“A referendum is being held on Thursday, 23 June to decide whether Britain should leave or remain in the European Union,” bbc.com reports in The UK’s EU referendum: All you need to know. As those familiar with the state-run and financed media empire knows, Auntie Beeb’s media mavens are on the side of staying in — even though this article is as close to an even-handed summary as you can get from a left-leaning media conglomerate. In any case, President Obama recently urged the UK to stay in the EU. His statement was galling on a lot of levels . . .

How could the President of the United States counsel the UK to remain at the mercy of a non-democratic political structure that denies British citizens the ability to control their own political and economic structure? If nothing else, some 70 percent of the UK’s current regulations come directly from Brussels. The island nation doesn’t have veto power over those regulations.

Imagine if the US was in an economic and political union with Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, and those nations could impose their will on the US? Ridiculous. The United States was born from colonists’ dissatisfaction with English rule. Our forefathers sacrificed life and limb and their financial resources to liberate themselves from British taxation, regulation and gun control.

Yes, there is that. I urge anyone interested in gun rights to appreciate the fact that the British attempt to seize colonists’ stocks of gunpowder — the “Powder Alarm” — had as much to do with our revolution as the Boston Tea Party did. If not more.

Sadly, gun rights don’t get a look in in the debate over Brexit. UK subjects’ support of gun control is near enough to absolute to render the issue moot. And yet Brexit, should it occur, could be seen as the beginning of a sea change in the average Brit’s philosophy that could lead, someday, to the restoration of their gun rights.

You may say I’m a dreamer (you’re not the only one). There’s as much room between the nucleus of an atom and surrounding electrons as there is between national independence and individual rights. But the spirit of independence underpins the idea of individual liberty, which can and should lead to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

One thing is for sure: as long as the UK remains in the EU British gun rights are a complete non-starter. The authoritarianism inherent in the EU would never tolerate a return to pre-EU days when an Englishman was “allowed” to defend his castle by force of arms.

Which is also true of the past and current English parliament. At the moment. If the UK reaches down and finds its balls (again), who knows what could happen? If UK subjects re-embrace their personal political power, they’ll be headed in the right direction.

Meanwhile, shame on President Obama for sucking-up to royalty and attempting to convince people they’re better off under the yoke of undemocratic government command and control.

Recommended For You

66 Responses to Random Thoughts About Brexit and Guns

    • A lot more relevant than you might think…

      In the immediate aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks, Euro politicians started working up proposals to ban all semi-autos (centre fire & rimfire) and other “rapid firing” weapons, all magazines with a capacity >5, and all weapons “that resemble military weapons”.

      Effectively, a total ban on all firearms apart from side-by-side shotguns or bolt action long guns.

      Currently been kicked into touch, with the strongest opposition coming from former SovBloc countries whose national defence forces include substantial numbers of armed reservists (eg. subject to recall, and responsible for keeping their kit and arms at home)…

      But this is European law that would be binding on all member states.

      I’m not a single-issue voter in the referendum, but this is certainly a very serious factor.

        • Well, no. Basically.

          They are proposing to exceed – significantly – what the UK did in two successive amendments (1982 and 1998).

          Since the 1998 legislation outlawing handguns, British shooters have had a relatively steady situation on their hands.

          There are plenty of shooters out there with Ruger 10/22s or other rimfire semi-autos; or with straight-pull AR-15s; or with any other magazine fed rifle capable of accepting more than five rounds; or with long-barrel pistols….. etc.

          …all of whom would be caught up in this ban.

          Basically, what’s your point? Our gun laws are a lot more restrictive than yours – but they could certainly get even worse.

        • ” Our gun laws are a lot more restrictive than yours – but they could certainly get even worse.”

          Oh, yes.

          I’ve said that the Left’s end goal in the US for “respecting the Second Amendment” will be a single, bolt-action .22lr with 5 rounds max. ammunition on hand.

          *If* we’re lucky. The U.K. could lose them entirely…

        • The same people that expel kids for bubble shooters are going to allow us to have cap guns?

