3307 Why Brexit Must Happen | Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux
On June 23rd, 2016, the United Kingdom determines if it will leave the European Union to re-embrace national sovereignty. Paul Joseph Watson joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the upcoming United Kingdom EU Referendum, the push to restore British national sovereignty, the consequences of unchecked immigration, the impact of the European Migrant Crisis, the danger of Turkey joining the EU, how burdensome EU regulations destroy businesses, economic scaremongering and the future of the European Union. Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and find you him on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/PrisonPlanetLiveFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
We are back with a good friend, Paul Joseph Watson.
He is the editor-at-large at Infowars.com.
You can find him on YouTube at YouTube.com slash Prison Planet Live.
Paul, how are you doing, my friend?
Hey, Stefan.
Good to be back.
So June, June, something to do with British politics in June.
I should have written this down before we started talking.
Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
What's coming up in a couple of weeks?
Well, it's pretty monumental because, you know, you've made videos about it, you've discussed it, you know, you've stopped focusing on the wider issues, you've focused, you've lasered in on, you know, Trump, the immigration issue, and of course Brexit.
And that's what we've got coming up on the 23rd of June, a referendum for Britain to leave the European Union.
And it's kind of a big deal because we've actually got a chance of winning.
You know, it's not like a Gary Johnson Libertarian Party deal.
Don't make me strip on my own show.
Isn't that what went down at the recent convention?
Yeah, this is for all the marbles.
And it jives with what's going on in America.
This is a fundamental rejection of the political establishment.
And it's no longer a fringe movement, which it seems to have been over the past years.
You know, five, ten years.
This is it.
This is huge, and it's going to happen here in Britain in a few weeks' time.
So people really need to know about it, and they need to spread this kind of information, even if they're not going to vote in this referendum, which, of course, the vast majority of your viewers and even my viewers aren't going to vote in it.
But even just by spreading these videos to people who are, who basically have no clue what this is about from everything that I've seen, that's a vitally important function as we head towards this referendum.
Yeah, I mean, I've had, let's just say, some skepticism about the value of political participation.
But even I crossed my Rubicon and checked to see whether I could vote.
Sadly, I haven't been registered in the UK over the last 15 years, so I can't.
But it is to me, it would have been an enormous temptation because this fork in the road, not just for Great Britain, but for Europe, for the West, for Western civilization as a whole, really seems to be coming down to the wire.
With regards to what does it mean to be Western?
What does it mean to have the separation of church and state?
What does it mean to have some vestigial dedications to the free market?
And to what degree are cultures compatible with each other?
That is one of the great fundamental questions that I think is starting to emerge like Atlantis, some lost civilization that is sort of these questions are starting to come back.
And it is, I think, stimulating for people to think about these issues in deeper ways rather than just, oh, I don't know, can we negotiate our own treaties?
Of course the United Kingdom can.
But cultural compatibilities and long-term integration and assimilation questions, I think, are coming up as well.
Well, this is it.
And, you know, the official Vote Leave campaign, which is, you know, kind of aligned with the Farage wing of it, which is the unofficial Leave campaign, has shied away from the immigration issue for the past three, four months.
In fact, from the very start of the campaign, they said, We're going to talk about the economy.
We're going to talk about sovereignty.
We're not going to talk about immigration.
But as we've seen over the past couple of weeks, because we've had a huge inflow of stories in the United Kingdom about immigration, mostly negative, surprise, surprise, the polls have now started to shift.
You know, the Vote Leave campaign was down 10%, down 12%.
The last two polls, which came out a couple of days ago, now show that it's marginally ahead in both online and telephone polls by a couple of percent.
And that is down to the fact that immigration has come to the fore as a primary issue.
So people like Dan Hanan and Douglas Carswell, who are heading up the official Leave campaign, They've been shy to focus on this, but even now they're realizing that this is the big enchilada.
This is what's going to turn this Brexit vote over to our side.
And it's because we had a report last week, this was in the BBC, that...
333,000 immigrants a year are pouring into the UK. Bearing in mind that David Cameron, the Prime Minister, who is campaigning for the Remain side, promised to get that figure below 100,000.
It's been above 300,000 immigrants net every single year.
Now it's just reached the second record high.
And of course, half of those immigrants are coming from other European countries.
On top of that, We've got EU free movement rules which are going to come into effect around 2020, which could bring in up to half a million more migrants not from Europe but from the Middle East and North Africa.
We've seen how well that's gone with Germany and Sweden so far, haven't we?
Now they're actually kicking Swedes out of their own homes to make way for these Muslim migrants.
In fact, I put a story up yesterday.
Swedish government kicks local family out of home, gives it to Muslim migrants.
This was a father with two teenage sons who had been brought up in the Swedish city of Lingo, lived there his entire life.
His sons have been, you know, born and brought up there.
He rents a property from the local municipality.
He's a taxpayer.
He works.
He pays the government to rent this social housing.
He gets a voicemail From this local municipality who say you've got to be out by August because, quote, people from foreign countries are coming in.
And now they're taking precedence over Swedes who have, you know, been born in these towns, brought up in these towns their entire life.
They speak the language.
They pay taxes.
We're seeing the same thing in Germany.
People being kicked out of social housing.
And this is going to only exacerbate if Britain remains committed to this European integration.
Because if we go ahead and say, yes, we want this, we want to remain, it's only going to embolden them to push us deeper into this integration, deeper into this common border policy, which has been a complete disaster.
