Britain has a new PM

[BBsq69]

On 7/21/2016 at 1:55 AM, van the man said:

The British are the most fair minded people in the world. We are largely colour blind and are tolerant of all different types of culture. (of course we have people who are prejudiced and hate 'foreigners' but I am talking about our society in general). I think the very fact that millions of people wish to come to the UK to live and work is testament to our levels of tolerance and openness. That being said tolerance can only be stretched so far. When immigration reaches levels that are measured in millions, and the very society that attracts people to come in the first place is threatened, indigenous populations begin to get restless and feel exploited.

Add into this the feeling that those in charge of the nation no longer care about the indigenous population and treat them with contempt and label them racists or bigots if they dare raise the issue of immigration in public. Such treatment builds resentment - not of immigrants directly but of the 'political ruling class'.

Further, add into the mix a strong feeling that, not only the UK political class have abandoned the indigenous population but the political class have handed over sovereignty and the levers of power to un-elected, faceless, unknown Eurocrats (virtually all of whom are failed professional politicians) who cannot be directly voted out if they fail to satisfy the needs of the people.

The EU has prevented democracy getting in the way of their project by simply ignoring any vote that they deemed gave 'the wrong answer'. Not only anti-democratic but also corrupt on a huge scale - the accounts of the EU have been reject by Auditors every year for over a quarter of a century!

So what happened when, for the first time since 5th June 1975, the British people were given the chance to pass their opinion? Well despite virtually every member of the entire British Establishment - including Parliament, the Church, the City and many of the media - ganging up and threatening and scaring people, over 17 million people told them to 'get lost' and voted to leave the EU. 

The British people have stood up to and stood out against the ruling elite. Meanwhile the Establishment is busy trying to work out how they can ignore the vote and manage to remain. Many politicians and many lawyers in the UK are calling for the referendum result to be ignored! 

I believe the UK has begun the process of saving Europe from once again sliding towards a catastrophe.

So what of America and the nomination of Donald Trump? I believe the fact that he is not a politician and uses the language of the wider population and expresses the fears of the very people who feel abandoned by the ruling classes, makes him attractive to many. His potential rise to power stems from the same frustrations that made the UK vote Brexit. The feeling of abandonment. 

The political classes need to listen and realise that voters are waking up to the fact that they are only in it for themselves and care nothing for the people. Maybe, just maybe the 'Western Spring' has finally begun. 

By the way as I'm writing this I learn that a state of emergency has been declared in Turkey. This gives Mr Erdogan the chance to eliminate all possible opposition to his government. He will then be free to solidify his growing dictatorship. He will be free to move Turkish society further away from secularism towards a full on Muslim state. The EU will not oppose him because, as a failing organisation, they need Turkey to help with their disastrous immigration policy! What irony that the need to prevent the EU being overwhelmed by displaced Muslims is going to lead to a vital member of Nato and the neighbour to the EU becoming a stronghold for intolerance by Muslims!!!

The world is truly going to hell in a hand cart! God help my children and God help yours!!! Wow if I carry on I might even become more depressed than Kami and Anezka!!!!!

 

 

Virtually everything you have said here is correct  ... I might check carefully to see if in fact is everything. TBF my eyesight is a bit dodgy at the moment and I have to read around because I can't focus but enough of that.

2008 is the main reason for what happened in the UK. Everyone has struggled in the last few years and the working classes have taken a disproportionate amount of the burden with more than a million zero hour contracts and 1000% fold increase in soup kitchens. And what happens then, somebody is to the blame and afraid immigrants are the easier target. Only half the immigrants come from the EU and the government spends 5 years blaming the EU for that whereas the other 50% which they have total control over, they did absolutely nothing about. Then Cameron holds an utterly unnecessary referendum at the least favourable time, like he did with Scotland, and it proved one gamble too far.

Shit my eyesight's gone ... I'll fill this in later.

It has been put that an anti-estavlishment feeling was a large factor as it as all over the world but when the BBC made a post Brexit programme interviewing the voters, nobody mentioned that and yet within a fe sentence every one of them had mentioned immigration. Added this UKIP ran a campaign which was quiet openly racist using propaganda which Goebbels would have been proud of culminating in their infamous map of Europe in which Syria and Iraq were coloured in - Turkey and Albania were also coloured in but not as prominently. Are any of those countries in the EU? No. Are any of them joining the EU in thier current state - if soon is in 20 years maybe Albania but it is a long shot - and the last time I looked Syria and Iraq were not in Europe. Then there was that picture with a long line of immigrants a lot of whom appeared somewhat Middle Eastern desperate to get into the UK. Their support stood at 16-18% which is very bad.

