Brexit and the Consequences

Perhaps, instead of blaming EU for everything, it will teach us all, EU included, to be careful of close call referendums. The Brexiters shout that the people have decided. My opinion has, always, been that the result was too close. It has left a deeply divided nation. Even the Scots have not got, what I would call, a firm decision by the people to separate from the UK. Cataluña had one last year, with the same messy result.

The Scots already rejected independence 55% voted to remain part of the UK.
SNP are a One trick pony and they will never be able to deliver. Oil is all but dried up, so where do you imagine their funding will come from?

AFD is now the second largest party in Germany and the EU are entirely to blame for that. Loss of cultural identity is the issue. These are just ordinary people who have had enough.

There is only One direction of travel, that is that member states are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the EU. This will continue until the EU implodes. It doesn't matter how long it takes but that is where it will end up.
 
We are living through the slow introduction of the authoritarian state, have been since the 1970's, accelerated from the 1990's, all part of the EU plan. I'm sure there are examples of how these things started in history, although none will be as transparent as the British/European one is now, or as unique in circumstances.

All the elements are here, discord, mainstream political objectives becoming more extreme, shifting of the Overton window, loss of democracy, loss of freedom of speech/assembly, double standards, capitulation, use of state instruments to enforce the will of governments, arming of police, manipulation of media, use of state propaganda, control of social media.

Then there is the umbrella of the EU forcing it's will, the European problems are the same and more intense in some areas such as migration, the acceleration of the formation of an EU military/gendarmerie, it's not boding well for the future.

Where this will lead I'm not sure. The UK masses are 'carrying on' subdued by state propaganda, the rise of alternative media allows a window into what is going on, the day that the mainstream media stands-up to government (or should I say UKGov loses control over the MSM) will be the day UK public changes it's ideas.

European countries are already changing, their citizens have woken up sufficiently to vote out the EU agenda, peaceably, without violence, but then, the previous governments didn't try to stop it happening through authoritarian means, they allowed democracy to take it's course. Not so the UK......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/enter...3/why-john-cleese-is-leaving-the-uk-for-nevis
 
Perhaps, instead of blaming EU for everything, it will teach us all, EU included, to be careful of close call referendums. The Brexiters shout that the people have decided. My opinion has, always, been that the result was too close. It has left a deeply divided nation. Even the Scots have not got, what I would call, a firm decision by the people to separate from the UK. Cataluña had one last year, with the same messy result.

It's gonna feel like repeating the same arguments/explanations again....

The problem is rooted in history, not just recent referenda. The UK was illegally taken into the EU under false pretences in the 70's, there was a retrospective referendum to legitimise the decision taken by the then UKGov, again based on the false pretence that the EU was a trading bloc without politicisation. People thought it was actually a good idea and voted YES.

As we all now know, the plan was to politicise the union all along, this happened with various treaties that UKGov signed up to without the consultation of UK citizens during the 90's, this produced wide ranging discord in the UK at the time and resulted in UKIP being born which ultimately has led to Brexit.

It's no coincidence that similar sentiment has been experienced with the peoples of Europe with a time lag. EU citizens now feel similar to 50+%? as British Citizens as the EU has become more authoritarian. We have an explicit Brexit to express our view, EU Citizens have a different problem with migration being their main focus, the result is similar however, as the EU becomes more totalitarian in an attempt to contain the discord, just as the UK is becoming more totalitarian. The EU and UK are controlled by the same people after all!

If the Wikipedia timeline of EU referendums is factual, then you can see how the mood has changed as the EU has become more authoritarian over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union

The EU will have to change to change sentiment, not expect nation states to change which is their current default position.

UK citizens want her government to change, see that the EU will not change and are exasperated and frustrated that the UK is now seen as an extension of the EU and has been all along, great deception on the part of UKGov.
 
"Trump slams Germany at NATO summit: It's 'totally controlled by Russia'"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/trump-slams-germany-at-nato-summit-says-its-a-captive-of-russia.html

"Tusk said the EU must be more united than ever before to deal with what he called Trump’s “capricious assertiveness”.

“Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that, who needs enemies?” Tusk told a news conference."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ds-like-trump-who-needs-enemies-idUSKCN1IH1OH

this is going well :LOL:
 
Some would argue that the politicians in the UK are just as bad as the EU ones.

But for the average citizen a muddly lot of incompetents might be a lot more preferable to an incompetent autocratic state system.


6 of one and a half dozen of the other.
 
However Mrs Poodle will no doubt be welcoming her boss from the USA soon. Will the hard done by taxpayers be forced to buy more submarines or fighter aircraft to keep the USA sweet ? I expect so.

She ought to listen to his nasty words that he will put US interests first ( and the rest can take a flying leap )
 
"Trump slams Germany at NATO summit: It's 'totally controlled by Russia'"

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/trump-slams-germany-at-nato-summit-says-its-a-captive-of-russia.html

"Tusk said the EU must be more united than ever before to deal with what he called Trump’s “capricious assertiveness”.

“Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, someone could even think: With friends like that, who needs enemies?” Tusk told a news conference."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ds-like-trump-who-needs-enemies-idUSKCN1IH1OH

this is going well :LOL:

Hence the UK/EU/US foreign policy directed towards regime change in Syria, to secure energy supplies from ME friends. Anti-Russian sentiment is all part of that. It looks like US may be more reluctant to participate than UK/France, Syria is a political mess anyway and they are having difficulty controlling the narrative and countering the success of the Syrian regime and Russia in Syria.
 
While a looney like Trump is in charge in the USA it should be ignored. 70 years of diplomacy down the drain. Oh well perhaps the old order are blowing up.
 
What was so awfully bad about the Chequers "agreement"? Wasn't it reasonable? Wasn't it what was always going to happen?

If it was so bad, how could it take those resigning ministers 2 or 3 days to work out why it was so bad?

What is bad is that it's complete abrogation of May's stated terms. She is a double-crosser and will pay the price.
 
But it ends free movement of EU citizens, cuts off UK payments to the EU budget, allows us an independent trade policy, ends the ECJ's jurisdiction here and gets us preferential trade arrangements with the EU.

Am I missing something important?
 
Just heard on the radio that JRM is looking to pull out a remainer strategy and disrail the vote for this white paper. This will be a pleasure to watch their dodgy tactics in reverse.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
But it ends free movement of EU citizens, cuts off UK payments to the EU budget, allows us an independent trade policy, ends the ECJ's jurisdiction here and gets us preferential trade arrangements with the EU.

Am I missing something important?

If your conclusions were true I'd be delighted to agree with you. But have you had a chance to read the small print? I haven't got the time or the will to go into detail (too bloody cross with May!) but this QC's legal opinion does it quite well.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383400078/Chequers-Briefing-Memo-draft-02 (Go straight to conclusions at the end to avoid detailed explanations)

You can't trust what May or her cronies say.
 
Well if a firm wants to sell goods to a customer, it is the customer who decides what quality etc. the goods should adhere to. Quite normal we should therefore produce goods here which comply with EU Directives if we're going to sell them to the EU. Of course, if we're selling them to China, we have to follow Chinese requirements. Nothing unusual here.

As for the other points the QC makes, I trust the civil service more than I'd trust a lawyer so where one says X and the other says Y, I'll take what the civil service say.
 
Well if a firm wants to sell goods to a customer, it is the customer who decides what quality etc. the goods should adhere to. Quite normal we should therefore produce goods here which comply with EU Directives if we're going to sell them to the EU. Of course, if we're selling them to China, we have to follow Chinese requirements. Nothing unusual here.

As for the other points the QC makes, I trust the civil service more than I'd trust a lawyer so where one says X and the other says Y, I'll take what the civil service say.

Well I thought the QC argues his case logically, based on the Chequers statement which he shows to be flawed. Where's the logic in believing what someone says based soleley on their profession? No matter, it's all rather irrelevant because the EU won't accept it (whatever it is construed to mean) - they will just continue with their prevarication because they know it to be the most effective way to deal with a weak leader.
 
If your conclusions were true I'd be delighted to agree with you. But have you had a chance to read the small print? I haven't got the time or the will to go into detail (too bloody cross with May!) but this QC's legal opinion does it quite well.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383400078/Chequers-Briefing-Memo-draft-02 (Go straight to conclusions at the end to avoid detailed explanations)

You can't trust what May or her cronies say.


That article is not correct and has some major errors in it.

For example section 3 about having ability to change rules and laws says

In order supposedly to benefitthe 12% of our economy which consists of exports to the EU, we wouldaccept a binding obligation to freeze the laws which cover 100% of oureconomy consisting of domestic production and also imports from thirdcountries (see further below).

In 2017, UK exports to the EU were £276 billion (44% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £347 billion (53% of all UK imports). The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has fallen over time from 54% in 2006 to 43% in 2016, increasing slightly to 44% in 2017.1 May 2018

EU exports to UK are approx 16% of all EU exports.


It ignores a simple fact which I have repeated a zillion times that where any bilateral trade agreement is reached, national laws and rules are superseded by trading agreements. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have any trade agreements with any other country or countries where UK laws and rules and Parliament rules supreme. Simply not possible.

Moreover, if one doesn't contribute to the membership why should one have a say on how those rules and laws for governing that club / membership be made.

If that is unreasonable then one is clearly clueless about how trade agreements are reached.

Yes common market is a protectionist organisation which maintains standards and prevents undercutting but that is the whole point of a united and common market. One is competing within members of that market not rest of the World. Common standards and practices are adopted.

That is why we have the Treaty of Rome and ECJ to enforce common laws and rules in arbitration, for resolving trade disputes.
 
Last edited:
As for the other points the QC makes, I trust the civil service more than I'd trust a lawyer so where one says X and the other says Y, I'll take what the civil service say.

That's the sort of statement a student of Common Purpose might say :rolleyes:
 
PM - voted remain, Foreign Secretary - voted remain, Health Secretary - voted remain, The Chancellor - voted remain, Home Secretary - voted remain, The Defence Secretary - voted remain, The Justice Secretary - voted remain, The Minister of the Cabinet Office - voted remain, most of the civil service - voted remain, big business - voted remain, etc, etc.

The new Brexit Secretary - voted leave.

I wonder where this is going? :whistle:rolleyes:
 
Top