I mean, the southern European states at the start of this migrant crisis, as you know, they simply waved millions of migrants through, knowing that they wouldn't have to take responsibility for them because they would flee to the northern European welfare states.
If they had actually had control and sovereignty over their own border policy, they wouldn't have had that luxury to just wave them on to Germany and Sweden.
That's how it would have been different.
And that's why immigration is a key issue and why it intersects with this migrant crisis as we go forward.
And that's why now even the people who shied away from it at the start are starting to fundamentally realize that this is what people care about and this is the primary issue that they're going to vote on.
And that's what's so frustrating about things, Paul, is that, well, first of all, Donald Trump has shown the power of talking about immigration and listening to what the people want.
So he's already broken that ice.
It shouldn't be that hard for people in the UK to follow, you know, those shattered ice fragments upstream.
But I was just reading the British Social Attitude Survey has found that 77% of the public wish to see immigration reduced.
56% say by a lot, you know, whatever that means.
And the majority of first and second generation migrants also agree.
So it's cutting across all racial and ethnic lines.
This idea that the lifeboat is full.
We are going to tip over.
It is an unsustainable situation.
The UK, and in particular England, is already the most crowded major country country.
In Europe with the population density many times that of France and Germany this idea that it's full that we need a pause that we need time for people to integrate into existing British culture is something that people have been clamoring for for many years just as they have in the United States and they've been ignored we assume by labor or by the left naturally but they've been ignored by the conservatives and other people who are supposed to be listening to their concerns Well,
exactly, and that resentment shone through with the success of UKIP in the 2014 Euro elections.
That's why they got such a huge share, because they've actually held David Cameron and the Conservatives' feet to the fire on immigration, because they've completely failed.
That's why Boris Johnson has come forward as a prominent person on this, because he's been a big voice in that all along, too.
But, as he said, we're full.
I mean, we've got the same population as France, roughly, And the country's half the size.
I mean, we're completely overwhelmed.
The NHS is on its knees.
You know, we're completely overstretched by this.
You've got a 30% rise in rough sleepers on the streets of Britain every single year.
You've got a chronic housing shortage, just like Sweden.
And yet, they keep bringing these people in.
In fact, there was a documentary that I watched just the other week where...
They went through all these cases about these people from within the EU, in this case, who would just turn up and demand a free house and they got it.
You know, a Romanian guy turns up with five kids, no job, no job offer, doesn't even plan to work.
He goes to his local council in London and says, give me a free house.
They give him a free four bedroom house.
While people are struggling, while homelessness is on the rise, and that's why this resentment is building.
And again, as you mentioned, it's the complete lack of integration.
It's not like bringing in, you know, skilled Muslim migrants into America as they have done.
I mean, that's the point that's been made.
America doesn't really have much of an experience of bringing in these poverty-stricken Muslim migrants because they don't behave the same As the nice skilled labor middle class Muslims that have been until recently predominantly coming into the US. And then, you know, you can get past the Islam situation which we've talked about many times and focus on just the behavior.
I mean, in the town of Peterborough, They're besieged by these Eastern European migrants, some of whom are hardworking, but a lot of whom basically just stand around on street corners and they're complaining about them pissing everywhere.
I mean, their behavior is not cognizant with a functioning society which is civil and progressive in the true sense of the word.
So there's a huge resentment about this.
There's a huge resentment about the Islamization of Britain now.
As with Brussels, you saw, you know, the radicalized Islamic ghettos.
We've got ISIS saying they plan to create those Islamic ghettos as a means to recruit more jihadists.
And people are finally starting to realize that in Britain, not in France, unfortunately, as these attacks get more regular and worse.
It's a huge issue and the vote leave camp is finally starting to recognize that because it's starting to show through in the polls.
The economic, the sovereignty issues are very important as well, which we'll go on to talk about.
But this is what people really care about.
This is what it's going to come down to.
This is the crux of it, is the immigration.
And I really want people to understand just how unprecedented in British history that this is, right?
So in 1851, let's take a time trick back.
The UK had a very small foreign-born population.
Only 100,000 people who lived in the UK were born overseas.
That was only 1.5% of the population at the time.
By 1951, it was 4.3% of the population.
And then, just in the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, The foreign-born population of England and Wales shot up by almost 3 million people, from 9 to 13% of the population.
So it is many, many times, just over the past decade or so, it is many times of an increase over the historical levels of foreign-born populations in the UK. And I'm going to go out on a limb here.
I didn't do the research, but I'm going to go out on a limb, Paul.
I'm going to say in 1851...
Of the 100,000 people who were foreign-born in the UK, there weren't a lot of Muslims.
So this is not only a massive expansion in the number of foreign-born people, but also an expansion in questionably compatible cultures, to put it mildly.
Well, and, you know, I would go further and even question the figures now.
I mean, the 2011 census found that the Muslim population of the United Kingdom was 4%.
I just don't believe that.
I think that, you know, poor Muslim people would be less likely to fill in census forms for a start.
And then just the sheer experience of living in this country feels like an awful lot more than 4%.
I mean, there are areas of East London now Which are majority Muslim.
You know, I live in one of the supposedly nicer areas of London, which they say is, you know, around 5% Muslim.
You walk down the street, there are quite a lot of, you know, hijabs to suggest that it's only 5% of the population.
So those figures were from back in 2011.
I would suggest that it's ballooned even more in the following five years.
And it's a massive problem.
I mean, look at Sweden.
There was a report out today.
They've had 162,000 refugees come in over the last year.
And bearing in mind this is a country that the majority of their welfare payments go to foreign immigrants, even though it's around 10-11% of the population total.
So 162,000 refugees came to Sweden over the last year, officially.
494 actually got jobs.
So again, this mantra that we hear over and over again, we need the young workers to fund the pension liabilities and the old people.
You know, the Swedes, the whites are dying out.
We need to bring all these people in.
We need to breed with them, as the Pope said, echoing Islamist preachers who say exactly the same thing, because we need their hard work.
We need them for labor.
Well, look at Sweden.
494 have got jobs out of 162,000.
How is that going to save our economy?
It's only going to make it worse.
It's only going to create more people who are dependent on the welfare state, who are dependent on big government, which is why big government has the incentive to bring them in in the first place.
So this is not working.
It's not going to help the economy.
It's only going to make it worse.
So that's not an argument to say that anymore.
Well, I mean, this question of some sort of economic pragmatism behind this immigration is really, really important for people to understand.
There are a lot, of course, libertarian and open borders types who view restrictions on immigration as somehow anti-free market.
And what they don't understand is that for at least most of Western countries at the Well, I think we're good to go.
Immigrants are being paid, or you could say bribed, to come in with free stuff, with free welfare, with free resources, and so on.
So it's impossible to know whether they're coming to England because they like British culture, they want separation of church and state, and all the goodies so hard won and hard fought for in British history, or whether they're just coming because they like free stuff.
And certainly the migration patterns of the people who are leaving the Middle East seem to indicate that they are leapfrogging over to get the best welfare benefits, the most government resources that they can, which indicates that they're not coming from the culture.
They're coming for the money.
And immigration is a big, giant, nasty government program at the moment, which is producing all of the same outcomes as almost every other government program, which is the opposite of its intended goal and general disaster and dissolution.
Yeah, and it only benefits big government and big businesses.
It doesn't benefit the people.
We don't have a say.
We haven't had a say in, you know, how many immigrants we're going to bring in.
People in, you know, countries like Switzerland do get a say.
They vote every year on the quotas of refugees that they're going to vote in, and the people have a say in that.
We have no say whatsoever.
Most of the countries in the EU, the people voting have no say whatsoever.
So, you know, you've got the Netherlands now handing out 10,000 euros to newly arrived migrants so they can go and buy furniture.
I mean, this is getting ridiculous.
As I said, people are being kicked out of their homes.
The majority of welfare payments in many of these countries are going to immigrants.
And that's only going to get worse.
They're coming for the money, but they're not integrating.
I mean, you've gone through the stats before.
You know, in countries like Spain, 70% of the prison population is Muslim, despite the fact that it's only around, you know, 6% of the actual population.
Lower, but still shockingly high figures in the likes of, you know, France and Belgium.
You've gone through those stats before.
So they're not integrating to a large extent.
It's not working.
That doesn't mean that there aren't hardworking middle-class Muslims.
There are.
But this massive experiment Which was started in Britain or really accelerated under Tony Blair and the documents came out that it was a deliberate plan to water down the British culture and the British identity so they could create this huge voting block of dependent people.
That was leaked.
That actually came out.
Now it's starting to have the desired effect and we're starting to get Civil unrest.
We're starting to see reports out of Germany where they're deliberately hiding crimes committed by migrants to quote, not legitimize critics of mass immigration.
We saw the cover-up in Cologne.
We've seen top security experts in France saying that this is going to lead to even more riots.
France has already experienced riots in these immigrant suburbs, these ghettos.
So it's not working out.
You know, Merkel and Cameron both admitted back in 2010 that multiculturalism had failed, yet now they're doubling down on it.
And this vote to remain in the EU will only continue as down that path.
So that's a key reason why we need to get out.
Well, and the point, the British deficit, government deficits are huge, and the debt is over 80% of GDP, up from 30% in the early 90s.
So of course, if mass immigration was supposed to be so great for the economy, then why has the debt-to-GDP ratio almost tripled over the past 20 or so years?
The Migration Watch UK calculated That it is costing native UK residents almost 17 billion pounds annually, immigration.
And 43 million pounds each day.
That is a staggering sum.
And that doesn't even count the cost of housing going up, the quality of education declining because it's very hard to service other cultures, other languages, other histories, other religions.
And it means that generally values have to be scrubbed from the school curriculum because if traditional British values are taught...
Then it's going to offend a wide variety of immigrants.
And it doesn't even count things like the depression of wages that occurs with endless waves of low-skilled workers coming in, taking away jobs from low-skilled British workers and other British workers, and preventing the entry into the marketplace of teenagers who can't necessarily compete with older people who may have more experience and are available within the job market.
So it is really hard to find Any data that you can look in the mirror and honestly say to yourself, this is a great thing.
Even if we discount the differing birth rates among various ethnicities and the future projections of population growths in the UK, it's a weird thing where the entire native British population seems to have been stripped Of the capacity to look at government programs and say, how is this benefiting me?
How is this benefiting my children?
And it seems shocking to me that the media is so vastly opposed to these kinds of discussions.
And do you think that's what's really behind it?
Is everyone just afraid of being called xenophobic or racist or the normal junk that the leftist media throws at people who question this mad policy?
Well, I mean, that certainly was the case up until probably about five years ago.
Even the mere discussion of maybe 300,000 net people coming in every year is a little too much, was treated as racist.
But that kind of flipped over the past few years as it became readily apparent that it was a huge problem.
But even now, for example, we've got campaigners on the Remain side.
This is the shadow Europe minister, Pat Glass.
Who recently called a voter a horrible racist for talking about immigration.
He came out in campaigning for the Remain side and said, quote, speak to your mother, your grandmother.
He's talking to young voters here.
Don't speak to your grandfather.
We know the problem is older white men.
That's the shadow Europe minister here in Britain campaigning for the Remain side by saying, don't talk to older white men because they're racist simply because they talk about immigration.
These would be the same older white men who fought against Nazism.
Is that who he's denigrating?
Exactly.
And, you know, the same people who fought in the Falcons and all these other wars.
I mean...
It's completely ludicrous, but thankfully that has been on the wane, especially with the rise of UKIP. But it's still there as an element that even to bring this up is a vicious hate crime.
We're not quite as bad as places like Sweden, but that element is still there.
But as I said, when these issues come to the fore in the context of Brexit, the polls shift towards people wanting to leave.
So it's not as if this is going to denigrate the Leave campaign or discredit it.
The polls show that it's only going to bolster support to leave.
Right.
And I think it is also important to recognize that the ethnic minorities within England, we can presume, came to England because they liked something about England or the British way of life.
And to strip away the British values that they came to enjoy by having endless waves of immigration come in is a disservice to the people who've moved to England as well as the native-born population.
England has to remain something to do with Britishness with Englishness, with the Enlightenment values, with the Renaissance values, all the way back to Magna Carta and its preference for Roman law over less just legal systems.
There has to be some recognition given to protect the British way of life, not just for the natives, but for all the people who came to enjoy that unique and particular way of life.
Well, exactly.
I mean, there's a quote, you know, they'll always be in England.
Well, I'm not quite sure about that anymore.
But, you know, there's still a remnant here.
We're not as cocked as countries like Sweden, who, you know, people are called racist if they don't give up their garages to arriving Muslim migrants.
We're not quite that far down the road.
So I think it's still a very vibrant debate.
And then if we can get onto the economy, which, of course, is the next major primary platform for the Leave campaign, The European Union is a complete failure.
It's an economic basket case.
Every region in the world since 2010 has experienced economic growth apart from Europe.
It's completely anemic.
It's the sick man of the globe.
And yet we're spending £350 million on the EU every single week in the United Kingdom.
You could build a new NHS hospital every week with that kind of money.
We've got no control over how it's spent.
Britain has paid more into the EU budget than it's got back for 40 out of 41 years of being a member.
We spend more than double on EU largesse than we spend on five years of austerity measures.
Yet you had the left-wing protest movements out there on the streets decrying the evil Tories for instituting these austerity measures.
Meanwhile, we're sending off more than double to the EU during that same time period.
And yet now it's mostly people on the left who want to remain in the EU. So we're propping up their entire failing system.
That's why the EU is desperate for us to stay, because it's an economic basket case.
It's a complete disaster.
And now they're talking about allowing Albania and Serbia and all these other countries to join, which of course will only result in more of our money being transferred over to them.
The EU is just wealth confiscation on a continental scale.
It's never benefited us, and that's why it will benefit us economically to get out of it.
Well, Paul, I'm sure that you understand, though, that probably what the EU needs most is another layer of bureaucracy.
I always feel that we're just one more layer of bureaucracy away from paradise.
So, you know, maybe we just need super EU. Sit on top of the EU, make sure it's all regulated.
Actually, I can't even finish that snarky sentence, but...
Just one thing I looked into economically, which was quite surprising to me, was, of course, the amount of regulations coming out of Brussels is staggering.
I mean, labyrinthine and impossible to follow and probably fairly impossible for all but the largest corporations to comply with.
So small to medium-sized companies, only 5% of them in the UK export to the European Union.
But every single one of them Even though only one out of 20 export to the EU, every single one of them have to comply with EU-specific regulations.
And it costs, for small to medium-sized companies, it costs as much as 10 times per employee to administer and comply with these regulations.
And that's the kind of thing which is really paralyzing for business as a whole.
And I would assume it has entrepreneurial flight, capital flight implications for business.
The UK economy, because who wants to do business in that kind of situation where you have to comply with thousands of pages of regulations that are developed in a market you have no intention of interacting with?
Well, that's the point.
The small businesses have to comply with 100% of the regulations, even though only 6% of their exports go to EU countries.
Switzerland doesn't have to comply or institute those regulations domestically with any of them.
0%.
And yet they're thriving.
They've got a trade deal.
They're really successful economically.
I'll give you an example, though, of the regulations.
There's a salmon smoker in London who had to...
A salmon smoker, let me emphasize that, he sold salmon fish, who had to pay thousands of pounds to comply with EU allergy regulations to put on his packaging that his product contained fish.
Gee, do you think that the consumer would already know if they're buying salmon that it contains fish?
But he was forced, as a result of having to comply with these EU regulations, and this is somebody who employs around 80 people, he was forced to put on a packet of salmon that it contained fish.
And there are many other examples like that.
You know, the vitamin supplements in Europe.
The EU basically conspired with pharmaceutical companies to ban high strength vitamin supplements.
And they got around it, the big pharma companies, by basically complying with these really complicated tests to ensure that these products were safe.
There was never a problem with safety of vitamin supplements in the first place.
But because the EU has this idea that anything unregulated must automatically be illegal, that's how they introduced these regulations.
So the effect it had was...
To put hundreds in the United Kingdom of independent herbalists who were just selling vitamins and supplements out of business.
Because as you said, only the big corporations have the capital to comply with all these regulations and it allows them to strangle their smaller competition, which is why they always lobby to stay in the EU, which is exactly what they're doing right now.
And they're doing it with the inevitable economic road to hell, Ragnarok economic doom scenarios.
Ah, England is going to fall into the sea of economic decay should it leave the common market and so on.
And I find this stuff, I don't know what the mood is in England or in Britain as a whole.
They're so eye-rollingly predictable.
And to me, when somebody comes at you with this Pascal's wager of doom, disaster, and death, should you not conform to their opinions, all it signals to me is they have no arguments.
No arguments whatsoever.
It's the economic equivalent of white cisgender scum.
It's like, okay, I get it.
You don't have an argument, so all you have is scare stories.
And the people who are coming up with these scare stories have been so disastrously wrong in the past.
I mean, I remember when I was younger, If England, if Britain did not join the euro, if they didn't use the euro, if they kept their pound, ooh, it was going to be a disaster and they were going to get shut out of markets and the economic base and the manufacturing base was going to collapse and so on.
Are people getting at all tired of this endless series of booga booga scare stories about economic catastrophe from people who've been spectacularly wrong in the past?
Well, yes, because that's why the Remain campaign was given the moniker Project Fear.
Because, you know, Cameron came out and said, there's going to be World War III if we leave the EU. You know, he came out and said, if you asked the leader of ISIS what he thought about this, he would want Britain to leave the EU. Again, completely unrelated.
What they're relying on, as you said, is irrational fear.
It's this biological trait, which is genetic within humans, to be risk-averse.
So as long as they push out this fear-mongering, that leaping into the unknown is some really fearful thing, and that the country is going to collapse in on itself the day we vote to leave, that's what they're banking on, and as you said, it proves they've got no argument.
There isn't an unknown.
We know what's going to happen.
You can look at other countries that aren't in the EU and see how they've prospered.
You know, like I mentioned, Switzerland, highest quality of life in the world, according to many indexes, five times the exports of the UK, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world.
You know, low taxes, few regulations.
They don't have to apply all the Myriad of EU regulations domestically.
Their GDP is twice as high as Britain.
They've got direct democracy.
They've got referendums for everything.
And the people decide when there's a referendum, not the politicians.
They still trade with the EU. You know, that doesn't sound so bad to me.
If that's the great leap into the unknown, if that's the great fear that we're facing is to be like Switzerland, then, you know, it doesn't sound so bad.
I mean, you can look at Iceland.
It's a similar story.
Not in the EU. Prospering economically.
Trade with the EU. You can look at Guernsey.
You know, Which is in the Channel Islands between England and France.
Its head of state is the queen.
It uses the pound.
It's got a parliamentary democracy.
It has control over its own borders.
Doesn't let in any EU citizens to work.
Thriving economy.
High standard of living.
Crime virtually non-existent.
It's not in the European Union, yet it's doing just fine.
So all of those examples sound like a pretty good idea to me and not something to be afraid of.
Let's talk Turkey.
Because I think that is going to be a big factor.
And it's one that I think, unfortunately, is not going to rear its head, so to speak, until after.
The Brexit vote.
And I really want people to understand the situation in Turkey.
So Turkey has absorbed, I think, about 3 million of the refugees or migrants or whatever you want.
It's tough to know what to call them because a lot of them aren't fleeing civil wars or anything.
But Turkey has absorbed 3 million people.
And to my understanding, they have basically said to the EU, let us in, give us visa-free travel across the EU, right of settlement or whatever it's going to be.
Or we're going to lose these migrants into the European Union.
And that seems like a pretty heavy-handed shakedown, to put it mildly.
And in Turkey, according to a recent survey, over 12 million people in Turkey want to come and settle in England.
In the United Kingdom, but, you know, a vast majority of them would want to go into England itself.
And...
The crime rate in Turkey is very high.
The murder rate is four times that of England.
The England average IQ is cooking around 100.
In Turkey, it's about 90.
These are significant challenges.
And if people don't know that that's coming, I really want them to know that that's coming.
That the EU has basically got its boot on the neck.
Sorry, Turkey's got its boot on the neck of the EU and is threatening it with migrants in order to get visa-free travel into the European Union.
And that seems something very significant.
If people can't see that coming, I think they don't have the information that they need to make a good decision.
Well, it's huge.
You've got a 75 million population in Turkey, 99% of them are Muslim, and they all want to get here.
And if the EU does that deal with Turkey, which it's been blackmailed into doing, and it looks like that's going to happen at some point down the road, those 75 million people could eventually have the right to live and work in the United Kingdom.
And then you've got Erdogan coming out a couple of days ago and decrying contraception, decrying condoms as un-Islamic, saying that they need to breed even more.
Again, mirroring the rhetoric of Islamist preachers, which I've talked about before on your show, who come out and say that this migrant crisis is merely jihad by sex assault.
They're saying that they're going to interbreed with the Europeans.
They're dying out.
They're losing their fertility.
They need us to come and breed with them.
And it's a conquest.
Those are his words, a conquest.
Now, Erdogan is mirroring that rhetoric.
The Islamist pope is mirroring that rhetoric by comparing ISIS to Jesus, saying that ISIS spreading its message across the Middle East was just like Jesus as disciples.
I must have missed that Bible passage where Jesus' disciples were, you know, beheading people, forcing them to pay a tax on pain of death if they didn't convert, taking sex slaves.
That Bible passage must have passed me by.
So they're all starting to sound similar with the same rhetoric.
And now, of course, Erdo and the Corrupt leader of Turkey who wants people put in prison, even in European countries, if they insult him, is now encouraging his own population to spread itself, which would be okay if anyone in Europe did the same.
They would be called flagrant racists if they said that white people need to have more children and then go and populate the rest of the world with more white people.
That would be unheard of.
But if they do that deal, you've got 75 million more Turks eligible to come to the UK, to work in the UK. And as I said, I'm sorry, but we don't have enough room.
We've already got 333,000 net immigrants coming in every year, more than half of them coming from the EU. This is not popular with the majority of the British people.
And if this issue was brought to the fore, which quite frankly isn't being done enough by the official Leave campaign, they would win this referendum because the polls show it.
The big picture for me, I'm always a first causes kind of guy.
I always want to look back and say, how did the UK get here?
I'll spin you a very brief theory and I'll sort of get your comments on it.
Now, I was born in Ireland, but I grew up in England, lived there till I was 11 or so in London.
The one thing that I remember, there was still a little bit of a debate between sort of socialism and the free market in the 70s because, of course, there were all the problems with the coal miners.
I remember being very cold as a child because the coal miners weren't striker.
Meat was absent from my boarding school menu because there were lots of problems with distribution and truck drivers and you name it.
So I grew up sort of a vegetarian by default.
One of the things that struck me even at the time was that British people, this is very much a generalization, but let me know what you think.
British people, they want free stuff, but they don't have kids.
I mean, that's a very broad way of putting it.
But they want free stuff and they don't want to have kids.
So if you, of course, want free stuff, okay, fine.
I mean, I don't like socialism.
It's the initiation of the use of force, but you want free stuff.
But then you damn well better have the kids to have the next generation of taxpayers particularly to pay for your retirement benefits and the fact that we've got this aging boomer population throughout the West that frankly has not had the children necessary To create the tax base to pay for the two things that are very expensive with old people, number one, healthcare, number two, of course, pensions.
The fact that 20 of the world's biggest countries have a pension shortfall of $78 trillion at the moment, I think has created such an unsustainable situation.
And it has historically been the case that when governments run out of money, They go to war.
Because they don't want to tell the population.
The politicians don't want to come in and give the basic speech that every voter needs to hear, which is, well, you wanted a bunch of free stuff.
You didn't want to pay the taxes to cover it.
You didn't want to have the children who were going to pay for it when you retired.
So you can't have your free stuff.
Sorry.
And everybody's known this for like at least 30 years.
It's been an unsustainable course.
Debt's increasing.
Taxes are increasing.
Economy is slowing.
So sorry, you all made bad decisions.
You can't have your free stuff.
Instead, what politicians usually do is provoke social unrest in order to be able to excuse reducing the payment of benefits.
You know, like there's social distress, there's conflict, there's war or civil war or some reason to clamp down on the population because people will accept a reduction of government payouts in a time of crisis.
You know, there's rationing in wars and so on, but they generally don't accept it based on economic or mathematical necessities.
So when I sort of look back to how England kind of got into this position, There is, of course, all of the government paying out to academics who were generally on the left who promoted this radical egalitarianism of all cultures, all races, all religions, all peoples, with sort of white Western Christianity and capitalism always being the only and forever boogeyman in the room.
So there was all of that which prepared the way, but I think fundamentally it's hard for me to escape the idea, and let me know what you think.
Of the fact that you want free stuff, you don't want to have kids, it creates a fiscal crisis, and if you won't listen to the truth, then the politicians will do these desperate, ridiculous stopgap measures like importing people in the hopes that they're going to pay taxes, rather than tell you the basic truth which everybody knows in their heart and has for decades.
That's certainly a factor.
But again, I go back to the Czech Republic.
You know, the most thriving economy in Europe right now had a stable population of 10 million for 100 years with very limited immigration.
So there are countries that buck that trend.
But the civil unrest angle, which you talked about, The Remain campaign says that we need to stay in the EU because it's safer.
Well, their own policies have caused mass riots.
We've seen riots throughout Europe precisely because of its anemic economic recovery, because it's not growing like the rest of the world is growing.
Because it has all these onerous regulations, and it consistently fails to make trade deals, and it's only as strong as its weakest member, which is what happened in Greece.
You know, they bailed out Greece in violation of their own laws.
They created laws saying that individual member states couldn't be made to bail out countries, and they just changed their own rules to make that happen.
So who knows what they're going to change in future?
But yeah, there is this problem of civil unrest, of the unfunded liabilities, and they're going to create more crises to try and mask the fact that they caused that in the first place.
So it's really going to come to the fore, and especially as we import liabilities.
More of these Muslim migrants who, of course, in areas of Paris, Sweden, you've got the no-go zones where they're already staging riots almost on a monthly basis now.
So that's going to increase.
We've got heads of state, we've got military leaders in Switzerland, in Norway, in Sweden, saying that this migrant crisis is going to lead to civil unrest and even war.
They're telling people to arm themselves.
In Europe, they're telling people to arm themselves.
So who knows how bad it's going to get, but it's only going to get worse if we stay in.
And the European Union...
It is a hypothesis.
And the hypothesis was that if particular national sovereignty responsibilities, traditional national sovereignty responsibilities, if they're ceded to bureaucrats in Brussels, things will get better.
It'll be a net huge positive.
And yes, the amount of money that the member states are paying to the European Union bureaucrats is going to be amply rewarded with economic growth and free movement of people and everything's going to get better.
It's so strange to me, Paul, how a hypothesis seems to turn into a religion for a lot of people.
It was a hypothesis.
Is it going to get better?
And now the data is in after decades of the EU. The data is in.
And we have to, if you're a responsible human being, you have to evaluate the results of a hypothesis.
Now, morally speaking, it was a disaster from the beginning.
It's like, oh, it's so great that Europe spent tens of millions of people fighting socialism and communism in order to basically enact a kind of Brussels-based, USSR-style hypothesis.
Central planning overlords, that was just a complete disaster.
But it's just a hypothesis.
You just have to look and say, okay, well, the EU was supposed to increase our security.
Are we more secure?
The EU was supposed to help defend borders.
Are borders more secure?
The EU was supposed to help economies grow.
Are the economies growing?
The EU was supposed to promote all of these virtuous and beneficial results.
Are they happening?
And saying no to a failed hypothesis is foundational to being a rational human being.
Well, and isn't it interesting that while denouncing nationalism and nation states, which they've done all along, they've adopted all the trappings of the nation state.
They've got their own flag, they've got their own anthem, they've got their own currency, they've got their own courts, and they've got their own EU-commissioned government, which, as you know, is...
You know, the legislative and the executive are combined.
It's basically a dictatorship.
It would be akin to, you know, the Obama White House writing the law that says they're going to ban all guns and then just passing it without any input from Congress whatsoever.
It's a dictatorship.
And the fundamental aspect of it...
Is that it was always intended to be a European federal super-state, and it already is.
These people who say, oh, we don't want to get into the EU, it's going to end up being a European federal super-state.
It already is.
It already controls 50% of British laws at least, as well as all the regulations.
And I mean, you can look at their quotes.
Look at how they respond to the citizens of countries who vote to reject EU mandates.
You know, in Denmark, in Ireland, in France, in the Netherlands and Greece, every time they rejected something, whether it was the Maastricht Treaty, the Nice Treaty, the EU Constitution, which they just renamed the Lisbon Treaty and passed anyway, every time the citizens of a country reject the EU, the EU just comes out and says, Well, we're just going to have another vote until we get the result we want.
It's not undemocratic.
It's anti-democratic.
I mean, look at some of the quotes.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the current head of the EU commission, quote, he's talking about referendums.
If the answer is no, the vote will probably have to be done again because it absolutely has to be a yes.
And that's Soviet.
That's keep trying someone until you get a conviction.
That is the antithesis of what democracy is supposed to be.
And they're even talking in the EU.
I don't know if it's actually been implemented as yet, but they're even talking about if Eastern European countries, which have a certain amount of skepticism towards the incursion of, say, foreign powers.
If Eastern European countries don't want to take migrants, they're talking about fining those governments, hundreds of thousands of euros per migrant rejected.
That is a staggeringly totalitarian to hell with the wishes of the local people imposed from outside something that is vehemently opposed by the local people.
I mean, the scary thing is not even immigrants that European Union countries need to be most frightened of.
It's the EU bureaucracy and tyranny as it is.
No, I mean, that's why a lot of Germans now are fleeing to these Eastern European countries.
They want to get away from this EU-imposed tyranny.
And of course, they're being punished for standing up for their people, for their sovereignty, which again gives you a great insight into what the EU is all about.
I mean, look at how they treat...
Leaders who merely want to follow the democratic will of their people.
Look at Papandreou in Greece.
He called for a referendum on the Greek bailout.
He was turfed out and replaced with a Eurocrat.
Look at Berlusconi in Italy.
You know, he survived a million scandals, the underage sex, the mafia links.
As soon as he came out and said that the Euro had made Italians poorer, he was gone.
Anyone who defies the EU is replaced by a technocrat.
If this is how they treat the leaders who merely say they want to follow the democratic will of their own people, what does that say about them?
If the EU were a new country applying to join itself, it would be rejected on the grounds that it's insufficiently democratic.
It's a complete dictatorship.
The EU Parliament is completely ceremonial.
They can't even introduce or repeal laws.
They just debate them and have no real teeth whatsoever.
You know, that's not a democratic institution.
It's not undemocratic.
It's anti-democratic.
And it's, you know, you can look at the common law, which you mentioned earlier.
The EU is based on Roman law.
It's this idea that everything needs to be regulated.
Every behavior has to have rules and regulations.
Common law is based on, you know, anything that isn't explicitly prohibited is implicitly allowed.
And that worked great for Britain for hundreds and hundreds of years, but that's not how the EU sees policing.
Now they want Britain to join this frontier border policy.
They're having Euro judges overrule British precedents in the legal system.
They take hierarchy.
You can go down every single level.
This is anti-democratic.
It's the USSR model that you mentioned earlier.
And it's completely tyrannical.
The...
Issue of common law is something, of course, near and dear to my heart.
For those who don't know, basically common law has two rules.
Number one, don't initiate force.
And number two, keep your word.
That's criminal law and contract law.
And it's a delightful and wonderful and generally free market developed rather than bureaucrat-imposed system of law.
And it's something that...
We almost can't remember it so deep in the rear view, but it's something we really need to return to.
It's fine to say ignorance of the law is no excuse when there's basically only a couple of rules that are common sense, which everyone learns by kindergarten.
Keep your promises and don't hit the other kid for their jello.
But when rules get to be these labyrinth, hyperkinetic, endless kindle regulations of strangling nothingness, of course nobody can obey the law when nobody can understand the law.
Now, when it comes to the summary, and I'll just give a very brief thing here.
I want to give you the oratorical platform at the end, Paul.
When it comes to fighting injustice, when it comes to fighting tyranny, when it comes to fighting bureaucracy, which is actually one of the softer ways that civilization tends to end.
In the past, you know, I come from a military family.
In the past, my four fathers had to go to war.
They got their limbs blown off.
They got blinded.
They got their lungs seared with mustard gas.
They got bombed.
They got blown up.
That was some scary stuff.
And it's so strange to me in Europe, and in particular in the, I guess you could say, formerly and hopefully still lion-hearted British people, that the way in which tyranny can be fought now is as simple as a checkbox in a hidden place.
And the fact that no one's even going to know how you vote, and even if they do, so they're going to call you names.
That's better than shells, isn't it?
That's better than bombs, which people in the past had to subject themselves to in order to resist the growth of the super state.
And it is really surprising to me that this is a close vote or not, but nonetheless it is, which means everybody has to go out, and as they used to say when I was a child, go out and do your duty, is what they used to say.
And I think the recovery of sovereignty is the best way to continue the general progress and process of minimizing state power over the individual.
That's been the Western project since the Magna Carta, the minimization of state power over the individual.
With the stroke of a pen in a secret place, rather than landing on the beaches of Normandy in 1944, but the stroke of a pen in a secret place, you can undo a form of coercive control over the population as a whole.
And shrink the state and its power enormously.
The super state of Europe, as you say, 50% of the laws are affected.
You can, boom, take out that entire layer or at least begin that process with the stroke of a pen in a secret place.
And if you can't do that, then all the people who died in the beaches in Normandy and all of the people who fought in World War I and all the people who fought in all the wars to secure your freedoms died for nothing.
And it's not a lot to ask.
I would completely concur with that.
And, you know, before concluding myself, I would also point out the vote fraud angle because we had a story come out yesterday which was EU citizens sent referendum polling cards.
Multiple reports are emerging that EU citizens have been sent polling cards despite not having a vote in the referendum.
Right.
So they're sending out polling cards giving non-British people the right to vote in the referendum.
Meanwhile, I moved house a couple of weeks ago, registered to vote a couple of weeks ago, and received this saying there is no one registered to vote at this address.
So myself as a British citizen, I've got to now go and chase whatever bureaucracy simply to be able to vote in this referendum.
Whereas they're sending out ballot cards to non-British citizens who supposedly aren't allowed to vote.
So obviously we've got to be aware of vote fraud and all those kind of shenanigans, which we saw an aspect of that in the recent election in Austria where the nationalist was leading and that suddenly flipped around and there was some shenanigans with the postal votes there.
So we've got to be cognizant of that.
But just to conclude on what you said, It's going to be a massive economic benefit to get out of the EU. All the fear-mongering is wrong.
The only people who are going to lose their jobs are the MEPs with their business class expenses for, you know, budget flights, their ridiculous expenses that they even have to file receipts for.
The people who are...
We've charged a flat tax rate of 21% while they make rules which have consequences, fiscal consequences, for everybody else without having to face those consequences themselves.
Again, completely tyrannical.
But it comes down to the fact we're going to be better off.
The household bills are going to be lower because there'll be less regulations.
The energy prices will be lower because we won't have to conform with all these ridiculous global warming mandates.
Food is going to be cheaper because we won't have to be a part of the common agricultural policy which is a complete disaster for British farmers.
The fishing industry will recover because we'll actually get control over our own waters again.
So all that money that we save is going to go back into the economy.
It's going to be boom time again for Britain.
We're going to extricate ourselves from this ball and chain that is the EU. And it comes down to the fact Do you want to have the power to remove the people who govern you?
You know, they asked the people in Brexit, the movie, which I encourage everyone to watch.
They went out in the streets of Brussels, showed them the EU commissioners, the people who are actually in charge of setting up the laws that govern the country in which these people live.
Do you know who this person is?
Do you know who this person is?
No, no, no, no.
Nobody even knows who they are.
Nobody can vote for them.
Nobody can kick them out of office.
The EU commissioners brag about the fact that nobody can kick them out of the office.
It's power without responsibility.
It's the ultimate form of tyranny.
We didn't elect these people.
They gave us promises of security and prosperity, which turned out to be total BS. So if you want to live in a democracy, You need to make this choice.
It's democracy or technocracy, it's prosperity and freedom, or it's some kind of sterile, anemic ball and chain that's just going to drag us down with the rest of the EU for years and years to come.
So vote leave on June 23rd.
It's now or never, and of course the...
The possibility is very real that it would not just be the United Kingdom that would benefit from a leave vote, but it could embolden and inspire other European countries to look at their own exit strategies.
And this massive failed experiment in collectivism and socialism and central planning and bureaucracy will just join as so many of the others have in history.
The ash bin of history where it deserves to be.
So thanks a lot, Paul, for the conversation.
Please, please, for my listeners and anybody who watches this, Paul Joseph Watson does fantastic work on Infowars and his channel we'll link to below.
Please go out and subscribe to him.
I've always found your videos to be very compelling and fascinating and I confess to a certain amount of professional envy at what you do and I thank you very much for all of the hard work and dangerous work sometimes that you do to bring essential information out to a public thirsty for facts.
Well, I would return the compliment.
Basically, I watch as many of your videos as I can.
You're a lot more prolific in the way you put them out than I am.
Congratulations on your 100 million views on YouTube.
I share your videos because it's very important information and you put it so well.
I hope to continue to watch your videos and share your videos and be on your show.