Added to this you had a "leader" of the opposition who has always been against the EU and because 90% of his members were in favour made the most pathetic effort one could imagine - which has now sent his party into chaos but that is a different subject.

This brings me to Boris, a man who has had an eye for the main chance. All of a sudden he went from a man who claimed on balance to be in favour of the EU to someone who claimed the EU was the worst thing in the world. Post Brexit vote (and he was the leader of that) he then wrote an article in which he seemed to advocate being part of the free market with open borders, exactly the opposite to his own campaign. When Gove another man seeking to be PM pointed out that Boris had not a clue what he was talking about he abandoned his campaign and waited for his party to turn on his assassin which they duly did leading to someone who largely stayed out of the argument to become PM and but all the Brexiteers into positions they were manifestly unfit to serve.

All parties had agreed (until Cameron's failed gamble - posh rich men are always prepared to gamble because ultimately they will be posh and rich whatever) that there would be a vote if there was significant treaty change but there never was and the UK got a huge rebate and didn't join the Euro so really there was no urgency to leave. By the way it was the UK's own choice to bail out Ireland while making sure we stayed out of the other ones so it doesn't look like we were being forced to do much against our will.

The vast majority of EU migrant workers come hear to work hard. They mainly come from Poland which is why when Farage played his WWII veteran card basically saying this wasn't why they defended the country just to lose "sovereignty" it seemed especially wrong because anybody knows their history knows the massive part the Polish played in defending Britain and indeed helping us out with the Enigma machine.

It may seem like we disagree after I've said all that but I recognise the truth in what you say. I just feel a lot differently about it. Brexit does mean Brexit but 16 million of us voted against it. We lost but why on earth should we shut up considering the day after the Brexit campaign admitted they had no plan besides Farage going to an EU parliament he has personally sponged off for years and insulting everyone else in Europe.

I believe it was shameful backward looking day for the UK and Cameron will be forever judged for it and I am sure his descendants will cry all the way to the bank. 

Should Obama and the IMF have stayed out - probably. Should the Governor of the Bank of England have stayed out - absolutely not.

 

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

When Englishmen feel that they can speak freely, I listen.

 

[woodworker]

[Thestarider]

After Brexit, Can Germany Lead Europe Alone?

By ANNA SAUERBREYJULY 4, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
• Save

BERLIN — Whether Britain’s decision to leave the European Union turns out to be a disaster or just a bump in the road for Europe on its path to unification, one consequence is already abundantly, disturbingly clear: Brexit will cement Germany’s role as the Continent’s leader — a role that neither Germany nor anybody else is entirely comfortable with.

 

It has rarely felt this lonely at the center of Europe. With Britain leaving, Germany is losing an important partner within the European Union, as well as on foreign policy beyond it.

 

That is not to say that Britain was an easy partner in recent years. The mind reels at what Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, known for her cautious, step-by-step policies, must have thought of Prime Minister David Cameron tossing his country’s membership onto the gambling table in a bid to blackmail the European Union. Ms. Merkel is a committed Europeanist; Mr. Cameron called the union “too big, too bossy, too interfering.”

 

Still, given the nativist pressures rising in practically every country in Europe, Mr. Cameron counted as a pretty good partner. He was a strong supporter of the Berlin-led austerity politics during the financial crisis and the Greek crisis that followed.

 

He defended the refugee deal that Ms. Merkel devised with Turkey. And when the leaders of Germany, France and Italy called President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to tell him to stop backing President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Mr. Cameron eagerly jumped on the line.

And Mr. Cameron brought more than his personal support to the table. Britain has the largest military budget in Europe and a world-class diplomatic corps — not to mention an economy that, if not exactly firing on all cylinders, was on fire compared with much of the rest of the Continent.

 

Britain’s departure is a particularly hard blow to Germany since its other partners are weak or growing distant. The German-Polish relationship, once strong, has eroded since the nationalist Law and Justice Party came to power in Poland in 2015. Austria just missed electing the far-right Norbert Hofer as president.

 

And France — well, it’s complicated.

At first glance, the German-French axis, which acted as the European Union’s steel spine for decades, seems as strong as ever. Just a few hours after the victory of the British Leave campaign was announced, the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung quoted extensively from a joint paper by Jean-Marc Ayrault, the French foreign minister, and his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, about the future of Europe. “Europe needs guidance now,” it said. “It is Germany’s and France’s responsibility to provide that guidance.”

