Men's impact on the world has been far greater than women's.
Most Mensa members are men and most people at the very top of the IQ scale are men. I don't think that's coincidental.
Why am I considered a bigot or an idiot for wanting Britain to leave the EU?
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Men's impact on the world has been far greater than women's.
Most Mensa members are men and most people at the very top of the IQ scale are men. I don't think that's coincidental.
Or Hedy Lamaar, the actress who held the patent for spread-spectrum radio (the basis of all modern communications)? Or the woman (yes, that's WOMAN, Princess) who invented Kevlar, and who still receives soldiers and cops in her office who want to thank her for saving their lives.
As far as Britain leaving the EU it smells like isolationism and protectionism that the US experienced during the thirties which had a great deal to do with the great depression.
Or Margaret Thatcher who invented a cocktail made out of Navy rum and clotted cream called the Old Battle Axe.
Joining the 83% of the world's countries that AREN'T in the EU is isolationist? That's a strange logic you have there.
You are part of Europe. Seem like you have a problem with the concept of "Teamwork"
Bad logic. Britain being a part of Europe does not mean we should continue to have most of our laws being created by unelected foreigners in Brussels; that we should be banned from fishing in our own waters; that we have to let in unlimited numbers of foreigners from other European nations whether we want to or not; that we have to be slowly but surely subsumed into a burgeoning and undemocratic superstate with its own flag, currency, parliament, laws, military, passport, national anthem and all the other trappings of statehood. Britain's being in Europe does NOT mean she should not be a free, self-governing sovereign state.
America's part of North America. Why doesn't America show how much it care towards North American "teamwork" by creating a North American Union modelled on the EU?
How would Americans like it if we argued that it is in our interests that the United States should forthwith be united with all the countries in their continent north of the Panama Canal — Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama — into a vast customs union governed by a trans-national, unelected civil service. Let’s call it the American Union, or AU.
Imagine that Britain’s Foreign Secretary has just made a speech in Toronto saying he thinks America should join the AU in order to influence Mexico in the direction of free trade. The great and the good in America agree, because they think being part of the ten-country AU will prevent war, boost trade, help smaller nations compete with the behemoths of Europe and China, enable free movement of people, stand up to Russia, encourage scientific co-operation and ensure environmental protection.
Above all, we argue, it would show the world that America is not small-minded, xenophobic, protectionist and isolationist. To this end we think the AU should — er — agree a common tariff against imports from the poorer countries of South America and have free movement of peoples within but not from outside the union. We also think the United States should give up the dollar and use a common currency issued in central America, called the auro, sometimes known as the oreo, or if it is not ready to do that, should encourage others to use the auro, even though there is limited fiscal harmonisation, which bodes ill for the single currency. Oh, and the flag of the AU, consisting of ten radial yellow stripes on a blue background, should be prominently displayed alongside the Stars and Stripes.
Unfortunately, in the current political climate, it turns out that these manifest advantages, deliciously attractive though they might be to the American elite, because they offer an escape from having to think about people in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, apparently do not have quite the same appeal to the American electorate. People are worried about Mexicans taking their jobs, using their health care and drawing upon their welfare if they join the AU. And about Panamanians running up deficits, Guatemalans passing laws that affect Americans and Nicaraguans sharing a common foreign policy.
The average Trump voter might not like Congress much, but he likes the idea of an expensive international parliament that shuttles between Mexico City and Vancouver (in the same way the EU parliament shuttles between Brussels and Strasbourg) even less, and of an international executive whose directives pass automatically into law still less, let alone one whose corridors of power are positively seething with lobbyists from big business and big pressure groups (funded by the AU to lobby it). As for the idea that the US Supreme Court could be overruled by judges sitting in Toronto or Managua…
America would never join anything like the EU. Yet they urge us to stay » The Spectator
Last edited:
The EU only has itself to blame for the British no longer wanting to be part of that undemocratic, economically scletoric club.
By the way, if there was a referendum tomorrow in Canada to allow Canadians to decide whether or not Canada should join the EU, which way do you think the referendum would go?