          In Utopia, pointing a finger and going “pew pew” will warrant a visit from the thought police.

  1. “How could the President of the United States counsel the UK to remain at the mercy of a non-democratic political structure that denies British citizens the ability to control their own political and economic structure?

    Does this question really need an answer?

    • A president in a position of moral authority theoretically could.
      That, however, is not the president we have in office at the moment.

  2. BBC will always report all the news that they want you to know. When the news business is owned by the government, all that you are going to get is propaganda.

  3. Imagine if Texas was in an economic and political union with New York, California, Maryland and New Jersey, and those states could impose their will on Texas? Ridiculous.

    • Hence the limitation of powers vested in the federal government within the Constitution…although any meaningful limitations have been trampled through torturing the the Commerce Clause and “Substantive Due Process.”

      • EU also has limited powers that it can exercise. In fact, it has less powers to compel the member states than US federal government.

        • Except that Greece thing, where they threatened to flood the EU with third world Mooslims if Europe didnt bail them out for their poor economic choices… Other than that, sure.

        • I’m not sure what your example has to do with my point. I said that EU government structure (council, parliament, courts etc) have a limited set of powers wrt member states. How does Greece negotiating (or blackmailing, if you prefer) a deal proves or disproves that?

        • I wasn’t trying to disproved anything.

          I agree with you. It came off as sarcastically disagreeing, but it wasn’t.

          More point of fact of how useless the EU is to Euro.

    • This is the point I was going to raise. The EU is akin to the USA’s Federal Government. The original idea was that the States would govern themselves, with the federal government handling specific tasks like foreign relations.

      So if the British can exit the EU, it is quite comparable to Texas seceding from the USA (except that the federal government has existed longer and so its tentacles and roots have grown deeper and tighter) but the situation is roughly comparable.

      So, hell yes Brits, dump the EU and go your own way. And Texas, it’s about time for you to do the same.

    • Yes, but iirc Texas, as part of its accession to statehood, has the right to break into 6 or 7 individual new states (which would serve to help balance the scales in the Senate, at least), or to secede from the US of A.

      That’s a little different than the situation Britain is in.

      • The Texas annexation included a clause granting Texas the right to divide into as many as 5 states. However, such division is as regulated by Congress, so … in effect, it’s utterly meaningless; it’s no more pre-approved that Texas can divide into 5 states, as it is for California to split itself, or for Colorado to split off that corner that was thinking of seceding from Colorado. Any dividing of a state or creating a new state is regulated under the US Constitution and requires the approval of Congress. Some argue that the 5-state splitting language, which was part of Texas joining the Union the first time, constitutes “pre-approval”; other constitutional scholars say that it was nullified when Texas seceded, and its readmittance to the union in 1865 voided the 5-state division option.

        There is no provision for Texas to just leave any time they want (pre-arranged secession.) That’s just myth. Actual secession would require either a negotiated exit (a “divorce”), or simply a reaction to a cataclysmic failure in the federal government (such as what happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting rush of former Soviet provinces to declare themselves independent nations). If that were to happen to the US (well, likely, WHEN that happens to the US) Texas could then declare themselves an independent republic.

        • >> simply a reaction to a cataclysmic failure in the federal government (such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting rush of provinces to declare themselves independent nations).

          FWIW, when Soviet republics seceded, this was both legal and legitimate, because Constitution of USSR specifically had a clause allowing any republic to leave unilaterally. So as soon as they could actually exercise that constitutional right of theirs, they did so.

        • int19h,

          This is a very important point. The US constitution does not grant the right for a state to secede. The USSR constitution specified a voluntary Union, so it was dissolved under legal, albeit underhanded, circumstances.

        • The Constitution doesn’t grant anything to the states or the people. It is a mechanism through which the people and the states grant powers to the federal government and limit said powers.

    • @int19h, that was epic!

      As you wryly pointed out, Texas is in an economic and political union with New York, California, Maryland and New Jersey (and all the other states), and those states do impose their will on Texas, at least sometimes. They also imposed the despicable Obama on Texas and would like nothing better than to impose the Crusty Old Crook on Texas as well.

