peculiar that US government officials should believe that Britain must remain within the EU — a system in which democracy is increasingly undermined.
Some time in the next couple of months we are told that President Obama himself is going to arrive in this country, like some deus ex machina, to pronounce on the matter. Air Force One will touch down; a lectern with the presidential seal will be erected. The British people will be told to be good to themselves, to do the right thing. We will be informed by our most important ally that it is in our interests to stay in the EU, no matter how flawed we may feel that organisation to be. Never mind the loss of sovereignty; never mind the expense and the bureaucracy and the uncontrolled immigration.
The American view is very clear. Whether in code or en clair, the President will tell us all that UK membership of the EU is right for Britain, right for Europe, and right for America. And why? Because that — or so we will be told — is the only way we can have “influence” in the counsels of the nations.
It is an important argument, and deserves to be taken seriously. I also think it is wholly fallacious — and coming from Uncle Sam, it is a piece of outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy.
There is no country in the world that defends its own sovereignty with such hysterical vigilance as the United States of America. This is a nation born from its glorious refusal to accept overseas control. Almost two and a half centuries ago the American colonists rose up and violently asserted the principle that they — and they alone — should determine the government of America, and not George III or his ministers. To this day the Americans refuse to kneel to almost any kind of international jurisdiction. Alone of Western nations, the US declines to accept that its citizens can be subject to the rulings of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. They have not even signed up to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Can you imagine the Americans submitting their democracy to the kind of regime that we have in the EU?
Think of Nafta — the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement — that links the US with Canada and Mexico. Suppose it were constituted on the lines of the EU, with a commission and a parliament and a court of justice. Would the Americans knuckle under — to a Nafta commission and parliament generating about half their domestic law? Would they submit to a Nafta court of justice — supreme over all US institutions — and largely staffed by Mexicans and Canadians whom the people of the US could neither appoint nor remove? No way. The idea is laughable, and completely alien to American traditions. So why is it essential for Britain to comply with a system that the Americans would themselves reject out of hand? Is it not a blatant case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?
Of course it is. As for this precious “influence”, so dearly bought, I am not sure that it is all it is cracked up to be — or that Britain’s EU membership is really so valuable to Washington. Since the very foundation of the Common Market, the Washington establishment has supported the idea of European integration. The notable state department figure George W Ball worked on drafting the Schuman plan in 1950. He was a pallbearer at the funeral of Jean Monnet, the architect of the European project.
The Americans see the EU as a way of tidying up a continent whose conflicts have claimed huge numbers of American lives; as a bulwark against Russia, and they have always conceived it to be in American interests for the UK — their number one henchperson, their fidus Achates — to be deeply engaged. Symmetrically, it has been a Foreign Office superstition that we are more important to Washington if we can plausibly claim to have “influence” in Brussels. But with every year that passes that influence diminishes.
It is not just that we are being ever more frequently outvoted in the council of ministers, and our officials ever more heavily outnumbered in the Commission. The whole concept of “pooling sovereignty” is a fraud and a cheat. We are not really sharing control with other EU governments: the problem is rather that all governments have lost control to the unelected federal machine. We don’t know who they are, or what language they speak, and we certainly don’t know what we can do to remove them at an election.
"There is a profound difference between the US and the EU, and one that will never disappear"
When Americans look at the process of European integration, they make a fundamental category error. With a forgivable narcissism, they assume that we Europeans are evolving — rather haltingly — so as to become just like them: a United States of Europe, a single federal polity. That is indeed what the eurozone countries are trying to build; but it is not right for many EU countries, and it certainly isn’t right for Britain.
There is a profound difference between the US and the EU, and one that will never disappear. The US has a single culture, a single language, a single and powerful global brand, and a single government that commands national allegiance. It has a national history, a national myth, a demos that is the foundation of their democracy. The EU has nothing of the kind. In urging us to embed ourselves more deeply in the EU’s federalising structures, the Americans are urging us down a course they would never dream of going themselves. That is because they are a nation conceived in liberty. They sometimes seem to forget that we are quite fond of liberty, too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12192893/Americans-would-never-accept-EU-restrictions-so-why-should-we.html
The comparison of the EU to NAFTA is flawed at best and misleading at worst. Canada has 1/10 the population of the US. Mexico barely half, that doesn't even take into account the relative size of the economies involved. Also NAFTA is a trade deal and nothing else whereas the EU, although it started as a free trade zone, was always mean to be something else. If you take into account the relative size of the major players (France, Germany, UK) they are all roughly the same size (Germany is bigger) but its nothing like NAFTA. The UK has to think about being frozen out of major economies that are closest to it which I think may have dire consequences. Its really hard to deny geography, but I know given Britain's history there is a strong temptation to do so. Even in Canada when we debated NAFTA, there were arguments made that we would be too close to the US and our economy would be too close linked to them, our traditions and culture would simply be swamped by theirs. In the end some of those things did come to pass, but we couldn't fight geography and I suspect in the end neither can Britain.