 

But France is a difficult partner, too. President François Hollande enjoys the trust of neither his people (only 13 percent, according to polls conducted in June) nor his Socialist Party. He is under immense pressure from the far-right National Front, which expects to win about a third of the vote in next year’s presidential election, and from France’s powerful unions, which oppose Mr. Hollande’s modest Anglo-German-style labor reforms. All of this — and a perpetually weak economy — leaves him unable to provide strong leadership within Europe, let alone abroad.

 

True, Brexit doesn’t require an end to British-German cooperation. But Britain faces a long period of turning inward, politically, as it deals with the implosion of its leading political parties, an empowered far right and the possibility of Scottish independence. For the foreseeable future, Germany stands alone — a role it not only did not seek, but also at times actively resisted.

 

In an essay for Foreign Affairs magazine published about two weeks before the British referendum, Mr. Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, disavowed any interest in Continental leadership by his country. “Circumstances have forced it into a central role,” he wrote. “Preserving that union and sharing the burden of leadership are Germany’s top priorities.”

 

The problem is that a core reason for the European Union in the first place was to constrain German power by dispersing leadership roles across the membership. But what happens when the future of the union depends, arguably, on a new assertion of German power?

 

Germany’s immediate reaction to the Brexit referendum has been to call for a new burden-sharing arrangement with what’s left of the old gang. On the Saturday after the vote, the foreign ministers of the European Union’s founding members — Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands — assembled at the Villa Borsig, the Brandenburg retreat of the German government. On Monday, Ms. Merkel summoned the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk; Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy; and Mr. Hollande of France to Berlin.

The significance of the fact that she could summon her colleagues onto her own turf to discuss how they might share some of Britain’s newly discarded burden was lost on no one. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the head of Poland’s Law and Justice Party, called the idea of convening only the union’s old guard “little thought through.” And Prime Minister Xavier Bettel of Luxembourg complained at the European Union summit last week about the formation of “small clubs” within the union.

Thus the dilemma. Germany cannot go it alone, and doesn’t want to. But without a strong partner to share the leadership, it has the unpalatable choice of letting power sit with a broad cast of unreliable partners, or creating a new inner circle. No one wants to give Law and Justice a seat at the table. But denying it will only strengthen national narcissisms in countries already troubled with euroskepticism, further splintering the Continent.

 

Which means that Germany may have to take command, after all. It’s a delicate task. But now that Germany finds itself on center stage, it might as well perform.

[MrBox]

 

[MrBox]

 

[woodworker]

 

[van the man]

Brexit does not (or should not) mean the UK is leaving Europe. We are European by geography, and European by culture. Until recently Europe has been White, Christian, Capitalist and with a belief in a balance between the judiciary and government and the rule of law by jury. Despite all of the wars of the 20th century Europe has managed to hold on to Government by Consent and has avoided much drift towards Dictatorship and undemocratic government.

Turning into the 21st century the pace of 'Political Union' within the 'EU' began to gather pace. The resulting disconnect between the governed and the government grew yet the EU leadership chose to ignore any signs that the people of each nation was becoming restless. Every vote ever undertaken by various nations in which the people expressed concern about the path of the EU was dismissed as having given the 'wrong' answer to the questions raised and each nation was told to go away and vote again until the 'right' answer was achieved.

At the same time, wars across the middle east set that region alight and mass migration to Europe began in earnest.

Political Union instilled 'Free Movement' as one of the EU's founding principals. Free movement was meant for the people of the EU to settle anywhere in each member country and yet this principle was then applied to migration from outside the EU borders. The result was mass movement of people across the EU with no checks or balances. EU member peoples moved in ever increasing numbers from the East and South towards Northern Europe as huge numbers from outside the EU moved into the East on a journey towards the North. Eventually the people of the Northern countries began to realise what was happening and began to resent 'mass migration' having been generally benign towards European immigration.

In the UK the UKIP party began to rise in popularity. Their message about mass migration got through to 'ordinary' people who felt left behind by economic integration and threatened by the take over of 'their' jobs (even if they didn't want to actually do some of the jobs!)  by migrants. The EU political elite refused to listen to their concerns and branded them as 'racist' for even thinking about migration as anything but good.