      And yes, it’s ridiculous.

    • I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that the EU is dragging down the UK as the coastal states drag down Texas or that the EU is an analog of the US and Britain should stay for the “common good”.

      • I’m trying to say that EU is no more “ridiculous” in principle than US. That is, states often benefit from being a part of a confederation, even though they have to surrender some of their sovereignty to it. Obviously, this is not always the case – but it all depends on the specific circumstances.

        • The EU was never going to succeed, and the seeds of their own failure were sown when they rammed the idea down people’s throats.

          The internal financial disparities between countries, tied together into a common currency pact with straightjacket requirements on the levels of budget deficits that member nations can run… right there, the pact was going to fail. Greece got into trouble mostly because they lied about their deficits – and used synthetic financial tools created by Goldman Sachs to hide their deficits to enable them to join the EU.

        • EU or something like it is inevitable. Europe is either unified, or it wages wars on itself. Economic concerns are secondary to that (or, if you prefer to see it that way, war is more costly than having to subsidize poorer countries).

  4. It’s called Briexit because that’s what the inventor called it. End of story. Liberal boot licker.

  5. I am cautiously optimistic that Brexit will happen. Good luck on 6/23, British folks!
    It IS telling that when Obama has the chance to stand up for the classical liberal values of freedom and self determination he puts his finger on the scale down hard on the side of undemocratic bureaucracy.

  6. Why is this idiot of a president running his soup-cooler in another country about an issue that has no bearing on the United States?

    I can fully understand and appreciate how Britons would be mad as hell at his meddling. I know why he’s doing it – because a Brexit would mean the eventual end of the EU, and that will be highly inconvenient to the nefarious plans of the Ivy League elitists in this country. Still, Obama should show some manners (yes, I know – it is far too late to teach this man manners – all he has is hubris) and keep out of the internal affairs of another country.

    Personally, when I look at the financial stupidity being perpetrated by the EU/ECB, I can completely understand why any nation with some fiscal sense would want to get out of the EU. The EU is not going to survive; no words on paper will make the Catholic countries of the Med adopt the Protestant work ethic of northern Europe. The Med countries have been a financial car wreck since, well, forever. They’ll always be a financial car wreck. It is in their nature to be spendthrift layabouts. If the climate I lived in were as nice as theirs, and if there were plenty of wine, good food and beautiful women wearing very little clothing on beaches as nice as those on the Med, I wouldn’t have any work ethic either.

    But trying to yoke these countries to northern Europe and impose the same financial probity on all… that’ll never, ever work, and the Britons probably realize this by now.

    • Actually, DG, a British exit of the EU would have a substantial impact on the US (at least in the short term). Such a significant change into the economic landscape of Europe would have a sizable impact on financial markets. From a purely selfish perspective, it’s better for us that the status quo remains.

      That said, it is almost certainly better for Britain that they get out of the EU while they can (good thing they held on to their own currency). For our President to try and sell staying in the EU as good for Britain is disingenuous at best. Of course, he is a firm believer in autocratic dictates from a government that knows better than you what’s really in your best interest and sees democratic processes as inconvenient headaches since Congress clearly lacks the intellectual capacity to appreciate the brilliance of his policies.

    • Your racism and religious hatred is appalling. Now you are blatantly claiming Catholics and Mediterranean people are laze louts compared to hard working West European Protestants. Absolutely disgusting. Rome and Greece by the way were two of the greatest civilizations ever conceived by mankind and they were, guess what Eastern Mediterranean which does not fit in with your rampant racism now does it.

      And in regards to your rant against the EU again you do not even see the parallel between the E.U. and the United States and its economic growth and the formation of the E.U. and its success. Why do you think the Ukraine went to war with Russia over the right to try and join the E.U or Turkey’s attempts to join? See my above post. Obama and Cameron are right on the money in their efforts to keep Britain in the E.U. Even economics 101 would have taught you that.

