Actually, it was not a debate at all. It was a question and answer session, with each of the two protagonists appearing separately. The questions related to the sort of things that we have been reading about for weeks – mainly the economy and immigration. My impression was that Farage was more direct in his answers whereas Cameron waffled. There was one blatant piece of trickery that Cameron employed, which was about ‘the concessions’ that he had negotiated. He claimed that he had won a concession that EU immigrants could not claim certain welfare benefits for a period of time, but, having said that he had won that concession, he slipped in, twice, that what he had actually won was ‘a proposal’. He had not negotiated the right of the UK to not pay those benefits, he had won a proposal from the Commission that it should be so. You can bet a pound to a penny that, if the vote is ‘Remain’, then that proposal will quietly be buried. You have to already know that all he has won is a proposal, to see the trick. One questioner got at Cameron a bit. His question said that his business required people with skill who were not available the EU, and that he had a devil of a job, and at great expense, the get permission for those people to work in the UK. Cameron waffled, saying that there were arrangements going through the EU machine to relieve that sort of problem. The questioner came back, asking when those arrangements would be in place. Cameron said that it would be in a few months time. A few months? As regards the EU, we all know that ‘a few months’ means several years, if at all.
At least Nigel came across as knowing what he was talking about. Cameron appealed to emotion, saying again and again, how wonderful ‘Great Britain’ was. Does ‘Great Britain’ still exist? I thought that our nation was now known as ‘The United Kingdom’. OK. I know that the full title is ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. Strange, is it not, the ‘Great Britain’ part has now shrunk to England, Scotland and Wales, with half of Scotland wanting out. Soon, it is likely that Great Britain will be reduced to England and Wales.
Needless to say, there was nothing about the blatant corruption and lobbying by big business, nor about the gobbling up of our taxes or the use of British taxes to fund pet EU projects, nor about collusion with the UN.
One thing that I noticed, which was quite blatant, was that Farage’s questioners constantly interrupted his answers, whereas that did not happen with Cameron. It is almost as though it was set up to be so. I admired Farage’s patience with the interruptions. Because of that, Farage has risen in my estimation, whereas Cameron has gone down. Cameron did the same thing as he did at the Tory Party Conference when he was elected leader – although he did not move about much, he still strutted about on the stage, pontificating.
But I do not say that he is insincere. He probably believes that, in big world terms, a United States of Europe would be as strong as the USA and Russia/China. Well, maybe so, but then why let thousands of crazy Islamists to invade EU countries? If there is to be a ‘USE’, would it not be better if The People were Europeans?
What I would see as possible is a very gradual integration of European States, which might result, eventually, in a ‘USE’. The People are fed up with being forced into a ‘USE’. What makes it even worse is that it is our own politicians who are as responsible for the forcing as anyone else. Crazy, is it not?, that, in effect, Cameron was saying that it is better to be inside the forced ‘USE’ than to be a free people. He likened the situation to pressing your ear against plate glass to hear what is going on inside the room. But he forgets that the only way that you can be inside the room is to accept the rule of the Elite. The whole point of Brexit is to be outside the room and somewhat indifferent about the blathering inside the room. New alliances can be formed. Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece are suffering enormously at the hands of the EU. Why should we Brits have a hand in that persecution?
There is an enormous amount of possibilities. Let us leave France and Germany to have their own alliance, for that is what the EU is essentially. Why did De Gaulle exclude Britain? What makes sense is that he wanted a German/French detante, without interference. Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece did not matter. In view of the antagonism between Germany and France, over the past few centuries, one cannot actually fault his thinking. Britain would get in the way of such a detante. From his point of view, nothing must get in the way of detante between the French People and the German People. He was probably right. It is quite possible to see that an alliance between Germany and France could equalise prosperity, if they created a closed system.
I offer the idea that the ‘Common Market’ was originally intended to balance France and Germany. De Gaulle was not a vacuous politician, nor was Adenauer, the German chancellor after WW2. Both realised that the enmity between them must be stopped. They must cooperate to link their countries. The best way was to deal one on one, and exclude others. How can you blame them? How much French and German blood had been shed for nothing? French agriculture and German industries could balance out, given the will.
Few people think about Chancellor Adenauer as other than a USA puppet. But he did steer a steady course, after WW2, in rebuilding Germany. He was quiet, and rarely ‘in the news’.
What has changed?
What has changed has been corruption. A stinking mess of corruption, funded by our taxes.
I might have accepted Cameron’s ideas, had it not been for his acceptance of corruption. His GLORIOUS AND WONDERFUL IDEALS COLLAPSE IN THE FACE OF CORRUPTION. The EU is a cesspit of corruption.
What was obvious, from the ‘debate’, was that neither Farage nor Cameron want to talk about corruption. Or rather, no questions were allowed which brought up the subject of corruption.
There are horrible things happening which I do not understand. A Big Person in the UN not long ago, said that, when tobacco plantations ceased to exist, then the workers could produce other crops. That statement was the same as the statement, “Let them eat cake”. The reality is that, without a demand for tobacco, there would be no crops. The land in question lends itself to tobacco, but is totally useless for potatoes.
There is no doubt that there are people who live in an intellectual bubble. It is beyond their comprehension that a poor person can find more pleasure and solace from smoking a cigarette than from going to the opera, which is subsidised by taxpayers but still massively costly.
There is a massive gap between ‘pleasure for the rich’ and ‘pleasure for the poor’.
There is only one answer, which is that the UN, WHO, IPCC, EU, etc must cease to be autonomous and secret. No more secret meetings, no more artificial sucking on taxpayers.
Starting from the top down, it is the UN in the first place, which must be de-corrupted, especially the FCTC and the IPCC. If there is to be a UN at all, it must concern itself with the ‘well-being’of people who are deprived. It should have no contact, in terms of smoking bans and such, with healthy, wealthy societies.
Only disconnecting from the corruption will destroy it.