Canada is part of North America. Does that mean we should kow-tow to everything the US says? What if the US, Canada and Mexico formed the NAU with it's "capital" in Mexico or Canada. Do you think the US would tolerate for one moment having some pencil necked geeks in Mexico or Canada who weren't elected by anyone, tell the US they can't fish in their own territorial waters anymore? Can you imagine the US getting "orders" from Saskatoon telling them how they can do business? Or being forced to essentially subsidize some other country's industries/economy?
The EEU was supposed to be a trading Bloc. It's not. It's just one big wealth transfer scheme. Why should Britons be expected to remain a part of what is essentially a really bad deal for Britain? The US sure as hell wouldn't.
Islamist-loving Turkey looks like it might soon be admitted into the EU (with 79 million Muslims being given free rein to come and live in Britain whether we like it or not should Britain not do the sensible thing and bail out soon), and yet almost all of Turkey is not in Europe. I don't think the EU Empire-builders are too concerned whether or not any of its future member states are actually in Europe.
But this is besides the point: How many Canadians would vote to join the EU should a referendum on the matter be held tomorrow? If the EU was so great, surely Canadians would vote overwhelmingly to join it.
Did the brave young men whose graves Cameron and Hollande sauntered over for an obscene Somme photocall REALLY die so our Prime Minister could collude with a foreign country to blackmail Britain?
By Katie Hopkins for MailOnline
4 March 2016
Daily Mail
Katie Hopkins
There aren't many times you find yourself wishing our Prime Minister was Hugh Grant.
But yesterday was one of them.
As he stood side by side with Hollande, I cringed as the French philanderer told us to shut up and do as we are told, and threatened our country with consequences if we didn't.
I threw the remote at my TV and chucked my EuroCamp brochure in the bin. I'll be damned if he is profiting from my tourist Euro whilst he's in charge.
Leaders: Francois Hollande and David Cameron took a press call at the Pozieres British Memorial, sauntering about over the graves of British, Australian and Canadian servicemen who fought to liberate France
Meanwhile, our Prime Minister nodded and smirked.
They took a press call at the Pozieres British Memorial near Amiens, sauntering about over the graves of British, Australian and Canadian servicemen who fought to liberate France. They never imagined they gave up their tomorrow for a cheap press stunt by Cameron yesterday.
They fought in abject misery to end WW1 only to be used by a future Prime Minister to fight his battles for him. Plûs ça change.
Whatever your views on Europe, watching our Prime Minister collude with France to deliver a threat to the UK took duplicity to new heights.
The man charged with laying the wreath on Remembrance Sunday caught burning the Union flag, lying with the enemy, a wolf in frog’s skin.
Hollande told us he respects us. And will respect our decision even if we choose to leave. (Just FYI, Hollande, we don't need your respect. Our lads already earned self-respect fighting your wars for you.)
He says there will be consequences.
Imagine a French man telling Thatcher there would be consequences. He'd be walking like John Wayne for a week.
Press conference: As the Prime Minister stood side by side with Hollande, I cringed as the French philanderer told us to shut up and do as we are told, and threatened our country with consequences if we didn't
Consequences, you little man? Consequences? You've never stuck around long enough to see the consequences of your repeated capitulation in the face of attack. Your countrymen have never successfully defended Paris from the Germans, a tradition you continue to this day.
Hollande’s side-kick in all of this was Emmanuel Macron, the French Economy Minister, a man whose face reminds me to lock my front door at night.
He said that the day this relationship unravels, migrants will no longer be in Calais. Chiming perfectly with Dave's threats that if we leave the EU the jungle will come to Kent.
It is almost as if they planned it.
Almost as if their press teams agreed on what would frighten the British people the most, then agreed who would say what and when.
Almost as if all those pictures of jungle in-mates stabbing, rioting, setting fire to stuff and being violent were timed perfectly to manipulate our decision-making.
Almost like some giant conspiracy to scare us, hidden in plain sight. When the simple fact of the matter is, we are being lied to. There will not be consequences because of The Touquet, a deal between Britain and France which was put in place to secure both countries’ interests.
And if the Maleficent Macron and his forked tongue have bewitched you even for a moment, ask yourself what would happen if UK border control were pushed back to Dover.
Imagine a French man telling Thatcher there would be consequences. He'd be walking like John Wayne for a week
France would become the new Greece. And no one wants to be Greece. Greece is the incontinent Gran at the wedding. Europeans are glad to be as far away from there as possible.
The Channel Tunnel would become the fence along the Macedonian border. And France would be overrun with refugees refusing to go back with no way of moving forward.
You know, when Dave promised a referendum I never expected this.
We British are renowned for many things. We are programmed to be polite in society, to apologise to aggressors and to queue without complaint.
We are exceptionally proficient at making pasties, cycling in small circles and engaging in a good clean fight.
But Cameron and Hollande have bowled me over with just how low they will go to win this thing.
Lying I accept. Hollande is an adulterer and my first husband taught me 'to have and to hold' was not a limited thing; he meant to have and to hold anything slow enough to be caught.
But belittling Britain is unacceptable. To spit in the face of the ally who helped liberate you from the Nazis crosses the line.
And instead of smelling a rat, Cameron says we should listen to our friends who are giving us warnings and drawing our attention to uncertainty. And beware of trying to imagine it's part of some giant David Icke-style conspiracy.
Love Actually: There aren't many times you find yourself wishing our Prime Minister was Hugh Grant
I prefer to regard them in the manner of the writer Jose Alain Fralon, who characterised the relationship between Britain and France as 'our most dear enemies'.
To use the memory of dead servicemen as a backdrop for your photo call, trying to reimagine an alliance which has only ever been held together by thin shared interest, is repellent.
France is threatening us with a migrant invasion when it is abundantly clear that to follow through on this threat would destroy their country.
It’s time to stand up for Britain. Dave is waving the white flag of surrender. But in Boris we have someone prepared to wave the Union flag in France’s face.
Standing shoulder to shoulder with Hollande, Boris would not sneer and remind us to listen to our frenemies.
He would be an ugly but brilliant Hugh Grant, reminding the lizard in the grass — to quote Love Actually — that this has become a bad relationship. A relationship based on the President taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to … erm ... Britain.
We may be a small country but we're a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter, David Beckham's right foot. David Beckham's left foot, come to that. A friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And a leader who sells us out, should not remain our leader. Since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward Britain will be prepared to be much stronger.
Hollande should be prepared for that.
Read more: KATIE HOPKINS: Did the brave young men whose graves Cameron and Hollande sauntered over for an obscene Somme photocall REALLY die so our Prime Minister could collude with a foreign country to sell out Britain? | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Last edited:
I think the EU is a good idea in principle, but there have been some major mistakes. The common currency, it seems pretty clear now, was a very bad idea and the U.K. was smart to reject it, and the community should never have let in some of the lame and corrupt low rent nations it has,like Greece, and those ideas are connected. Unless the member states are prepared to surrender a great deal more of their sovereignty than seems likely, so that Europe becomes a federal state like Canada and the U.S., it isn't going to work very well. Given the significant differences in language and culture and history among the member states, a workable federation seems highly improbable to me. A customs union, a free trade zone, common standards, those things can be made to work, but a federal state? Nope. The EU has to figure out what it wants to be and what it's possible to be, and it's got a long way to go on that path.
Many of those people who are saying right now in the run up to the EU in/out referendum on Thursday 23rd June that Britain will suffer should she leave the EU are the very same ones who said, back in 2001, that Britain will suffer if she didn't adopt the euro, whose coins and notes were introduced on 1st January 2002. Those numpties were wrong back then so I'm inclined to believe they're wrong again.
Take away the Provincial equalization payments and the EU would be a model of what Canada is. Rather than belittle Greece because tourism is dead she should be getting equalization payments from the surplus Nations like Germany and a few others that export or that endless war and terrorism like the UK. Take some of that budget for equalization payments and suddenly war would be too expensive
The UK as it stands is it's own worst enemy.
The UK as it stands is it's own worst enemy.