      The Middle East at one time was far advanced over Europe in science, astrology, mathematics, and medicine just to name a few. And at one time far more tolerant of other religions, especially in the countries they conquered. During the Crusades it was Saladin that was the far more tolerant and humane leader than the mercenary thug Richard the Lion Hearted who slaughter women and children to entice Saladin into attacking. Saladin who knew perfectly well what Richard was attempting to do risked everything to try and save the women and children.

      China was a thriving civilization when Europeans were still wearing bear skins and living in caves and recent documents recently discovered may prove China discovered America several hundred years before the Vikings did. At that time China had deep hole oil drilling machinery, hydraulic operated saw mills that even cut stone, they had a form of primitive air conditioning that worked, they invented gunpowder and before that invented a machine gun that was hand cranked and shot arrows all before the Europeans had crawled out of their caves.

      As one can see every civilization had periods of greatness and decline. While it is easy for one to be racist, xenophobic, and bigoted it simply shows ones ignorance of history and ones intolerance of other races, religions and cultures.

  7. It might seem that I have no dog in the Brexit fight, but I do.

    Brussels insists that every member of the EU open its doors wide in welcome to every border jumper, welfare scammer and Islamist. I favor that wholeheartedly. Better there than here.

    And when the “immigrants” suck Europe dry, I sincerely hope that the Marshall Plan remains a distant memory to the political class in Washington.

    • There was war before the Marshall Plan; this time I think it might look more like a civil war than a war between countries.

      Either way I hope we can stay out of it, if and when it happens.

    • Sorry Ralph, while I agree with the sentiment, the US take 10-1 more immigrants than the whole of Europe.

      Brexit is smart for the UK and irrelevant to the US. We will still be the global dumping ground for useless 3rd worlders who offer nothing in terms of economic or cultural benefit to Americans.

    • Think about Muslims with their fingers on the buttons controlling nukes designed and developed by white guys.

      In other words, Saracens with weapons that actually work.

      That’s the future that the elites of the EU are thinking is a good idea. Never mind the rate of rape now in several EU countries that have taken in all these Muslim “refugees.”

        • They’ve got a device that’s about as mobile as a large boulder, with a yield that might be double of Hiroshima. Delivered on the ground, it would be a big bomb, but not a killer of millions.

          Our toys sit on top of missiles that can cross continents – with guidance systems that can land the boomage within 10 meters of a target. Explode them at 8,000′ AGL and you could take out a major western city and possibly millions of people with one device.

          Think about this: Without white guys inventing the AK-47 and AR-15, just what would Muslims be using for guns? A Turkish Mauser? Oh yea, white guys invented those too.

          If we would quit giving them toys and inventions, they’d still be fighting wars with cutlery on the end of sticks.

        • Pakistan has medium-range ICBMs and cruise missiles for delivery, with yields estimated in 150-500kt range. That stuff is all nuclear, but it’s only a matter of time before they get a thermonuclear device with a significantly higher yield.

          And for terror purposes, you don’t really need any of that. Sneak a Hiroshima-equivalent dirty device into any Western country, put it on a Cessna, and explode it while flying over a large city – and there’s your millions of casualties right there.

          Muslims can invent things just fine – religion doesn’t make you stupid, and being white doesn’t make you smart (see also: Islamic golden age; compare and contrast to the backwater that was Europe in that time). The more backwards Islamic countries today lack infrastructure to sustain technological progress, such as universities and research labs – but there’s still enough of that around to do a lot. If something like ISIS takes over Pakistan, we’ll find out just how much is “a lot”.

        • I’m quite familiar with “Islam’s Golden Age.” It is the 300 year period of rapid expansion of the Islamic empire during which the Muslims grifted the knowledge of other cultures they sacked and overran that Muslims like to point to, whilst ignoring their descent into intellectual irrelevancy since the rapid advancement of human knowledge took off in the European Renaissance circa 1500. Today, the stats on science in the Islamic world would be pathetic, if Muslims weren’t so stubborn in their adherence to stupidity.

