You are here

Video: Prior to Brexit victory, Paul Craig Roberts puts the compelling case for Britain to leave the European Union

On 23 June, just prior to the vote on whether Britain should leave the European Union (referred to as 'Brexit'), Paul Craig Roberts (pictured right) put the case for Brexit in a 30 minute interview with Richie Allen (pictured left).

The interview is embedded below as a YouTube video. This 30 minute interview, provides clear, compelling arguments as to why it is urgently necessary for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, not only to preserve its national sovereignty, but to prevent the war against Russia planned by the rulers of the United States. In the interview Paul Craig Roberts also confronts, and thoroughly demolishes, claims by those arguing for Britain to remain in the European Union, that those advocating Brexit are racist and xenophobic.

He puts clearly and succinctly the arguments that everybody has the right to control the numbers of people entering their community. It is not unreasonable for a community to object to large numbers of people from a different culture suddenly moving into their midst.

Paul Craig Roberts argues that while the British and other Europeans are right to object to as sudden high influx of refugees and immigrants, they should remember that these people are fleeing their own countries because of wars that the rulers of Europe and Britain have inflicted upon their countries.

Paul Craig Roberts "NATO Wants Britain In the European Union For War with Russia. Vote LEAVE Today!"

 

AttachmentSize
Image icon richieAllen_3jun16.jpg7.19 KB
Image icon paulCraigRoberts_3jun16.jpg12.05 KB

Comments

The Kremlin has spent years trying to create fissures within the NATO alliance and the European Union, but with little success. Now Britain’s vote to leave the EU fulfills Putin’s wish for a more divided Europe. “Without Britain, there won’t be anybody in the EU to defend sanctions against us so zealously,” Sergey Sobyanin, wrote the mayor of Moscow. London pulled its combat troops out of Afghanistan in 2014, and the British Parliament rejected possible U.S.-led military strikes against the Syrian regime in August 2013.
European Union members account for about 27% of NATO military spending. After the U.K. leaves, that will drop to 20%, NATO Secretary-General Mr. Stoltenberg said. Britain, nuclear armed and wielding veto powers in the UN Security Council, has a major say in EU foreign and defence policy. The European Union, of course, is the target of legitimate criticism for its callous disregard for refugees displaced by NATO's wars, as well as the EU's brutal austerity policies.

One of the reasons for the BREXIT is the increasing Obama-Merkel coordination that directly controls the EU, with the utter neglect of the other EU nations in the decision making process...

The US, the EU and the Spectre of Brexit (25/6/16) by Alexander Mercouris

The post below is part of a discussion about Brexit on JohnQuiggin.com:

Ernestine wrote on June 27th, 2016 at 09:16:

"[Paul Craig Roberts] asserts the EU has been set up by the CIA and is controlled by the USA. ...

This is what Paul Craig Roberts said (times from start of the above video included):

(8:37) The EU is a CIA initiative. This was discovered about the year 2000 by by [Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington]. He was mucking around in the United States' national archives and found some recently released documents. There was CIA documents that established that the EU was a CIA initiative and it was done so that Washington could more easily control Europe.

(9:09) It's too difficult for Washington to control all these separate governments. This one would play off against that one. This one would have to have this special thing, this special concession and so on, like the EU gave Britain to get hooked into the EU. And so the CIA decided: "Look, if there's an EU there's only one government to deal with and it is much easier for us to control."

(9:34) So, this was discovered in the year 2000. It was reported in the British newspapers at the time. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Telegraph reported this. I cited it and I think I gave the URL - the reference to it 1  and a recent column 2  on my site. You can use Google. You can find it. You can find the report from
the [Georgetown University] professor who reported on the documents he found. All this is publicly available the documents are available. They're in the National Archive. So this is not a conspiracy theory. This is simply the facts reported even in the British newspapers.

Footnotes

1. ↑  Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs (19/9/2000) by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard | The Telegraph.

2. ↑  Somnolent Europe, Russia, and China (5/5/16) by Paul Craig Roberts | PaulCraigRoberts.org.

The response to the above from Professor John Quiggin was:

Conspiracy theory discussion to the sandpits, please.

Every so often John Quiggin sets up a 'sandpit' in which discussion about topics, not deemed by him to be worthy of more prominent parts of his website, may be permitted. The most recent 'sandpit' is dated 28 June 2016. It appears to have been set up in response to my posts and the responses of others. The 'sandpit' prior to that is dated 9 May 2016.

As well as supposed 'conspiracy theories', material which can only possibly be discussed in the 'sandpit' most likely includes all the current geopolitical conflicts – Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Yemen, Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine and Israel.

Nowhere on the the front page of JohnQuiggin is there any mention of these conflicts. Presumably, if he was administering a blog, or its technological equivalent, in the 1930's discussion about the following topics (also listed above) would also be confined to the 'sandpit', if not banned outright:

The Italian invasion of Ethiopia, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, Menzies' export of Australian pig iron to Japan, the 1938 sellout of Czechoslovakia, the Hitler/Stalin pact of September 1939, Hitler's invasion of Poland, etc., etc.

One minor exception is the constrained and biased discussion against allegend Brexit 'tribalism' to which the above comment was posted.

It makes you wonder what theory he espouses as a basis for publication outside the sandbox. How does he make his decisions as to what is worthy of questioning and what is paranoid? My impression is that he really won't go beyond the mainstream media paradigm - so his contributors must accept our support of intervention in the Middle East and the US Government's explanation for all recent and current events - even though you have multiple countries fighting these US doctrines politically or militarily. I mean, does Quiggin even accept the well established history of CIA intervention in South America? Or does he suppose that South Americans and Middle Easterners are intrinsically incompetent?

I don't often go to his blog these days, but does he question anything more than is cursorily questioned by the mainstream media? And, if he did, would he keep his university position?

This was posted to a discussion on JohnQuiggin.com

As I have already said above, I did not seek this debate. This debate was started by you, Ikonoclast, when you labeled Paul Craig Roberts a "nutty, conspiracy theorist" for his views on 9/11 on June 27th, 2016 at 21:18 when I was attempting to put my nonorthodox views on the "Brexit" discussion.

Real debate on the 9/11 collapses ended years ago. Those who argue that fire for the first time ever brought down three steel framed concrete buildings in the one day on 11 September 2001 and attempt to smear non-believers as "conspiracy theorists" are like those who tried and condemned Galileo Galelei for stating that the earth was not at the centre of the universe in 1633.

Ikonoclast pasted from debunking911.com, thereby, supposedly, not 'wasting' any of his own time:

... In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour ...

...

As shown in the video, embedded below, a large number of people including a number who helped build the World Trade Centre, disagree (emphasis is my own):

High-rise architect David Barnum, upon hearing that a plane had run into one of the twin towers, at the start of the video embedded below, "Well, that's OK. It's designed to withstand a 707". Leslie Robertson, the WTC engineer had stated, "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it" (my emphasis).

William Binner, a 25-year architect, who witnessed the impact said, "It did not seem possible that these towers, designed to withstand the impact of a 707 could possibly collapse in such a short order of time from the time that they were hit."

According to Daniel Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer, "These buildings are built to handle several times the load above them. The perimeter columns could handle 5 times the load above them and the core columns could handle 3 times the load above them."

John Skilling, the WTC Chief Engineer stated that "the building would survive a jet fuel fire."

Others interviewed on this video include David Childs, the architect who designed the new Freedom Tower and WTC 7 on the site of the old World Trade Center, high-rise architect Leslie Young, fire safety expert Edward Munyak, physicist and engineer Robert Podolsky.

Could you tell us, Ikonoclast, upon whose expertise the claims made in the material you pasted above, are based? Can you name them as I have named only a few of those who agree with my views above?

From Beatles' Ringo Starr praises Brexit vote (4/7/16) | stuff.co.nz:

Former Beatles drummer Ringo Starr has praised Britain's decision to leave the European Union, saying he hopes the United Kingdom can move forward alone.

Starr, who lives in Los Angeles, said that he was in favour of the European Union when it first started.

...