Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    Article 50

    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

    2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

    3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

    4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

    A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.


    [Article 218]

    For acts of the European Council and of the Council requiring a qualified majority, members’ votes shall be weighted as follows:

    Austria 10
    Belgium 12
    Bulgaria 10
    Cyprus 4
    Czech Republic 12
    Denmark 7
    Germany 29
    Estonia 4
    Finland 7
    France 29
    Greece 12
    Hungary 12
    Ireland 7
    Italy 29
    Latvia 4
    Lithuania 7
    Luxembourg 4
    Malta 3
    Netherlands 13
    Poland 27
    Portugal 12
    Romania 14
    Slovakia 7
    Slovenia 4
    Spain 27
    Sweden 10
    United Kingdom 29

    Absent the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Romania and the Netherlands have a combined total of 53.2% of the “qualified” total.
    What i got from article 2

    - first the agreement gets hammered out then notice is given to withdraw.
    - the EU states have to 'agree' to that agreement.

    Not clear what or how many constitutes a 'qualified' majority ?

    Originally posted by kato View Post
    the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.

    http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...ticle-238.html

    Absent the UK, this requires at least 20 states representing 288,324,200 people. The decision to take up negotiations with the UK (following a formal declaration to exit the union and a supporting majority vote in the EU parliament) can therefore be blocked by any combination of eight states or any states comprising at least 155,251,492 people. Germany and France together comprise 147,612,698 people and would therefore need a third partner of at least 7.6 million people to block such a decision (with 12 member states available of that size).
    72% so close to three quarters..

    So UK will continue to be in the EU for some time to come :D

    The 'uncertainty' begins after the declaration. Not now in the intervening period before the declaration.

    Symbolically: those patriotic Englishmen who campaigned on the Leave side were (mostly) waving the Union Jack. If Scotland were to leave, it would be the end of the Union Jack — where the cross of St. Andrew stands for Scotland, the cross of St. Patrick stands for Northern Ireland, and only the cross of St. George stands for England.
    An interesting plan by the prof.

    Was informed a while ago by one of the English members (T_igger) here that the term jack only applies when the union flag is hoisted on a ship. Otherwise its known just as the union flag.

    The underlined bit is why i think the Uk breaking up is unlikely, a good scare tactic by the opposition but i believe unlikely. It is ludicrous to vote to leave and end up with a broken country. Patently clear in the leave camp.

    Sturgeon's hand waving and running around is just doing her job, good for job security, she looks busy regardless of the outcome.

    At some point there would be a new general election, fought along Remain/Leave lines. As part of the Remain campaign, its leaders should spell out policies to improve living standards for those who feel they have lost out to globalization and European integration.
    Bingo! there's your do over.

    The brexit vote isn't final, its more like a semi-final :D
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jul 16,, 13:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • tankie
    replied
    Ha link destroyed , ang on . The claim over his bribe is app true ,however im having trouble finding the original post ??

    On another note N Farage has just resigned from leader UKIP . And now France is bankrupt .


    NewsWorldEurope
    'France is totally bankrupt': French jobs minister Michel Sapin embarrasses Francois Hollande with shocking statement on state of the country's economy
    Unexpected news came during a radio interview yesterday and calls into further question Hollande's controversial 'tax and spend' policies

    John Hall @johnmatthewhall Tuesday 29 January 201312 comments




    17K
    francois-hollande.jpg
    Michel Sapin and Francois Hollande Reuters; Getty
    France’s employment minister Michel Sapin has admitted the country is “totally bankrupt”.

    The unexpected news came during a radio interview yesterday and is thought to have sent the country’s business leaders into a state of shock.

    “There is a state but it is a totally bankrupt state,” Mr Sapin said. “That is why we had to put a deficit reduction plan in place, and nothing should make us turn away from that objective.”

    Mr Sapin’s “totally bankrupt” statement is likely to cause huge embarrassment for President Francois Hollande, who will be left to undo the potential damage to his socialist government’s reputation.

    It also calls into further question Hollande’s controversial “tax and spend” policies that have seen numerous entrepreneurs and high profile celebrities leave the country.

    The comments came as President Hollande attempts to improve the image of the French economy after pledging to reduce the country’s deficit by cutting spending by €60bn (£51.5bn) over the next five years and increasing taxes by €20bn (£17bn).

    Among those who moved their wealth out of France are Hollywood star Gerard Depardieu and the country's richest man Bernard Arnault.

    There are even reports that Nicolas Sarkozy, the previous President of France, is preparing to move to London with his wife Carla Bruni for economic reasons.

    Prime Minister David Cameron has previously said that Britain will “roll out the red carpet” to attract wealthy French people.

    Pierre Moscovici, France's finance minister, immediately tried to play down Mr Sapin's comments, saying they were 'inappropriate'.

    Mr Moscovici said: “France is a really solvent country. France is a really credible country, France is a country that is starting to recover.”
    Last edited by tankie; 04 Jul 16,, 11:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by tankie View Post
    Tony B,liar is now sticking his murderers nose into the debate wanting the vote to be overturned , Democracy ,,what democracy .


    Extract
    The fraudulent construction of the EU money laundry was a particular investigative concern of Story. On Friday 7th March 2008, it emerged (again) that Tony Blair, the UK's Ex-Prime Minister, had been paid $100 million from a secret EU slush fund to secure the UK's compliance in recent European legislative changes signed in Lisbon (Portugal) on Thursday 13th December 2007.
    Tony Blair's money was conditional on his prevention of a public referendum on the issue in the UK. Blair agreed to the condition and deposited his $100 million in the Central Bank of Belize between February and March 2006. More details here. The delineations of this EU corruption web were first articulated publicly by Christopher Story in October 2005. More here.
    Read the whole article
    http://alcuinbramerton.blogspot.co.u...edward-…

    The source link doesn't work.
    Any evidence in the article?

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Of course he doesn't care to quit. He's unelected in a job for life with immunity from prosecution for his tax haven dealings. The only way he's leaving is when he drops dead.

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    http://www.politico.eu/article/jean-...-not-quitting/
    Jean-Claude Juncker: I don’t care about bad press. And I’m not quitting!

    Commission president dismisses calls to resign after Brexit vote and brushes aside criticism.
    By

    Matthew Karnitschnig

    6/29/16, 8:26 PM CET

    Updated 6/30/16, 7:21 AM CET

    Jean-Claude Juncker offered a sharp defense of his record during the Brexit campaign, rejecting calls for him to resign in the wake of a vote that could rob the European Union of one of its largest members and nearly one-fifth of its economy.

    Asked by POLITICO after Wednesday’s European summit for his response to critics, including the Czech foreign minister, who say the Commission president should step down, Juncker said he saw no reason to do so.

    “You think many people believe what it says in POLITICO. That is clearly not the case,” Juncker responded.

    He appeared to be referring to a recent POLITICO article that explored the growing criticism in Brussels and many member countries of his stewardship.

    “I have been encouraged by many colleagues not to allow myself to be discouraged by these articles. I don’t let the press either encourage or discourage me, either to incapacitate me or to drive me to highs and lows. That’s not my thing,” Juncker continued.

    Juncker was largely silent during the British referendum campaign, a decision he said came at the urging of Prime Minister David Cameron and the British opposition. He drew parallels to the recent rejection of the EU’s association agreement with Ukraine by Dutch voters.

    “Many wrote that the Dutch rejected the deal with the Ukraine because I got involved,” Juncker said. “Now it is said the British voiced their opposition to the EU because I didn’t get involved. You know what? I couldn’t care less.”

    Juncker suggested that anyone who thinks he should resign should review his long political career.

    “I’ve been politically active for 30 years, that’s why POLITICO can write that I’m an old model, old-fashioned,” he said. “I would suggest many younger people examine my life in detail. That would lead, though who is going to do this, to other conclusions.”

    Council President Donald Tusk, standing next to Juncker at their closing press briefing, sprang to his defense, calling the question “unfair.” Juncker did “more than the maximum” in negotiating a new arrangement for the UK to stay in the EU.

    “Jean-Claude Juncker is the last person we can accuse of being responsible for the negative result of the referendum in the U.K.,” Tusk said. “In fact, I can’t understand this kind of speculation.”

    The Juncker exchange took place in German.

    The Council’s interpreter had difficulty keeping up with Juncker’s rapid-fire response, however, leaving the translation incomplete and jumbled.

    When another reporter asked Juncker to repeat his response in English, he refused. “I don’t think I have to explain this in different languages,” he said, adding that the POLITICO question wasn’t “unpleasant, it was just unnecessary.”
    GEOFFREY LEVY: Still sneering at Britain: Jean-Claude Juncker the boozy bully who sums up all that's rotten about the EU

    By Geoffrey Levy for the Daily Mail

    Published: 19:50 EST, 29 June 2016 | Updated: 02:30 EST, 30 June 2016
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...rotten-EU.html
    Everything that is wrong with the EU, the reasons why a majority of British voters plumped for Brexit, could, I suspect, be symbolised by one man this week: Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission.

    'Why are you here?' this big-talking little man taunted British MEP Nigel Farage in the European Parliament this week. The President was loving it, like a stand-up comedian working a compliant audience.

    Where but in the EU could a small-time politician with no particular talents, from a country the size of Surrey that thrives on unpaid taxes diverted from its fellow member states, have been given the presidency of a commission which — operating in total secrecy — oversees 28 countries (soon to be 27) of 500 million people?

    ...
    But then Juncker, known for his rumpled suits and alcohol-laced breath, is nothing if not a small-town bully-boy politician. He's used to throwing his weight around in Luxembourg, a state built on tax avoidance for which he was largely responsible as prime minister for 18 years — 15 of which he was finance minister.

    Tycoons

    Largely as a result of Juncker's enthusiasm for tax avoidance deals, Luxembourg's citizens are by far the wealthiest in Europe, with a gross domestic product per capita twice that of Germany and three times that of Britain.

    Luxembourg, for the record, gives succour to secretive finance houses, tax-dodging tycoons and corrupt Third World dictators.

    Juncker used to boast in speeches how he was involved in 'tough negotiations' that lured the giant American firm Amazon to Luxembourg — this is of course the same Amazon whose billions of pounds in trade in the UK provide scant tax receipts to our Exchequer, money which, after all, could help pay for our hospitals and schools.

    Tax-avoiding Apple is another beneficiary — so that if, for example, you download music on iTunes you are dealing with a subsidiary in Luxembourg. It should be noted that at the time Juncker took office, less than two years ago, the ineffectual Commission over which he now presides was meant to be investigating the most egregious cases of Luxembourg's corporate tax deals. What was the result of that, we are entitled to wonder?

    State documents from Luxembourg revealed by a whistleblower from a firm of accountants showed how officials under Juncker, when he was PM, fostered a corrosive culture of corporate tax avoidance. Incredibly, this involved more than 300 of the world's biggest companies including — in addition to Amazon and Apple — Disney, Dyson, Microsoft and PepsiCo.

    No wonder his appointment as the effective head of the EU caused an outcry, especially from David Cameron. As one prominent German MEP declared at the time: 'When it comes to Jean-Claude Juncker and the EU battle against tax dodging, it would seem the fox has been enlisted to guard the henhouse.'

    While Juncker, 61, seems to have expended much energy helping major corporations save millions of pounds, he is not averse to spending millions himself — as long as it is public money, of course.

    As Luxembourg's PM, he is said to have lavished huge sums flying government delegations around on luxuriously appointed private jets that were three-quarters empty. On one such jaunt to Lisbon, it was kept waiting at the airport for 24 hours at a cost of 40,000 euros.

    .............
    Expense

    Called Belval and the size of 120 football pitches, it is being transformed into a vast scientific and cultural centre, served by not one but two railway stations. Work has gone on for a dozen years, and it's not finished.

    And you won't be surprised to learn that in this richest of small nations, the area has received generous grants from the EU.

    Whether it will ever justify the massive investment is open to debate. Many shops, offices and apartments remain empty, some roads and bridges lead nowhere and completion is a dream — one as unrealistic as the transfer of more and more national powers to an ever more powerful EU.

    To Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg is the perfect European state, a financial bolthole that has exploited its EU status to become fabulously rich at the expense of supposed friends.

    How many untaxed billions of British money lie in its secret vaults, no one can say. Secretly, through special tax deals, Luxembourg shares in worldwide economic success without doing anything to earn it.

    And Juncker is the man largely responsible for it.

    This, then, is the posturing martinet hectoring Britain and threatening that we won't be 'sitting at the table any more'.

    Ironically, if post-Brexit British firms continue to be successful and deposit profits in Luxembourg, this ultimate symbol of arrogant, out-of-touch Eurocrats will surely be delighted.
    Last edited by troung; 04 Jul 16,, 04:28.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Scotland can't join the EU. If Sapin permits Scotland to join, then the basque can make the same claim (as well as others) leading to a greater balkinization of the EU. Scotland either goes it alone, or as part of the UK, it will never be part of the EU.
    Exactly. Not to mention what the Baltic states might have to deal with in terms of inspiring "home grown" independence movements.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    by Jeffrey Frankel

    I see a possible way out for the trap that Brits now find themselves in, a way to keep Great Britain great.

    1. The Scots, under Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister of Scotland), would decide immediately that they will hold a new referendum. This referendum would state explicitly that if the United Kingdom decides to stay in the EU then Scotland will stay in the UK, but if Britain leaves the EU then Scotland will leave the UK. The decision to hold a referendum on Scottish independence would be approved by the Westminster parliament.
    2. That referendum would create a constitutional crisis in Great Britain. This constitutional crisis would genuinely justify a second UK referendum on whether to leave the EU (Brexit), in a way that mere second thoughts after the June 23 outcome do not otherwise justify. Historically, the “Great” was added when Scotland joined the union. It became the “United Kingdom” when Ireland joined. Symbolically: those patriotic Englishmen who campaigned on the Leave side were (mostly) waving the Union Jack. If Scotland were to leave, it would be the end of the Union Jack — where the cross of St. Andrew stands for Scotland, the cross of St. Patrick stands for Northern Ireland, and only the cross of St. George stands for England.
    3. In this second Brexit referendum, the Remain campaign will pick up votes of those committed to preserving the UK intact — in addition to any who have now learned that the leaders of the Leave campaign cannot fulfill promises made regarding immigration, trade, and budget savings. Perhaps the outcome will come out pro-EU this time, which is what happened in the past when other European countries reversed initial anti-integration referenda, in both Ireland and Denmark. (If the EU were willing to make further concessions to the UK that would also help, of course; but it cannot be expected to do so.)
    4. This plan would be pursued by a coalition of four: Sturgeon, some new anti-Brexit Tory leader, some new anti-Brexit Labor politician, and Tim Farron (of the Liberal Democrats). During the period of uncertainty over Scotland, the prime-ministership, the leadership of these three British parties and indeed the very existence of the parties would remain also uncertain. This political crisis further justifies the fundamental rethink. At some point there would be a new general election, fought along Remain/Leave lines. As part of the Remain campaign, its leaders should spell out policies to improve living standards for those who feel they have lost out to globalization and European integration.
    5. Meanwhile, many continental EU leaders will demand that the UK invoke article 50, to start the process of actually leaving. But the UK parliament would nevertheless refrain from doing it, until the referendum process has played itself out.

    Jeffrey Frankel is Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
    Excellent idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by drhuy View Post
    the remain camp dont know when to quit, do they?
    Scotland can't join the EU. If Sapin permits Scotland to join, then the basque can make the same claim (as well as others) leading to a greater balkinization of the EU. Scotland either goes it alone, or as part of the UK, it will never be part of the EU.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pedicabby
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    no thanks. i'll take dealing with 50 idiots over 10 million idiots. especially in this case, where we're not dealing with just one "country" but with Scotland, Ireland, -and- England. as i said, my belief re: the referendum would remain the same if Remain had won; you'd have a bunch of pissed off English vice a bunch of pissed off Scots and Irish.
    I'll keep faith with the public saying they want control back over out of touch elites.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7116836.html
    Few political analysts, super-forecasters, pollsters, betting shops or financial markets anticipated the result. Undaunted, the same people are now confidently outlining the consequences and likely outcomes. Putative prophets may benefit from the advice of William Goldman in Adventures in the Screen Trade: “Nobody knows anything... Not one person… knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.”

    Perhaps the most interesting observation after the vote was the gallows humour of one trader: “Brexit could be followed by Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakout, Latervia and Byegium. Looks like only Remania will stay”.

    ....
    The debate was always between economics and sovereignty (in the guise of immigration and border control). Exaggerated claims of economic losses, based on macroeconomic models which have failed repeatedly over recent years, to engender fear were rejected. Some UK regions reliant on exports to the EU voted strongly to Leave. For the disenfranchised, the fruits of growth, investment and international trade remain unattainable. Threats – perceived or real – to jobs, and uncertainty about nationality, are powerful forces. The inconvenience of the non-EU line at immigration or the ability to own a holiday retreat on the continent does not concern those who have never had those opportunities.
    Read more
    In Europe, as in life, we cannot have everything we want

    The failure of the economic arguments to sway the vote may spell the end of economic rationalism which began with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

    It may be that the vote against the EU was, in part, a protest vote against the long-term changes in economic structure of the UK economy, which has destroyed many working- and middle-class lives. Insofar as the decision represents a retreat to economic nationalism and closed borders, it may highlight the diminishing appeal of globalisation.

    Increasing scepticism about experts and expert advice may also be one longer-term effect. The views of the Governor of the Bank of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury were disregarded equally.

    In a pivotal moment in the campaign, challenged to name a single expert who thought that Brexit would economically benefit Britain, Justice Secretary Michael Gove’s defiant response was: “I think people in this country have had enough of experts.” The reality is that experts no longer relate to ordinary people.

    Policy orthodoxy, such as free trade, de-industrialisation and, in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, austerity and unconventional monetary policy, have not benefited large parts of the population. Ordinary people’s appetite for sacrifice in return for unquantified future benefits promised by experts has waned.

    The gravitational pull of aspiration, central to Thatcher and Reagan’s brand of conservatism, has faded as trickle-down economics has betrayed many people.

    ...

    The EU is circling the wagons, painting Britain as a reluctant European, and seeks to punish her to dissuade other nations from similar actions. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s tart summary reflects this view: “It’s not an amicable divorce, but it never really was a close love affair anyway”.

    The intellectual response is framed by cognitive dissonance. Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, lamented the fact that the referendum outcome was the result of a complex question being reduced to “absurd simplicity”.

    Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University, saw it as “Russian roulette for republics”. He complained that the simple majority of those who voted (36 per cent of eligible voters voted for leaving) was an absurdly low bar – although that level is significantly higher than the average winning vote proportion in recent US presidential elections, for example. Such a significant decision, he said, should not be made without appropriate checks and balance.

    And in an editorial for Business Insider, American columnist Josh Barro termed the decision “a tantrum”. British voters had made “a bad choice”. It was an “error of direct democracy”. Such important decisions should not be decided by voters but left to “informed” elected officials.

    For those who believe they are born to rule, democracy should be for those who meet some standard set by them with the proviso that the vote coincides with what they think ought to happen. For this group, the Brexit vote signals the need to limit democracy to ensure that important decisions are left to self-certified experts.

    History may well record that little changed as a result of the Leave vote. But if the deep-seated economic and social divisions within Britain cannot be dealt with peacefully and through existing processes, the risk is that it will unleash the furies of nationalism and isolationism in unknown ways and with unpredictable results.

    https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/...sterious-ways/
    33.5 million electors participated in the Brexit referendum, with a turnout in excess of 72%, the highest in the UK since the 1992 parliamentary elections and more than twice British participation in the last EU parliament elections (historically never higher that 38.5%). 17.4 million citizens chose Brexit, the largest ever number of votes in favor of a political cause or party in Britain’s history (until now, the largest vote was 14 million achieved by the Conservative Party also in 1992). Contrary to elections where proportional representation rules, each vote across the UK had the same weight, and this explains that 51.9% of the individual votes went for Brexit against Parliament support for the same being below 25%. Although in percentage terms the difference that swung victory was less than 2%, the margin in favor of Brexit was in excess of 1.2 million people. People from the entire political spectrum voted to Leave, ignoring traditional party lines; however, the widely different age composition for or against Brexit deserves special examination. It is being argued, quiet convincingly, that the Labour constituency in North England was one of the key driving forces for Brexit, despite the official line in favor of Remain taken by the vast majority of Labour party officials.

    The entire referendum campaign was contested over a four month period, much longer than the average duration of a British parliamentary campaign. Regardless of criticism on the quality of the debate and the veracity of key election themes raised by each camp, there was an unprecedented involvement of so-called third party experts, individual or institutional, mainly in favor of the Remain camp, including most of the entire Western political and international financial establishment headed by the Presidents of the U.S. and France, Germany’s Chancellor, the IMF head, several of NATO’s former top commanders and CEOs of the largest international banks. Similar to consumer warning labels, a long list of potential adverse consequences were laid out by the Remain camp concerning economic growth, employment, pensions, taxation, the pound, house prices and international trade should Brexit win the day. The barrage of warnings against Grexit during last year’s debate was children’s game compared to what we heard in Britain during the last few months.

    During the entire Brexit campaign the odds against the Leave camp were consistently high not only among opinion polls (whatever they are now worth it) but also among the very British traditional betting business. To win an election against the status quo in a primarily middle-class country is an uphill battle. The senseless murder of an MP actively supporting the Remain campaign the week before decision day was seen by many as the watershed that would finally tip the election in favor of the In side, but this was not the case (even Kirklees, the constituency of the slain MP Jo Cox voted in favor of Leave)
    ........
    Beyond dubious constitutional, political and realpolitik grounds, the suggestion that the UK Parliament should revoke the referendum is probably the most ominous one and should be thrown into a dustbin of bad humor political anecdotes. With the same logic used by the MPs proposing this revocation, the EU Parliament should ultimately supersede the sovereignty of the British parliament, which is something that the Eurocrats have been doing assiduously in the last few years. It is quite revealing to hear the European Commission President Juncker lecturing European politicians last May to ignore their electorates and saying ‘If you are listening to your national opinion you are not developing what should be a common European sense.’

    Instead of wasting efforts questioning the Brexit decision, perhaps the losing side should look for the reasons behind Brexit as a lesson to the political classes, not only in Britain but around the world. The Brexit win cannot be simplified as the triumph of old, rural, small-minded, nostalgic and xenophobic England. We need, for instance, to look at the wealth gap (in terms of income and asset ownership) that keeps widening not only in Britain but across the world. We also need to look back at the unfairness of taxation; younger generations, truly addicted to avant garde gadgetry, social media and the web, should learn that recently Apple just paid £17mm of taxes on £1.3 billion of UK revenues and Facebook £4,327 (no hidden zeros). This reminds us of the tax-free paying aristocracy at the eve of the French Revolution. Perhaps we are lucky that the Brexit decision is a bloodless upheaval and, in true British fashion, less anarchistic and destructive that most social changes that have happened in Europe in its history.

    Whoever accuses Britain of backwardness utterly ignores the contributions of British society towards human progress through, for instance, the movements to abolish slavery and to give electoral vote to women. Whoever accuses Britain of intolerance should remember that Marx, Engels and Ho Chi Minh settled in London (as Bolivar, San Martin and Miranda also did at the eve of the South American independence wars). We should also remember that even Bonaparte, at the end of his political life, wanted to settle in this country that once had contemptuously called at the peak of his short lasting glory ‘a nation of shopkeepers’, a similar cry nowadays made by the Brexit losers.
    Police: Hate Crime Has NOT ‘Surged by 57 Per Cent’ Since Brexit
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...-since-brexit/
    by Breitbart London29 Jun 20161,719
    SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

    A statement from the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Hate Crime has skewered the mainstream media and ‘Remain’ politician narrative that there has been a confirmed spike in hate crimes across the United Kingdom since the country voted to leave the European Union (EU).

    Speaking on Tuesday, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton clarified that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed.

    Earlier Breitbart London reported on how Remain campaigners are using Facebook groups to urge people to report hate crimes via the online ‘True Vision’ platform.

    Hamilton said: “Police forces are working closely with their communities to maintain unity and tolerance and prevent any hate crime or abuse following the EU referendum. At the national level, the vast majority of people are continuing to go about their lives in safety and security and there have been no major spikes in tensions reported.

    “However, we are seeing an increase in reports [emphasis added] of hate crime incidents to True Vision, the police online hate crime reporting site. This is similar to the trends following other major national or international events.



    And further information from his office stated that there has been an of 57 per cent increase in reporting [emphasis added] to True Vision since Friday compared to this time last month.

    They add: “This should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57% but an increase in reporting through one mechanism.”
    Last edited by troung; 03 Jul 16,, 20:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by drhuy View Post
    the remain camp dont know when to quit, do they?
    It's not like they will lose something that they hold dear

    Leave a comment:


  • drhuy
    replied
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    by Jeffrey Frankel

    I see a possible way out for the trap that Brits now find themselves in, a way to keep Great Britain great.

    1. The Scots, under Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister of Scotland), would decide immediately that they will hold a new referendum. This referendum would state explicitly that if the United Kingdom decides to stay in the EU then Scotland will stay in the UK, but if Britain leaves the EU then Scotland will leave the UK. The decision to hold a referendum on Scottish independence would be approved by the Westminster parliament.
    2. That referendum would create a constitutional crisis in Great Britain. This constitutional crisis would genuinely justify a second UK referendum on whether to leave the EU (Brexit), in a way that mere second thoughts after the June 23 outcome do not otherwise justify. Historically, the “Great” was added when Scotland joined the union. It became the “United Kingdom” when Ireland joined. Symbolically: those patriotic Englishmen who campaigned on the Leave side were (mostly) waving the Union Jack. If Scotland were to leave, it would be the end of the Union Jack — where the cross of St. Andrew stands for Scotland, the cross of St. Patrick stands for Northern Ireland, and only the cross of St. George stands for England.
    3. In this second Brexit referendum, the Remain campaign will pick up votes of those committed to preserving the UK intact — in addition to any who have now learned that the leaders of the Leave campaign cannot fulfill promises made regarding immigration, trade, and budget savings. Perhaps the outcome will come out pro-EU this time, which is what happened in the past when other European countries reversed initial anti-integration referenda, in both Ireland and Denmark. (If the EU were willing to make further concessions to the UK that would also help, of course; but it cannot be expected to do so.)
    4. This plan would be pursued by a coalition of four: Sturgeon, some new anti-Brexit Tory leader, some new anti-Brexit Labor politician, and Tim Farron (of the Liberal Democrats). During the period of uncertainty over Scotland, the prime-ministership, the leadership of these three British parties and indeed the very existence of the parties would remain also uncertain. This political crisis further justifies the fundamental rethink. At some point there would be a new general election, fought along Remain/Leave lines. As part of the Remain campaign, its leaders should spell out policies to improve living standards for those who feel they have lost out to globalization and European integration.
    5. Meanwhile, many continental EU leaders will demand that the UK invoke article 50, to start the process of actually leaving. But the UK parliament would nevertheless refrain from doing it, until the referendum process has played itself out.

    Jeffrey Frankel is Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
    the remain camp dont know when to quit, do they?

    Leave a comment:


  • tankie
    replied
    Tony B,liar is now sticking his murderers nose into the debate wanting the vote to be overturned , Democracy ,,what democracy .


    Extract
    The fraudulent construction of the EU money laundry was a particular investigative concern of Story. On Friday 7th March 2008, it emerged (again) that Tony Blair, the UK's Ex-Prime Minister, had been paid $100 million from a secret EU slush fund to secure the UK's compliance in recent European legislative changes signed in Lisbon (Portugal) on Thursday 13th December 2007.
    Tony Blair's money was conditional on his prevention of a public referendum on the issue in the UK. Blair agreed to the condition and deposited his $100 million in the Central Bank of Belize between February and March 2006. More details here. The delineations of this EU corruption web were first articulated publicly by Christopher Story in October 2005. More here.
    Read the whole article
    http://alcuinbramerton.blogspot.co.u...edward-…
    Last edited by tankie; 03 Jul 16,, 16:36.

    Leave a comment:


  • tankie
    replied
    Interesting point below , meanwhile 30.000 in londonistan whinging about brexit , I do hope it never rained on their parade , oops .

    I don't know if this has already been considered, but if you count up exactly how many of the 382 UK voting areas voted to leave the EU. For some reason the BBC doesn't actually give this figure on their "referendum statistics" web page. .No surprises there then

    The total for the whole of the UK is 270 out of 382, that's over 70% in favour of leaving the EU.

    If this were a general election that overwhelming majority would never be questioned.
    For some reason, and we all probably know why, because it was not an expected result, even though it was democratically conducted, some people can't accept it.

    Breaking news , another reason I like the Polish .

    POLAND WARNS BRUSSELS IT WILL DESTROY THE EU IF IT TRIES TO PUNISH BRITAIN FOR LEAVING

    POLAND has warned "hysterical" Brussels bigwigs they will sign the death warrant for their own project if they continue to roll out anti-British rhetoric.
    The country's former Prime Minister said that, far from deterring other countries from leaving, any attempts to punish the UK will only accelerate the break up of the beleaguered bloc.
    Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the influential chairman of the ruling Law and Justice Party, also aimed a torpedo at close neighbours Germany, saying the rest of Europe "cannot allow" Angela Merkel to sink the EU by refusing to negotiate.
    His comments yet again expose the growing division on the continent over how to deal with the fallout of last week's historic Brexit vote.
    Poland is a deeply eurosceptic country and has been dismayed by Britain's vote to leave the bloc as it feels it has lost its biggest ally in the fight against Brussels federalism.
    Last edited by tankie; 03 Jul 16,, 10:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    by Jeffrey Frankel

    I see a possible way out for the trap that Brits now find themselves in, a way to keep Great Britain great.

    1. The Scots, under Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister of Scotland), would decide immediately that they will hold a new referendum. This referendum would state explicitly that if the United Kingdom decides to stay in the EU then Scotland will stay in the UK, but if Britain leaves the EU then Scotland will leave the UK. The decision to hold a referendum on Scottish independence would be approved by the Westminster parliament.
    2. That referendum would create a constitutional crisis in Great Britain. This constitutional crisis would genuinely justify a second UK referendum on whether to leave the EU (Brexit), in a way that mere second thoughts after the June 23 outcome do not otherwise justify. Historically, the “Great” was added when Scotland joined the union. It became the “United Kingdom” when Ireland joined. Symbolically: those patriotic Englishmen who campaigned on the Leave side were (mostly) waving the Union Jack. If Scotland were to leave, it would be the end of the Union Jack — where the cross of St. Andrew stands for Scotland, the cross of St. Patrick stands for Northern Ireland, and only the cross of St. George stands for England.
    3. In this second Brexit referendum, the Remain campaign will pick up votes of those committed to preserving the UK intact — in addition to any who have now learned that the leaders of the Leave campaign cannot fulfill promises made regarding immigration, trade, and budget savings. Perhaps the outcome will come out pro-EU this time, which is what happened in the past when other European countries reversed initial anti-integration referenda, in both Ireland and Denmark. (If the EU were willing to make further concessions to the UK that would also help, of course; but it cannot be expected to do so.)
    4. This plan would be pursued by a coalition of four: Sturgeon, some new anti-Brexit Tory leader, some new anti-Brexit Labor politician, and Tim Farron (of the Liberal Democrats). During the period of uncertainty over Scotland, the prime-ministership, the leadership of these three British parties and indeed the very existence of the parties would remain also uncertain. This political crisis further justifies the fundamental rethink. At some point there would be a new general election, fought along Remain/Leave lines. As part of the Remain campaign, its leaders should spell out policies to improve living standards for those who feel they have lost out to globalization and European integration.
    5. Meanwhile, many continental EU leaders will demand that the UK invoke article 50, to start the process of actually leaving. But the UK parliament would nevertheless refrain from doing it, until the referendum process has played itself out.

    Jeffrey Frankel is Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X