          It’s kind of amusing to listen to non-white folks claiming “We can do this too!” while they’re unable to even give me a cursory overview of Ohm’s law… never mind Maxwell’s Laws – or who Ohm or Maxwell were. Even the kid who caused a panic at his school with his silly science project boosted “his” project from an existing clock’s guts. When I was his age, I built my own clocks, from TTL chips on up.

          As for the Paks and their toys: At best, last I knew, they were capable of boosted, single-stage weapons. Let’s say that they’ll maximize their yield in the 50+ kt range.

          The missiles in the EU have two-stage weapons. There are countries in the EU who, while not officially members of the “nuke club,” are thought to have US-designed weapons in their inventories. These will be (eg) B-61 type weapons, with “dial-a-boom” selectable yields in the range 10kt to 200+ kt – this is the sort of weapon that can burn a large city to the ground with one airburst, and be much smaller, compact and transportable than the Pak weapons. It would be a Really Good Idea to not give Muslims access to those weapons – and if the EU wants to commit demographic suicide, then it would be a Really Good Idea for the US to remove our weapons and our troops from the continent.

  8. I could see being an ally with the UK against things like… islamic psychos, etc.

    Allies we can be, however I have zero interest whatsoever in being friends with the UK or sharing governing policies. I also couldn’t give a rats a$$ about the queen’s birthday.

    • Heh.

      What if Great Britain were to petition to join the US instead? Their population is around 64 million, not even twice that of California…

      • And a sizable percentage of that 64 million are way onboard with Socialism and extreme gun control. No, I think we can do without that lot.

  9. Britian…?

    Oh, you mean West Syria. Yeah, should should get out of the EU.

    Praise Alah.

  10. Most people in The UK are fed up with the immigration into the UK. This is what is going to effect the vote.

    • unfortunately, it may be too little, too late. The UK has an extremism problem and unless they plan to start deporting a lot of British citizens, that problem is not going to go away just because they bail on the EU

  11. My main concern with Brexit is will it be good or bad for the US economy? Could play out either way. I am all for improving the US economy. But this is a gun blog. Socially and politically, if the Brits were to exit the EU, where would they look for allegiance, and what would that mean to their gun laws? To their fellow Commonwealth members, Australia and Canada? To the US? If they look to Australia they look in the mirror regarding gun laws. If they look to Canada, they find that they can own long guns up to and including SKS’s. If they look to the US, as is likely, they find that they can own pretty much anything (if Shrillary is not elected.) Over time, if they stay out of the EU, they might look like Canada on gun laws, which would be real progress. So long as their elites are kept out of political office. They will have real problems on the Scots border, what with Scotland looking to emulate Swedish socialism and to pretty much confiscate privately owned guns.

  12. A History Question
    William Ridenour writes:

    At the bottom there is a question to consider, based upon the following hypothetical situation.

    The Constitutional convention is closing, but before sending out the representatives to their various states to debate and ratify the newly proposed Constitution, George Washington rises and says:

    “Gentlemen, we’ve done the work of yeomen and created a new Constitution that will be organized to form a new central or general government.

    “Remember, you have all been sworn to secrecy regarding the actual content of the debates and ultimate sense of the meaning of this document. Nevertheless, we must be candid with the citizenry.

    “I now send you out to your various sovereign states to debate the issues and consider ratification of a new VOLUNTARY union, a union that will replace the Articles of Confederation and form a stronger central government.

    “Please, gentlemen, I implore you to make sure you tell all the delegates of the various ratification committees that once a state signs on to the new Constitutional Compact, if and when at any future date, any state decides to leave this VOLUNTARY compact FOR ANY REASON–no matter how egregious, the General government will be compelled to mount a massive army, the size, scope and force of which have never before been seen on the earth, invade that state (or those states), slaughter tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of its citizens, destroy not only its military properties and emplacements, but also ravage the private homes, loot and destroy the properties of individuals, over throw the sovereign state government, subjugate the people, reduce their once free Republic to the condition of a conquered province, establish military occupation, disenfranchise the children of the sons of the Revolution of 1776 in that state, suspend elections and overrun that land with foreigners who will be placed by Federal fiat, into positions of rulership and power, to do as they please.