Under pressure from UKIP David Cameron gave the UK the chance to express their opinion on the EU, Political Union and Free Movement (Migration). Cameron thought that the government machine combined with every outside agency willing to express an opinion (IMF, CBI, Trade Unions, the Church, oh and Barack Obama!) could frighten people to give the 'right' answer to the question. However, Mr Cameron underestimated the British people. Ordinary voters who had been denied a voice for almost 50 years rose up and declared they were sick of being ignored by supposed democratic politicians and gave a resounding 'stuff you' answer.

So the vote to leave was won. Leave what? Not to leave Europe, not to abandon European Values of fairness of law, Capitalism and Christianity. The vote was to leave Political Union and Free Movement. So the UK remains a 'European' Nation. If the rest of the EU chooses to accept the vote result and accepts the UK should remain an active member of the European continent then nothing much needs to change for the people of Europe. Free trade can continue, controlled movement of people can continue and Europe can prosper. 

After all the ordinary people of Europe never voted for Political Union or Free Movement. It never voted for mass immigration or Monetary Union. It never voted for the political structure thrust upon them by undemocratic means. So if Germany doesn't want to dominate Europe as outlined  by Anna Sauerbrey above, all it need to do is accept the UK as a leading European nation and its Best Friend on the Continent of Europe. After all geography still defines Great Britain as part of Europe!!!

[van the man]

Oh by the way Scotland will never vote for independence. The people of Scotland know they would be a bankrupt tiny nation on the outer limits of Europe and would sink into chaos and poverty within week or months. Without the English sending them buckets of money and guaranteeing both their debt and currency Scotland would cease to exist. With oil prices at $140 a barrel the Economic outlook for an independent Scotland was on shaky ground, at $40 it would mean austerity beyond anyone's imagination!!!

The English would vote Scotland out of the UK in the blink of an eye if given a vote on the subject. The Scots given a second 'once in a lifetime' referendum would vote No and continue to hold out their hands for piles of our English pounds!!!

[MrBox]

 

 

[woodworker]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 7:34 PM, van the man said:

Oh by the way Scotland will never vote for independence. The people of Scotland know they would be a bankrupt tiny nation on the outer limits of Europe and would sink into chaos and poverty within week or months. Without the English sending them buckets of money and guaranteeing both their debt and currency Scotland would cease to exist. With oil prices at $140 a barrel the Economic outlook for an independent Scotland was on shaky ground, at $40 it would mean austerity beyond anyone's imagination!!!

The English would vote Scotland out of the UK in the blink of an eye if given a vote on the subject. The Scots given a second 'once in a lifetime' referendum would vote No and continue to hold out their hands for piles of our English pounds!!!

They're just like fleas riding upon the great dogs back.    Good for nothing!

[BBsq69]

i have a lot of friends in Scotland and Scottish friends in England. lived there for over 5 years, and I would have voted for independece had I been Scottish living in Scotland. However I am neither so I wanted them yo stay because I have a heritage from all parts of the UK. If you vote on emotion you should have voted to leave the Union. However if you vote on sense you would not.

1. While Scotland believes that it subsidises England "because it's Scotland's oil" this has only been true for some of the last 40 years and certainly not for the last year. For almost all of the history of the Union England has subsidised Scotland and on the basis that it is the UK's oil (because up to then there was zero appetite for leaving the Union) England substantial subsidises Scotland especially since the mid 70s. 

2. Scotland's economy is based on oil and banking. Obviously the oil price has fallen through the floor and so did banking industry in 2008. The main 2 banks we had to bail out were Halifax Bank Of Scotland and The Royal Bank of Scotland both I believe based in Edinburgh. So an independent Scotland would have been bankrupt beyond the dreams of Iceland and indeed last year had pretty much the highest percent deficit on earth. However of course if Scotland did become independent legally the banks would have to move to England because that is where the vast majority of their business is, which are the rules.

3. Scotland would have to negotiate with the rest of the UK over the family silver. They seem to think it would be an equal amicable separation but when they put the interests of their 5 million people on the table and we put the interests of our 60 million people they will soon find out that we will not be giving anything away however loud the scream because simply we do not need to consider them any more.

The Union was formed because Scotland went horrendously bust over Panama. They do not seem to teach that in their schools, much preferring the story that England bullied them into it. Even in their most famous battle Bannockburn 1314 (a date as famous as 1066 in England) the actual combatants were a bunch of mercenaries and there were more actual Scots fighting for King Edward. All crimes committed by the British Empire they claim have nothing to do with them and yet their officials and soldiers are all over it and they like to claim that Glasgow was the 2nd city of the Empire. Like I said I get emotionally where Scottish Nationalists are coming from but they do not really face up to economic reality or history.