In the past few weeks a few of us have been considering whether Pat Condell voting UKIP damages his atheist/skeptic credentials. He outlined his position in this video called Vote Small, Think Big, which some idiot false-flagged on YouTube. Basically he thinks all the politicians are lying, have nothing whatsoever to do with democracy or representation, so he’s voting UKIP because he wants to pull out of the EU, so that laws are made exclusively by the same politicians who he just described as liars and crooks. Yeah, makes good sense. He thinks that within the next 5 years, the EU is going to erode British sovereignty to such a level that the Westminster government won’t mean anything (yes, the same EU that can’t even pass basic democratic reforms – I wonder how he thinks they’re going to get anything like this done?). As evidence for this he says that 75% of our laws now come from Europe, which I don’t dispute, but most of them are trade laws, and the UK doesn’t have to sign up to any of them – ultimate sovereignty still lies with the British government and the British Parliament. But he doesn’t mention any of these laws that he has a specific objection to, what’s the problem?
For some reason Pat also thinks all the main 3 UK parties are committed to an EU super-state, it’s like the ravings of a conspiracy-theorist. I’m not in favour of an EU superstate, not on principle but because I don’t think it would be practical, Europe is too diverse. Does Pat think all the other countries are in favour of giving more power to Europe? I certainly don’t. I think he’s just been reading the Mail a bit too much. But in this same video he praises the American system, which is roughly the same size, has a large population (although admittedly not quite as big as the EU) and is run using the same federal system which would presumably be used in an EU superstate. Why is one acceptable but the other an erosion of sovereignty? A difference in language? Perceived nationality?
UKIP are so far away from most atheists’ choice that I was kind of surprised. I knew he was right-wing but not that much. UKIP are climate change denialists, they support Christian Britain and they’re generally anti-science. Can voting for all this be justified by their anti-Europe stance? Of course I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s not on ‘our side’, if there is such a thing, but it seems particularly naive of him to be so totally taken in by Daily Mail lies. He then clarified his position a bit in this second video.
What’s very strange is that the end of this video focuses on UKIP’s anti-Islam policy, something he didn’t mention at all as far as I remember in the original video. He refers to ‘the world’s two fascist religions of Christianity and Islam’, and yet he’s voting for a party which supports one of them and hates the other. It really doesn’t make sense. He also blames multiculturalism for extremists trying to take away freedom, indicating that he doesn’t see any difference between expansionist Islamic extremism and Islamic culture. He may as well have used the phrase ‘NuLieBore’s failed experiment’, we know that’s what he means.
I don’t know what else to say.