    “And, after the subjugation of that state, and after it is forced back in the union, it shall be forever mocked and hated, and those who died in defense of that state’s independence and sovereignty shall be vilified and the children of that state shall be taught to hang their heads and be forever ashamed that their forebears had the temerity to want to be free of this glorious VOLUNTARY compact, which we now have the opportunity to join.

    “MAKE SURE, MAKE SURE you tell the delegates what will happen if their states ever decide to be independent of the Union. Also, spread this message far and wide among the citizenry so they may appeal to the delegates, letting their will be known!

    “Go forth now with my blessing, and may the spirit of the Revolution of 1776 be with you all!”

    Q: How many states would have signed on to the Constitution had the delegates brought that message along with the newly proposed Constitution?

    Your answer will count 100% for your final grade in American history.

    • And if the various States had not joined the Union they would have all been reduced to 3rd world Coutries constantly at war with each other which would have plunged their populations into squalor and poverty with the 1 per cent of the population being filthy rich and the proletariat being slaves to them. Brilliant.

      • Funny, the only time the states actually went to war was when the federal government refused to accept the dissolution of the purportedly voluntary union and launched the most destructive war in this nation’s history. So much for that bit of scaremongering.

        • This merely reinforces his point – colonies/states didn’t exactly have much time to fight each other in the brief period between Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation (and they were too busy fighting a common enemy, in any case).

          On the other hand, when you look at relations between independent states that existed side by side on the North American continent for a long time… how many wars did US fight against Mexico, again? And then there was Canada in 1812.

          As for the Civil War, given the roots of the conflict (slavery, as clearly stated by the seceding states in their declarations of secession), I don’t see how it could have been avoided even if the states weren’t united. Fundamentally, it was a fight over which one of the two different and mutually incompatible economic systems would prevail. If states were truly independent, it may have even happened sooner rather than later – for a long time before the Civil War, the federal government was actually more pro-slavery than otherwise, even forcing the free states to accommodate that (Fugitive Slave Act etc) – but, overall, it served as a mediator between two parts of the country. Independent states would be more prone to seek foreign assistance, and the end result would’ve likely been full-fledged involvement of major European powers of the time on both sides, with proportionally greater destruction and loss of life. And if South were to win, probably at least two more decades of slavery.

          BTW, given that at least two southern states had majority slave populations at the time of secession, I would argue that they couldn’t even legitimately secede, because the governments that announced secession were simply illegitimate – as they did not actually represent the population of those states in any meaningful way.

        • How so? There is no historical justification for that statement, it is purely hypothetical. In fact it was the very presence of the Union which caused the Civil War. Moreover, the primary driver for the War of 1812 was the interference of American naval trade by the UK, much like the federal government’s attempts to control Southern trade being one of the main provocations for the Civil War.

          Note that all the tension over slavery in the preceding years took place at the federal level, so I fail to see how war would be inevitable if the very stage which brought about war did not exist.

        • >> Moreover, the primary driver for the War of 1812 was the interference of American naval trade by the UK, much like the federal government’s attempts to control Southern trade being one of the main provocations for the Civil War.

          That’s exactly my point. Just because states recognize each other’s sovereignty, doesn’t mean that they leave each other be. In this case, UK, while recognizing US as an independent state, interfered with its trade, and that escalated into war. Similarly, were slave states independent, they would have a cause to interfere with the free states for a variety of reasons (e.g. as a counter to any kind of “underground railroad” which would inevitably occur at the border).

          Most of the tension over slavery was on federal level, yes. Which means that if we replaced it with a bunch of completely independent states, they would have similar tensions, except they’d be more prone to resort to warfare to resolve them. Because the conflict between slave and free states is primarily economic in nature, establishing political borders between them does not resolve it – they still compete as market players.

        • Then the reasonable extent for any hypothetical with a weakened or non-existent Union is that things *might* have ended as badly as they did in real history. Take out the federal issue of slavery and the only reason for a states’ war would be interference of trade: something that cuts both ways unlike the situation faced by the Southern states in the early 1860’s.

  13. Honestly, I am for a British exit from the EU.

    I understand what the goals of the EU were in formation, at least the idea behind it, but the implementation was so bad that the result has done little but cripple the individual member nations.

    What can not go on will not go on. Quite simply, the relatively few nations that are at this time paying all of the bills for the EU can not do so indefinitely. The expanding commerce and bringing the less productive nations up in terms of productivity simply did not happen in any meaningful way. Now, countries that do have stronger economies like the UK and Germany are in effect paying for a welfare state.

    Given that the EU has not lived up to the promise on just about any level, why should any of these member states stick around?

    The bits about our President going to the UK and putting in his two cents, umm, this isn’t really a good thing. For starters our President has no business holding public “town hall” style talks in another country to tell them what they should do in deciding a direction for their nation. I would say the same if the British PM came here for a similar reason. Sure, a call between the President and British PM where these sentiments were passed is fine. That is a part of international politics. You do generally take stock of the effect of your choices on your alliances. For a national leader to go into a peer nation and try to influence the population like this, just seems bad and underhanded.

    I wish the Brits luck in this endeavor, I do not envy them their choice.

  14. I would have to disagree about Britain never being able to change its gun laws if it stays in the EU. Other member countries have less strict laws on the books so that would be discriminatory not to let Britain at least change their laws to match other less strict EU members.

    Economically Britain would suffer from withdrawing from the EU as it would not have the same trading privileges that members enjoy. Why do you think the dictator ship of Turkey had been trying so hard over the years to gain membership. All of the East Block European Countries have gained economically from joining the EU and it was one of the prime reasons Ukraine also is still trying to join the EU.

    The EU has tied Europe closer together economically making it much harder to go to war, it has also somewhat reduced racism and xenophobia as well because people can move freely to other EU countries to live and work which lets the various European races mix and intermarry much as what happened in the U.S. If the U.S. had not merged together all of its various States the U.S. would be a nation of 52 different countries which would have been detrimental to its economic prosperity which is exactly what the EU has strived to do which is increase economic wealth and reduce pollution among all of its members. Just as in America poorer EU states get financial help from more well off States. In America there are States so poor that without help from the Central Government they would cease to exist which is exactly what breeds social unrest, war, pestilence, pollution and racism.

    In conclusion Obama and Cameron are right on the money when they are advocating to stay in the E.U. (pun intended).

  15. “If nothing else, some 70 percent of the UK’s current regulations come directly from Brussels.”

    And 100% of US regulations come from appointed bureaucrats and other assorted totalitarians inside the Beltway. Same thing, brah.

    All secession is legitimate and desirable by definition.

  16. I do not buy the comparison of the EU with the U.S. federal govenrment. The EU nations lose their sovereignty and are at the mercy of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. There is no representative government. The United States is a single nation, in which the federal government legislature consists of representatives from all the states. There is a sizeable difference.

  17. The article is misinformative and wrong.
    For starters, the United Kingdom has more restrictive gun laws than most EU countries, they are a significant force for stricter gun control laws EU-wide, and they country brought its laws upon itself without external influence, while Czecs and others keep having their guns.
    Second, if you believe that the EU is an undemocratic structure that forces its laws upon you, you must think the same about the USA federal government. Laws must pass the EU parliament, that is elected, and the EU Council (think of it as the Senate pre-1913, if it helps) that is your own national government.
    I often do not share the opinions of this website, but this article is not opinion, it’s plain false information.
    So much for someone who crusades against the pandering liberal media.

    • You certainly have a point, but regarding this:

      >> Laws must pass the EU parliament, that is elected, and the EU Council (think of it as the Senate pre-1913, if it helps) that is your own national government.

      The problem that people usually have with EU is not with the Parliament or the Council, but rather with the Commission. It has unusually large powers for being a nominally executive part of the government that is not elected, and especially the fact that it has sole legislative initiative makes the whole setup not particularly democratic (i.e. sure, you can vote for the Parliament; but it can’t do anything meaningful without the Commission initiating the proposal).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *