brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

For reference:

https://facts4eu.org/top_5_reasons.shtml

Restoration of Democracy and UK Laws Being Decided in Parliament 18%
Immigration Concerns 16%
Safety and Security of the Country and Your Family 12%
Future Enlargement of the EU (Turkey, more Eastern European countries, etc) 11%
Knowing What The EU Will Become 10%

So, ok, number two reason by that site's online poll. Not number one reason as I stated earlier. What would I know? I didn't vote to leave

That's all very well, but to the extent that "public opinion" was influenced by rafts of misinformation (yes, from both sides, but principally from Leave), those percentages are as likely to mislead as was the misinformation itself.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I didn't vote, either, Ronde, for the simple reason that I live in the USA now.  However, had I voted, it would have been leave -- why?  Not because of immigration, but because of the Restoration of Democracy etc. thing.

But what would have made you think that leaving EU would have the effect of "restoring democracy" in UK? It certainly isn't obvious to me, especially as no one seems to know what to do next following the vote and UK almost certainly doesn;t have the skilled negotiators to deal successfully with all the other increasingly exasperated EU leaders..

Which is also why I would have voted, given the chance, to leave the UK (I'm a mislaid Scot; a mislaid Orcadian, to be more exact) -- except for the fact that then I would have been saddled with Holyrood, which is even less responsive than either Westminster or Brussels to those of us -- like my cousins -- who live in the peripheries.  And most of the Orcadians did vote to not separate from the UK -- and also to remain in the EU.

I'm a "mislaid Scot", too; I live in England. But, as you know, most Scots voted Remain. Had the majority been for Remain, I doubt that sa second Scottish referendum would any longer have been on the cards; the principal reason for one has been given as Soctland's desire to remain an EU member state and, had the vote been for Remain, Scotland would not have that reason.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Thanks for your failed attempt, which again has more repeats than Schubert.

The failure is yours, not mine and you did ask for (and got) an abridged version so there would inevitably be repetition of points already made.

I will repeat what i have said before.

So now you're repeating!

YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

I've not "lost" anything - and nothing's happened yet anyway.

No one seems to know what to do next. Parties are mostly in disarray.

At least two legal challenges are being prepared.

In such a climate of division, confusion and indecision, it's rather hard and certainly too early to interpret what's happened so far as indicative that anyone has "lost".

As I've said previously (so forgive yet more repetition!), I do tend to agree about Schubert (in most cases, anyway).

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

I haven't read all the comments but there's an elephant(or two) in the room that nobody seems to be thinking about. For example what has been the influence of the Evil Empire's (USA+Zionist Occupied Government) occupation of Western Europe post 1945?

We all supposedly know our history; Great Britain and the USSR held out and had actually turned the tide(El Alemain, Stalingrad) when Japan that had purposely been starved of essential fuels for their war in China by Roosevelt attacked Pearl Harbor and simulataneously Hitler who was already looking for an excuse to declare war on the US as they were practically already in the war on the Allies side and it suited him that the land of the rising sun had never ever been defeated in their history.He also hadn't expected that there would be just as much if not more emphasis on war in Western Europe. This of course was the end for Germany.

The question nobody ponders is: what would have happened had Hitler not committed suicide?

The Jews under Oppenheimer, mostly German immigrants, felt a virulent hatred for their once host nation and they were working night and day to build the bomb that later destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What if Hitler hadn't known this?
Germany at the heart of Europe would have been decimated(Japan was more like a consolatory prize for the desert snakes that wanted to destroy the most advanced, developed and intellectual nation in the world, i.e. the Jews 'competition') and what of the rest of Western Europe had these rats got their way?

Japan was only consolatory, i.e. a little something to placate the Morgenthaus and the other desert snakes in the US government, so instead of destroying Western Europe as they had intended they instead destroyed the proud warrior nation Japan. Japan that was so noble that they didn't even want the guns initially because it required zero skill and the lowliest peasant could kill the most skilled samurai. That was, thank God, all that was required to satisfy the desert scum in the US government.

The storyline in this 1984 esque world goes something like this: America saved the world from tyranny and in their munificence even helped Europe on its feet with the Marshall plan. The world had been saved from the biggest evil ever that not only wanted to take over the world but also wanted to exterminate the most intelligent people ever because they were just to smart for the land of Mozart Bach, Schubert. So they gassed and cremated six million Jews.
We, that is the white people of the world must never forget what WE did to the Jews and hence we give Jews socalled sondernbehandlung. They (the atheist Jews) of the world can have a land that some 2000 years ago belonged to them but since it was only inhabited by 'sand ***' the UN gave half their land away to the Jews and the rest of the world recognized Israel(except of course USSR and some arab countries).

This in itself was going against the grain of what was going on in the West who due to the high cost of war and the threat of the Marshall plan being cut were forced to decolonise.
This was perhaps the desert snakes biggest mistake. The Jews who had prospered by being a 'nation within nations' had profited so much from WWI and WWII that they actually colonised. And while the new religion of the 'Holocaust' had swept Europe extolling all the sinfulness of white people the sanctimonious Jews back in Israel built the largest concentration camp ever in Palestine.

While the Jews forcefully castrated black Jews from Ethiopia when they entered the Promised Land and made the Jewish State almost 100% Jew, back in Europe the Internationales(Socialistes) started introducing policies to flood the continent that had been responsible for the best in everything, music, science, art, literature, inventions etc, with primitive, i.e. STUPID peoples. And not only did they do that since it was obvious they weren't suited for this 'habitat' (like sending tigers to Europe and penguins to the Sahara) they made these people equal by introducing positive discrimination.

And if this wasn't bad enough the desert snakes introduced one more thing that would destroy the fabric of Western civilisation; feminism. And yes, just like in Russia where almost all the members of the government were Jews, most of the leading feminists were dirty Jewesses.
Feminism became a hijacked movement, where previously it had been about curtailing some of the excesses of a male dominated society it degenerated into emasculating men and making women like men. Also education became feminized so the being with the smallest mind would be favoured and since women generally want to look up to a man this lead to the decline in birth rates we now see in Western Europe. Again a kind of holocaust of the best and the brightest in the Goldilocks zone called Europe(the slaughter of 10s of millions was obviously not enough for the 'perennial victims'.)
 
This was also the time that the idea of Superstate Europe was introduced ostensibly to preserve peace in Europe(a bit like Versailles) but actually just another Zio scam.
To elucidate this point just look to any other Superstate in the world; China, Russia, India, US of retarded A.
In all these states there's a concentration of power, a concentration of wealth and big extremes in wealth as well as say intelligence. The populace has to be conformist because that's the way the few rule a mass of of dumbed down slaves.
It's a big lie that they keep repeating because they know that's how mass media works on the populace, keep repeating the lie and people will be conditioned to accept it.

The lie is 1. that being against the EU is anti-European when in actual fact the EU is more like the empire of Xerxes while GB is more like Alexander the Great.
European nations defeated the large superstate slave nations of the world, because they were small and flexible to change, because their populace was individualistic, entrepreneurial and creative. And the competition between the states turned small nations into superpowers.

2. Had it not been for the Euro and the superstate Europe would have been at war.

a) wwi and wwii not enough? b) nations forced into a (super)state more often than not leads to war and friction. Look what happened in Africa; artificial border with many different tribes> war.
Look at Yugoslavia, Rwanda


It's so easy to debunk the EU and how fitting that the world's first parliamentary democracy should be the first to leave this monstrosity.

[thalbergmad]

At least two legal challenges are being prepared.

And it is vital they fail.

Our next Prime Minister has already said "Brexit means Brexit" and Brexit it must be. No silly petitions or getting solicitors involved should get in the way of the Referendum result. If it does, then that paints the clearest picture yet that our politicians are useless and democracy has failed in the UK.

You can post another millions words if you like, but the fact is that 1,250,000 more people voted leave than voted remain and that simply should be that.

Thal

Thal

[ahinton]

And it is vital they fail.

Our next Prime Minister has already said "Brexit means Brexit" and Brexit it must be. No silly petitions or getting solicitors involved should get in the way of the Referendum result. If it does, then that paints the clearest picture yet that our politicians are useless and democracy has failed in the UK.

You can post another millions words if you like, but the fact is that 1,250,000 more people voted leave than voted remain and that simply should be that.

Thal

Thal

I see that you have now mustered your alter ego to write alongside and in support of yourself!

Whether either or both or any other such legal challenge successds or fails is up to all of those involved. You neverthelss seem to believe that there can and indeed should be no valid and viable case against any spread of misinformation during the campaign, no case against Parliament for having gone about this in the wrong way or indeed no case against anything else; this appears to show a very biased and inflexible view of the current situation.

You urge people to "move on" - but to what? There's no plan, no sense of action, no guarantee that UK has the skilled negotiatiors capable of dealing with some pretty irascible EU leaders and tring to rescue at least something for UK out of this disgraceful mess - and none of those EU leaders wanted Brexit to happen in the first place. Do you have any idea as to how UK can extricate itself from this mess of its own making? I doubt it just as I doubt that anyone else does.

We do not in any case even know who "our next Prime Minister" will be, unless you have either a crystal ball or some insider information to which the remainder of us are not party.

You seem to forget that a referendum is by nature and definition a "petition", just as is the one that has attracted over 4m signatures; it's emphatically NOT an equivalent to customary Parliamentary procedure.

You write that, should Parliament now debate and vote on this issue (never mind about second referenda), "our politicians [would accordingly be seen to be] useless and democracy [hhaving] failed in the UK" (as though it hasn't already done so) - in other words, should Parliament vote against Brexit because more MPs believe in Remain than Leave, it would be going against the people, yet "the people" elected those MPs to represent the interests of the nation, not just those of their constituents and, should such a vote go the way of Remain, it would expose divisions between MPs' own beliefs and the voting record of their constituents and, were it to go the way of Brexit, people would interpret this as an example of their Parliamentary representatives' untrustworthiness in that they would suspect the reasons why so many would have suddenly changed their minds on this if indeed they'd have done so.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

misinformation

Politicians lying? There's a shocker, who would have thought it?

[ahinton]

Politicians lying? There's a shocker, who would have thought it?

Quite so - but, had Parliament subjected this vital matter to proper debate and a vote in both Houses as it would usually do for anything else, instead of passing the buck to the elctgorate to do its job for it, the amount of misinformation foisted upon the public would have been a great deal less and had a great deal less impact than it did upon a vote that should never have been called in the first place.

For the record, whilst I sympathise in principle with calls for a re-run under far more stringent terms and conditions, my preference remains for proper Parliamentary debate and voting on the matter, which is what usually happens. I would subscribe to this view whether my personal support was for Leave or Remain, not least because a referendum - which, as it's a kind of petition, has no legal validity - was quite simply the wrong way to go about something of such importance.

That said, had twice the number of people voted Leave as actually did so, that petition - i.e. referendum - would have much more Parliamentary clout but, as that was not the case, it doesn't.

If either or both legal challenges (and they're to quite different things) are deemed to have no merit, they will fail; if not, they might ultimately fail or succeed but, either way, they'll be a spanner or two in the works for a considerable time, thereby delaying and otherwise interfering with any decision to proceed with Brexit which, given the almost overbearing uncertainty as to what should happen next, may be no bad thing...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You neverthelss seem to believe that there can and indeed should be no valid and viable case against any spread of misinformation during the campaign, no case against Parliament for having gone about this in the wrong way or indeed no case against anything else; this appears to show a very biased and inflexible view of the current situation.

I have accepted the result of the referendum. I fail to see how that is inflexible or biased.

If you wish to waste a million words on grizzling about it, that is your affair.

If Theresa May is not our next PM, I will listen to Schumann all day. I don't really see any other way it can go.

Thal

[ahinton]

I have accepted the result of the referendum.

Insofar as I know how many people voted and how many of those voted where and for each side, I "accept" it as well, albeit only as statistical fact.

I fail to see how that is inflexible or biased.

It isn't, in and of itself.

What you don't seem to accept, however, is that, whilst you deplore and are disdainful of "petitions" per se, your view of the UK/EU in/out referendum sits uncomfortably with the fact that, like all other UK referenda, it is neither more nor less than a Parliamentary "petition" of the electorate.

To this extent alone, you seem to be trying to have it both ways when "accepting" the referendum and its result in principle whilst at the same time deriding both the Parliamentary petition about its woefully inadequate terms and conditions and any legal challenge either to the manner in which Parliament might act upon it or the legality of the misinformation provided to the electorate during its campaign.

If you wish to waste a million words on grizzling about it, that is your affair.

It would be so if I did, but I don't and haven't; furthermore, I neither launched the Parliamentary petition against the referendum's T&Cs nor instigated the legal actions either against Parliament's possible handling of the matter or the misinformation propagated by both sides during the campaign.

If Theresa May is not our next PM, I will listen to Schumann all day. I don't really see any other way it can go.

I don't either, unless she trips over one of her many shoes and incapacitates herself.

OK, when this last happened in 2005 in the "two Daves" race, Davies was way ahead of Cameron in September but Cameron ditto of Davies the following month, However, despite the fact that fortunes can be turned on their heads in no time at all (and a week is an especially long time in politics in UK right now), I suspect that, since Leadsom was until recently less well known than May and has committed numerous appalling gaffes during her campaign for the leadership, she'll fall on a sword of her own making if she's not already done so (although, if so, she'll only be following what seems to be the current UK political fashion, given the number of other politicians who have lately fallen on theirs).

Should May assume those offices, however, she'd find herself in charge of a party and a country and having to face the prospect of what to do in the wake of a referendum that marginally appeared to favour Brexit when her own personal sympathies on the matter lay elsewhere so, quite how (if at all) she'll contrive to reconcile that seemingly irreconcilable conflict of interest will, like so much else in this ongoing débâcle, "remain" (sorry!) to be seen.

Either way and whatever may or may not happen and when (if anything), you're under no obligaton to listen to Schumann against your will or better judgement!

Anyway, in the meantime, here's a link to a piece published other than in The Guardian:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-poll-vote-leave-voters-regret-four-out-of-ten-remain-europe-a7127731.html?google_editors_picks=true

I still think a second referendum would be a clumsy and shoddy way in which to deal with this; I've already stated what should happen instead. A second referendum should only be held if Parliament rejects Brexit and sufficient public protest follows such a step that it considers this to be the only credible way to respond to it.

Best,

Alistair

[iansinclair]

But what would have made you think that leaving EU would have the effect of "restoring democracy" in UK? It certainly isn't obvious to me, especially as no one seems to know what to do next following the vote and UK almost certainly doesn;t have the skilled negotiators to deal successfully with all the other increasingly exasperated EU leaders..
I'm a "mislaid Scot", too; I live in England. But, as you know, most Scots voted Remain. Had the majority been for Remain, I doubt that sa second Scottish referendum would any longer have been on the cards; the principal reason for one has been given as Soctland's desire to remain an EU member state and, had the vote been for Remain, Scotland would not have that reason.

Best,

Alistair

In my not so humble opinion -- the best option for at least the Highlands, Western Isles, and Northern Isles would be to leave the whole boiling.  A status like the Channel Islands would suit just fine, thank you.  Westminster can't find us on a map, Holyrood simply doesn't care, and Brussels?  We speak Gaelic or Old Norse!  I will say, however, when we have a festival at St. Magnus that we get a good representation from the Royal families -- of both the UK and Norway, but I don't think we've seen either a Prime Minister or First Minister in decades.

God Save the Queen!

[ahinton]

In my not so humble opinion -- the best option for at least the Highlands, Western Isles, and Northern Isles would be to leave the whole boiling.  A status like the Channel Islands would suit just fine, thank you.  Westminster can't find us on a map, Holyrood simply doesn't care, and Brussels?  We speak Gaelic or Old Norse!  I will say, however, when we have a festival at St. Magnus that we get a good representation from the Royal families -- of both the UK and Norway, but I don't think we've seen either a Prime Minister or First Minister in decades.

God Save the Queen!

I think, however (as indeed I mentioned previously), that you are raising an issue here that is largely separate from that of UK's continued membership of EU. In so saying, I'm not for one moment suggesting that it is lacking in interest, but the matter of whether the Scottish islands remain part either of UK as it is now constituted or of a future Scotland that has seceded from UK in order to assume a status and relationship with the "mainland" similar to those of the Channel Islands and/or Isle of Man vis-à-vis UK as is currently the case is a quite different one to that which is under discussion here, not laest because, as you know, the Channel Islands and Isle of Man were excluded from the referendum on UK's EU membership.

Moreover, whilst the matter of the Scottish islands' status (should they secede from either UK as it is now constituted or a future "independent" Scotland) in terms of EU membership might - at least in theory - be broadly synonymous with that which could motivate Scotland to call a second referendum on its continued UK membership, namely a desire to retain EU member status, is there actually any evidence that the Scottish islanders have an appetite to remain within EU, whatever their status otherwise?

Another factor is the economic one; how on earth would the Scottish islands manage as a nation in their own right? Apart from their obviously disparate nature - rather like the Maldives as a group of islands with no "mainland" per se - on what would they survive, even as an EU member state? Is there the remotest likelihood that an independent Scottish island group's application for EU membership be accepted, especially given that they will have had no history of anything remotely resembling a seat of government as Scotland has? From what source would they be able to fund contributions to the EU budget?

Or are you instead considering the possibility of the islands as independent not only from UK and/or Scotland but also from EU - i.e. literally a wholly independent nation in its own right, not dissimilar to the Crown Dependency status of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man? If so, it is important to remember that the economies of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are heavily dependent upon their relative tax haven status which has been established in each case over a considerable period of time; since the Scottish islands have no such historical background, can you seriously envisage their developing a similar infrastructure to the Channel Islands and Isle of Man in this respect? It strikes me as a most unlikely scenario, not least because of the disparity and distances between them; where, for example, might be its capital and seat of government? To where precisely might it attract international bankers and investors? - Lerwick? - Kirkwall? - Stornoway?

Interesting a notion as this is - and arguably understandable given what you perceive as UK's and Scotland's relative lack of interest in the Scottish islands as anything more, perhaps, than tourist destinations - I simply see no future for this idea, nor do I imagine there to be any material appetite on the islanders' part for such changes of status allied to practical means to bring it about.

Lastly, the prospect of throwing yet another spanner into the already overwhelmingly confused, confusing and uncertain works that currently pertain, in which
(a) all political parties represented in England are in grave disarray as a direct consequence of the referendum and its outcome and
(b) the embarrassing absence of any advance plans for Brexit has left our political "masters" in grave doubt as to how to proceed from where we are now,
seems to me to be something of a straw that might break an already weakened camel's back, so let's not try to introduce it into what's already a melting pot that is itself already in danger of melting!

Back, therefore, to the real world of Article 50 or no Article 50 / follow my leader if you can find one / who can make the first/next move, when will it be made and what will it be / legal challenges to Parliamentary procedure and official corporate misinformaton supply and all the rest of it, methinks!

Oh, wait a minute; here's another idea; what about Shetland separating from the other Scottish islands as well as from EU, UK and Scotland and applying to become a Crown Dependency of Norway? As famously uttered in Richard III, Act 5, scene 4, "A Norse! A Norse! My kingdom for a Norse!"...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Returning south from those Scottish islands, those of us gullible enough to believe it are now being told that Theresa May, if elected as UK's PM and Tory leader, will vow to put her party "at the service" of working people.

She will also promise to put workers on the boards of major firms and curb excess corporate pay.

Setting out plans to change the way big businesses are governed, Mrs May will say that consumers and workers should have places on their boards.

She will also commit to making shareholder votes on corporate pay binding, rather than merely advisory, insisting that support for enterprise does not mean "anything goes" in the City.

At an the event in Birmingham, Mrs May will set out her desire to address inequality and restore trust in politics.

She will acknowledge that the criminal justice system treats black people "more harshly" than white counterparts.

She will also say politicians often fail to realise how hard life is for working-class families.

Outlining her plans to reform corporate governance, she will hit out at the way non-executive directors who are supposed to provide oversight of the way firms are run often come from the same "narrow social and professional circles" as the executive team and "the scrutiny (that) they provide is just not good enough".

She will say "So if I'm Prime Minister, we're going to change that system – and we're going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but workers as well".

She will also promise to strengthen "say on pay" rules, giving shareholders more influence over how much executives are paid.

She will set out three key planks to her strategy for No. 10, "first, we need a bold, new, positive vision for the future of our country - a vision of a country that works for everyone - not just the privileged few".

Outlining some of the social issues she wants to address, Mrs May will say "right now, if you're born poor, you will die on average nine years earlier than others - if you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white - if you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university - if you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately - if you're a woman, you still earn less than a man - if you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand - if you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home".

She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough" and add that "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise" and that "these are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself – completely, absolutely, unequivocally – at the service of working people".


Well, well; leaving aside that all those conditionals risk sounding rather like being on the phone listening to rafts of options from which to select, the questions that I cannot help but ask are "are there actually two quite distinct Theresa Mays?" and, if so, which one's running for leader? If there's only one, she looks set to be able to resolve the Labour Party's parlous internecine woes "at a stroke" – after all, it won't matter if the Cor(e)'s chucked in the Byn and the Eagle hasn't landed, because the darling credentials of May would appear to qualify her to be the best leader that Labour could hope to find!

The only little cloud on the horizon would appear to be that she will also stress that "Brexit means Brexit and we're going to make a success of it", which not only sounds dubious and attempts to ignore the two likely legal challenges (to Leave for promoting of misinformation and to Parliament to enforce proper debate and vote in both Houses and a vote before deciding whether or not to drive up the A50) but also looks rather duplicitous for an MP who supported Remain.

Still, one can't have everything, I suppose…

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/in-full-the-letter-from-1000-lawyers-to-david-cameron-over-eu-referendum-brexit-legality-a7130226.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-date-set-for-first-legal-hearing-to-stop-article-50-being-triggered-by-prime-minister-a7128011.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/federal-uk-union-brexit-cross-party-group-says-lord-sailsbury-a7129781.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-conservative-leadership-contest-brexit-next-prime-minister-leave-eu-arron-banks-a7129436.html

And all this is before Mishcon de Reya's challenge has been submitted.

I suspect that there can be little doubt that Mrs May's first days as UK's PM will at the very least be - er - "interesting times"...

Best,

Alistair

[iansinclair]

"Or are you instead considering the possibility of the islands as independent not only from UK and/or Scotland but also from EU - i.e. literally a wholly independent nation in its own right, not dissimilar to the Crown Dependency status of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man? If so, it is important to remember that the economies of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are heavily dependent upon their relative tax haven status which has been established in each case over a considerable period of time; since the Scottish islands have no such historical background, can you seriously envisage their developing a similar infrastructure to the Channel Islands and Isle of Man in this respect? It strikes me as a most unlikely scenario, not least because of the disparity and distances between them; where, for example, might be its capital and seat of government? To where precisely might it attract international bankers and investors? - Lerwick? - Kirkwall? - Stornoway?"

Got it in one, Alistair.  And I do well recognise that it's a pipe dream.  But not, I think, a totally impossible one.  After all, in the last go around of the Scottish neverendum, there was also a petition to allow a vote for exactly that going in the Northern Isles, which garnered a substantial fraction (may even have been a majority, I forget) of the population... and we do have a LibDem MP, which makes us odd!  I envision a loose alliance, very very much like the Channel Islands, with three centres -- the ones which you mention.

An historical note -- the Northern Isles came to the Kingdom of Scotland as part of the dowry of one of the queens -- a Princess of Denmark (when the Norse kingdoms were united, some time back) -- and have always been and remaining quite distinct.

[ahinton]

And some more...

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36703799

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

"Or are you instead considering the possibility of the islands as independent not only from UK and/or Scotland but also from EU - i.e. literally a wholly independent nation in its own right, not dissimilar to the Crown Dependency status of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man? If so, it is important to remember that the economies of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man are heavily dependent upon their relative tax haven status which has been established in each case over a considerable period of time; since the Scottish islands have no such historical background, can you seriously envisage their developing a similar infrastructure to the Channel Islands and Isle of Man in this respect? It strikes me as a most unlikely scenario, not least because of the disparity and distances between them; where, for example, might be its capital and seat of government? To where precisely might it attract international bankers and investors? - Lerwick? - Kirkwall? - Stornoway?"

Got it in one, Alistair.  And I do well recognise that it's a pipe dream.  But not, I think, a totally impossible one.  After all, in the last go around of the Scottish neverendum, there was also a petition to allow a vote for exactly that going in the Northern Isles, which garnered a substantial fraction (may even have been a majority, I forget) of the population... and we do have a LibDem MP, which makes us odd!  I envision a loose alliance, very very much like the Channel Islands, with three centres -- the ones which you mention.

An historical note -- the Northern Isles came to the Kingdom of Scotland as part of the dowry of one of the queens -- a Princess of Denmark (when the Norse kingdoms were united, some time back) -- and have always been and remaining quite distinct.

Whilst what you point out here is historically correct, my continued contention is that the separation of the Scottish islands, widely separated into groups as they are, would simply be unable to function in the present, let alone future, globalised world as an entity in its own right; from what kinds of sources might its funding come if its independence causes it to have to be wholly self-funding? The only other alternative to total independence might be application for attachment to Norway if the islands managed to secede from UK as it is now or an independent Scotland as it might become, but I see no possibility that Norway would want to take it on and have no idea whether any of the islanders, let alone a majority thereof, would favour a move to Norwegian sovereignty in any case.

It is in any event, as I mentioned previously, an entirely separate matter from either (a) whether or when Brexit occurs or (b) whether and when, if Brexit does occur, Scoxit occurs.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

And some more...

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36703799

Best,

Alistair

You have currently got more links than St Andrews.

If this legal action works, all it indicates to me is that a few rich people and their overpaid lawyers can override a referendum and a majority decision.

Bollox

Thal

[ahinton]

You have currently got more links than St Andrews.

I don't personally "have" them; I merely post them - and they're not my words but the words of others. Anyway, St. Andrews is in Scotland and I didn't think that you'd want that country mentioned, especially in the present context!

If this legal action works, all it indicates to me is that a few rich people and their overpaid lawyers can override a referendum and a majority decision.

There are four possible legal actions, any one of which might or might not succeed, although two of them seem largely to be based around ensuring that Parliament does indeed do the right thing and debate the issue in both Houses and then hold a vote on it; that is not of itself "overriding a referendum", since its result would be overridden only if Parliament decides not to invoke Article 50 and that could go either way.

As I've said before (so apologies for "repeating" it!), this particular issue is not about the rights and wrongs of Remain or Leave but about the following of correct Parliamentary procedure to ensure that, whatever the outcome of so doing, it will unquestionably be legally binding, unlike the referendum result which never was so. If that's Brexit, then so be it; I will accept that without question, even though I believe that it will turn out to be the most appalling error of judgement.

Bollox

There's been more than enough of that in this omnishambles already without adding to it; let Parliament decide - that's what we pay its elected representatives to do.

Anyway, in the meantime, from www.bbc.co.uk:

Vincent McAviney
✔
@VinnyITV

VIDEO: PM appears to sing a little sorrowful tune as he re-enters Number 10 after announcing May handover:

So, let's play a guessing game; was it
1. Campbell & Connelly's Show me the way to go home?
2. An early and hitherto unknown setting by the egregious and ubiquitous Karl Jenkins of the Bard's Parting is such sweet sorrow?
3. Weill's September song? (it's a long, long while from May to December - but maybe not so long to a General Election)
4. Half man half biscuit's Upon Westminster Bridge?
5. Cole Porter's Every time we say goodbye? or maybe
6. the same composer's I love you, Samantha? (no, he probably doesn't know that one, even though he is likewise from High Society)

As long is it wasn't my own Tagore settings Then finish the last song and let us Leave or Let the time for the parting be sweet, then all should be well.

Actually, my best guess is Jule Styne's The party's over (it's time to call it a May)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

that is not of itself "overriding a referendum", since its result would be overridden only if Parliament decides not to invoke Article 50 and that could go either way.

The idea behind it is to reverse the referendum result, otherwise rich people (who want to become richer) would not be throwing money at lawyers.

As to the rest of your post, I have really no idea what you are going on about. I can only assume that your daily wine consumption has started a little early.

Thal

[ahinton]

The idea behind it is to reverse the referendum result, otherwise rich people (who want to become richer) would not be throwing money at lawyers.

As I have noted elsewhere, you cannot have laws without also having lawyers; the one goes with the territory of the other.

"The idea behind" all of it - and, let's face it, the four legal challenges are by no means identical - is to ensure that proper Parliamentary procedures are followed rather than relying on daft referendum ones that Parliament has chosen to foist upon an unsuspecting and insufficiently educated electorate; your said yourself that the average Joe would not have the time or expertise to figure it all out and vote accordingly, compared to the professionals that we all pay to do their Parliamentary duty and who would be far less susceptible to the cynical and biased attempts at influence from vested interests determined to persuade voters that they're right.

As to "throwing money behind lawyers", ther are times when that's inevitable, as I should know...

As to the rest of your post, I have really no idea what you are going on about.

I'm sorry about that but it's not my problem; it's not so hard to understand as long as you're willing to try.

Anyway, here's another link, not even from a UK source but from an interested one nevertheless:
https://www.opencanada.org/features/brexit-post-mortem-17-takeaways-fallen-david-cameron/

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

"The idea behind" all of it - and, let's face it, the four legal challenges are by no means identical - is to ensure that proper Parliamentary procedures are followed rather than relying on daft referendum ones that Parliament has chosen to foist upon an unsuspecting and insufficiently educated electorate; your said yourself that the average Joe would not have the time or expertise to figure it all out and vote accordingly, compared to the professionals that we all pay to do their Parliamentary duty and who would be far less susceptible to the cynical and biased attempts at influence from vested interests determined to persuade voters that they're right.

That is snobbish and elitist horsecrap. If the above is what you think, then it would be pointless ever consulting the electorate again as the poor dumb creatures have not the wits. Perhaps we should go back a few hundred years when only the titled gentleman could vote. Lets destroy democracy so we don't ever have to worry that the dumb idiots come to the "wrong" decision.

You must be on far stronger substances than wine if you think our MP's are far less susceptible to be influenced by vested interests.

Perhaps we should bring in an exam which people have to pass before they are allowed to vote. That way, we can keep the uneducated masses from ever having a voice.

You have exceeded pomposity this time.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

cynical and biased attempts at influence from vested interests

such as those trying to subvert the result of the referendum.

I have no sympathy at all. We either have a democracy or we don't. The people have voted. They have made a decision; it may well be the wrong one, but they have made it. Now if a party were to put in their next election manifesto a pledge to a referendum on rejoining the EU, got elected, and then called a referendum, I would say fair enough. It is time to stop quibbling about the result and start negotiating the exit.

[ahinton]

That is snobbish and elitist horsecrap. If the above is what you think, then it would be pointless ever consulting the electorate again as the poor dumb creatures have not the wits.

Rubbish! The electorate may not, as you yourself have indicatged earlier, be capable of rationalising all the intricate details of the EU issue, but they elect the MPs and pay for them so, as I've said before, let the profesionals deal with it!

You must be on far stronger substances than wine if you think our MP's are far less susceptible to be influenced by vested interests.

Everyone's susceptible to corruption but those who deal with that all the time ought to be less so than those who don't (and, as I've said, they're being elected by the electorate and then pad to repesent that electorate).

Perhaps we should bring in an exam which people have to pass before they are allowed to vote. That way, we can keep the uneducated masses from ever having a voice.

But why not have the same for MPs - and Lords - and absolutely everyone else as well? What you seem unwilling to accept is that almost everyone capable of working him/herslf into a position to do so is out to corrupt the view of almost everyone else - that's what paid-for professional politics is about, whether in a "democracy" or not.

I'd give May a few months at most although I'd have given any of her erstwhile rivals for the top gig a good deal less time in office, what with the need to contend with multiple lawsuits, General Elections, cross-party and internecine political wars and the rest.

A number of pundits across the world are already beginning to speculate on how little UK can screw up things way outside its own tiny confines; they might well be wrong and/or premature in so thinking, but they might just be right.

Watch and wait and see just how much UK might destroy inside and outside its own little square kilometrage.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

such as those trying to subvert the result of the referendum.

Those bringing lawsuits aren't doing that; they're aggrieved at Parliament having passed the buck to an insufficiently qualified and susceptible electorate to decide on the most momentous matter to be put forward in decades when ususally they'd debate it and vote on it themselves; the result of the referendum can in any case subvert itself as time goes by, should it be allowed to pertain..

I have no sympathy at all. We either have a democracy or we don't.

And we don't, as this pathetic exercise has perfectly and amply demonstrated.

The people have voted

Some of them have, after some of them have been misled.

They have made a decision

No, they haven't and they cannot and could not in any case since their referendum votes have no legal validity; they'e simply put crosses on ballot papers and well less than 40% have come out on either side.

It may well be the wrong one, but they have made it. Now if a party were to put in their next election manifesto a pledge to a referendum on rejoining the EU, got elected, and then called a referendum, I would say fair enough. It is time to stop quibbling about the result and start negotiating the exit.

I don't quibble about the result but about why on earth it was called in the first place. Who asked for it? Why did only the Tory party pledge to hold one in its manifesto? Why did anyone think that a referendum would be the best way to deal with this issue, assuming that it even had to be addressed? As to "negotiating the exit", do you really think that anone knows how to do this or that they could be successful in it, especially with no Brexit plans having been laid in advance and with incresing exasperation with UK within the European Parliament and Commission? I'm quite sure that I don't!

Anyway, Labour's now complicating its leadership future, parties are calling for a General Election (which, if held, will hold things up yet further, especially if, as I'd anticipate, no conclusive result would emerge therefrom).

What we need to expect now is more confusion and uncertainty piled on yet more confusion and uncertainty, not only on Brexit but on the entire political infrastructure of UK such as it is - and it may in any case not be such as it is for much longer, thereby adding yet more disruption still to the non-proceedings.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

For an intelligent and educated man, you don't half talk nonsense at times. They wouldn't bring the lawsuits if the ultimate intention wasn't to subvert it; we should be damn thankful for the level of democracy we do have (even if it didn't engender the result you wanted); that some voters have been misled is a given; and if a referendum was good enough to join in the first place, it's also good enough to leave.

In any case I don't see any point in debating this further. You're entitled to your view, however deluded it may be, but when it amounts to little more than an especially repetitious outpouring of bloviatory semantic petulance, there reaches a point when futility sets in.

[storyseller]

Dear Alistair

I didn't mean to offend you by trivialising something really important for you, and of historic importance. Believe me when I say that I am your fan, or admirer to put it in a more refined way.

Now, about the core of your argument: It's democracy. Demos + cratos. Demos is the city, or in our days the people, and Cratos is the "power"... So, it's the "people" that have the "power". So they vote... like they did in Germany 1938 I think, and they elected Hitler... It was a bad choice for everyone in the world, but he was democratically elected. I never voted Tsipras/Syriza, and I critisize them every change I get, but, it's a democracy.

In a democracy the people can make a bad dessicion and then they have to pay/live with it. It's not their right as most people think, it's their obligation (according to Pericles - another ancient guy): he said that those who do not participate in the affairs of their state are not just useless for their city/nation/state etc., but harmfull to it and should be put to death!!! Now that's maybe a little too much, but in a democracy you HAVE to be informed about the matters of the state, and you have to be able to have an opinion, and you have to express your opinion, or you are not entitled/fit to have a democracy, and by Aristotele, you are born a slave and should leave others make the dessicions for you...

So, English people made that decision (and I'm really not happy about it). But it is their right. Excuses do not matter (like oh, I voted for brexit because I didn't think that brexit would really win or oh, I was missinformed/misslead...). They are adults.

This is a really complex issue, a million things come to mind like Germany, Syriza, Britain's policy, British people's mindset that they are not really part of the continent, their memory of "past days of glory" when they ruled the globe, banking systems, financial systems, Uk's parties and their agendas, people's feelings and their biased jugment based on feelings and not on rational dessicion making, philoshophical issues, Germany's mindset (they like to rule), France and Lepain, Tsipras and Varoufakis, diplomacy, EU's treaties and legal issues (like if article 50 is activated then there is a 2 year time frame for Uk to leave the EU and Germans like they did with Greece will stall the negotiation for 1year and 11 months so that they will preassure UK to settle the way they want)...

It's a mess... A 1000 page book can be written about it and still it will not be enough to explain this or predict what will come of it. But, in the end, all that remains is Democracy. It's not easy to be in charge of your fate. If you want to be, you can't go voting on something like this because some guy told you "hey Turkey will be accepted in the EU and they will migrate here by the millions"... it's not gonna happen... Greece will veto this, and Germany has vetoed it in the past - noone wants them in as full members!

But it's democracy. End of it! If you don't like it vote for an "enlightened" dictator to make the decisions for your county. Or migrate to another country. Or let it go...

[ahinton]

For an intelligent and educated man, you don't half talk nonsense at times. They wouldn't bring the lawsuits if the ultimate intention wasn't to subvert it; we should be damn thankful for the level of democracy we do have (even if it didn't engender the result you wanted); that some voters have been misled is a given; and if a referendum was good enough to join in the first place, it's also good enough to leave.

That's the point; it wasn't "good enough". We elect and pay for a Parliament which creates most UK legislation by debate and vote; what's so different about this issue that it be thrown at the public rather than dealt with by the professionals?

If Parliament is bound by law and the constitution to debate and vote on this, so be it, lawsuit or no lawsuit; the purpose of two of those legal actions is to try to ensure that this is what happens. If that's upholding the law and the contitution, what's wrong - still less "undemocratic" - about that?

Being "grateful for the level of democracy we do have" is fine; watching it being undermined in this way isn't.

In any case I don't see any point in debating this further. You're entitled to your view, however deluded it may be, but when it amounts to little more than an especially repetitious outpouring of bloviatory semantic petulance, there reaches a point when futility sets in.

I cannot see how, having presented arguments, the supporting and expansion of them by posting links that demonstrate the sheer divisiveness that this entire débâcle has brought about - as well as the risks of proceeding and the throwing away of so much that has been built up since WWII - is hardly as you describe it.

One thing that Thal and I have in common is a love of this country; the spectacle of it wilfully ruining itself is not one about which I can express enthusiasm, to put it mildly.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

For an intelligent and educated man, you don't half talk nonsense at times.

Some of his comments are unworthy of an educated man.

I am allowed to be stupid, he isn't.

Thal

[ahinton]

Dear Alistair

I didn't mean to offend you by trivialising something really important for you, and of historic importance. Believe me when I say that I am your fan, or admirer to put it in a more refined way.

You are very kind and I do not read what you write as in any way offensive or trivialising.

Now, about the core of your argument: It's democracy. Demos + cratos. Demos is the city, or in our days the people, and Cratos is the "power"... So, it's the "people" that have the "power". So they vote... like they did in Germany 1938 I think, and they elected Hitler... It was a bad choice for everyone in the world, but he was democratically elected. I never voted Tsipras/Syriza, and I critisize them every change I get, but, it's a democracy.

That voters make mistakes is a given, of course; you're quite right about that. "To err is himan", after all. However, once the voters of UK have elected a government, they pay their elected representatives in Parliament to act on their behalf as professional politicians and debate, vote on and pass and amend laws. That's Parliamentary democracy in action.

OK, it's doesn't always work perfectly by any means (I have some specific examples of historic evidence of the fact that sometimes it doesn't, but I'll not bore you or anyone else with any of that here), but it does generally work OK otherwise the citizens of that democracy would eventually overthrow that system by means of a revolution which, so far, they've not done.

You appear to believe that throwing UK's EU continued membership to the wolves of a referendum is also democracy in action. What it is, however, is an attempted abnegation of responsibility on Parliament's part by passing the buck to those who voted its members in, as if to say to the electorate "you decide - we're passing on this one".

When due democratic Parliamentary process leads to the passing, amending or repealing of laws, that is of itself by nature and definition lawful; when Parliament instead says to the voters "we'll give you a referendum on this particular issue - you decide for us and we'll implement what you vote for", it's not lawful because the result is advisory only, not mandatory on Parliament - and it is, after all, Parliament itself that decides that referenda results are non-mandatory! Can you not see the difference?

In a democracy the people can make a bad dessicion and then they have to pay/live with it. It's not their right as most people think, it's their obligation (according to Pericles - another ancient guy): he said that those who do not participate in the affairs of their state are not just useless for their city/nation/state etc., but harmfull to it and should be put to death!!! Now that's maybe a little too much, but in a democracy you HAVE to be informed about the matters of the state, and you have to be able to have an opinion, and you have to express your opinion, or you are not entitled/fit to have a democracy, and by Aristotele, you are born a slave and should leave others make the dessicions for you...

Good points but not quite right in terms of persent-day democratic process in UK, as I've illustrated/questioned above; yes, of course it's important for voters to be as well-informed as possible, although to be up to the mark on something of such overwhelming significance and complexity as this is a very big ask indeed, especially to the extent that it presumes the ability to distinguish truths from speculation, misinformation and the rest.

The point about voters needing and being entitled to have opinions about "matters of state" in UK is that they form and then depend upon those opinions when choosing whom to elect in order that those whom they elect may govern; non-mandatory referenda are quite different, in that the voters have to put to one side those for whom they've voted to respresent them and instead do the job themselves.

Therein lies the fundamental difference, the customary practice and process being conducted by elected professionals as against the non-mandatory referendum being conducted - or at least decided - by the amateurs. If due Parliamentary process is good enough and deemed democratic enough for almost all other lawmaking activity, for what conceivable reason should a decision on whether or not UK remains an EU member state be treated as such a glaring exception to that rule?

So, English people made that decision (and I'm really not happy about it). But it is their right. Excuses do not matter (like oh, I voted for brexit because I didn't think that brexit would really win or oh, I was missinformed/misslead...). They are adults.

That's another point; English people voted, albeit by a very small majority, for Brexit; Welsh ones did so by an even smaller majority, NI didn't and Scotland really didn't; in fact, the Scottish and NI majorities for Remain were considerably larger than England's and Wales's majorities for Brexit. What does that tell you about the extent to which UK is any longer a "united kingdom"?

Moreover, all major cities in all four countries in UK voted Remain (except Birmingham, which almost did) whereas quite a few other other areas didn't; what does that tell you about divisions between city dwellers and others?

There are other divisions that the voting has revealed but I'll not go into them here; suffice it to say that the referendum's exposition of a variety of such divisions can only serve to undermine the strength of UK as a whole, even assuming that it remains constituted as it is now.

This is a really complex issue, a million things come to mind like Germany, Syriza, Britain's policy, British people's mindset that they are not really part of the continent, their memory of "past days of glory" when they ruled the globe, banking systems, financial systems, Uk's parties and their agendas, people's feelings and their biased jugment based on feelings and not on rational dessicion making, philoshophical issues, Germany's mindset (they like to rule), France and Lepain, Tsipras and Varoufakis, diplomacy, EU's treaties and legal issues (like if article 50 is activated then there is a 2 year time frame for Uk to leave the EU and Germans like they did with Greece will stall the negotiation for 1year and 11 months so that they will preassure UK to settle the way they want)...

Excellent points all - and yet UK voters are seemingly supposed by Parliament to be capable of sorting it all out in their own minds and making an educated, informed and pragmatic decision on it rather than leaving it to the elected professionals when even they'd find it immensely difficult!

It's a mess... A 1000 page book can be written about it and still it will not be enough to explain this or predict what will come of it. But, in the end, all that remains is Democracy. It's not easy to be in charge of your fate. If you want to be, you can't go voting on something like this because some guy told you "hey Turkey will be accepted in the EU and they will migrate here by the millions"... it's not gonna happen... Greece will veto this, and Germany has vetoed it in the past - noone wants them in as full members!

That's right. The referendum was included by only one UK political party in its election manifesto so, had it lost the election, there'd have been no referendum - is that "democracy in action"?

Well before it did so, however, another party, UKIP - never prepared merely to speak when shouting will do - made a big issue about the 26th and 27th nations to join EU - Bulgaria and Romania - by claiming that more people than even inhabit those countries would all be coming to UK. It didn't happen, of course, but it was an effective advance illustration of the kind of scaremongering and misinformaton that was later to come to infect the referendum.

The extent to which this rash claim could be regarded as "democratic" might be deduced from the fact that the party concerned had - and indeed still has - just one MP out of the 650 in Parliament.

A joke at the time was a variation on an already well-worn theme: "here they all come, taking jobs away from the Poles"...

But it's democracy. End of it!

Well, I fondly hope that it would not be - or lead to - the "end" of "democracy" - but no, what hs happened of late is illustrative at best of a kind of pick'n'mix approach to democratic process in which, in effect, Parliament says "you deal with this issue, voters - we'll deal with all the others"; that, to me, amends the spelling of the term into "de-mock-racy".

If you don't like it vote for an "enlightened" dictator to make the decisions for your county. Or migrate to another country. Or let it go...

The least that one has a right to expect of democratic practice is a degree of consistency in its application; this is what Parliament has "let go" in this instance. I take a broadly similar view of what I hope will turn out to be the only Scottish referendum on independence from UK; Scotland has a Parliament, so (never mind the result) why didn't it decide?

As for emigrating, I might be able to do that - or rather find myself having had it done for me - should Scotland hold a second referendum and decide to leave UK; if it does that and I still live in England, I will try to apply for joint Scottish / UK citizenship in order to remain an EU citizen, but I will nevertheless become a foreigner in England as a consequence of Scotland's secession.

For all the shortcomings of referenda, if Scotland's determined to remain within EU and can achieve that by holding a referendum, becoming independent of UK and applying successfully for EU membership in its own right (OK, that's a lot of "ifs"), that would effectively answer back those who rant on about "the will of the people" in the EU referendum bu saying, "sorry, mate - it's not the will of the majority of the Scottish people, so we're outta here!".

Many thanks for your considered and eloquently expressed thoughts here. Rather than being dogmatic about the issue, I am very interested in it and deeply concerned with what UK might look set to throw away. I'm not even saying "I support Remain and I am right"; I merely present my concerns and, at times, those of others by means of links. The most important aspect of all of this is to try to ensure that discussion remains civilised at all times rather than descending into the demi-monde of "ya-boo-sucks" argument.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Some of his comments are unworthy of an educated man.

I am allowed to be stupid, he isn't.

No; we're all allowed to be stupid should any of us so choose; that's "democracy", innit?

And don't try to imply to anyone here that you haven't had an education!

In any event, I have endeavoured (perhaps not conscientiously enough, for which I apologise) to reflect and present the published views and concerns of others when discussing this vastly important subject rather than merely putting forward my own.

Anyway, in that spirit, here's a piece recently posted on a Facebook page that's indirectly relevant to one aspect of the subject, for all that it was published some 70 years ago; I replicate it here especially as "adults" have been mentioned earlier:

No one mentally grown up is deceived by the supposedly divergent policies of the various political parties from Left to Right. And observe in this connection that highly revealing terminology Left or Right: not a straight course forward diverging neither to Right nor to Left. It is a warning to those - as the Arabs say - who will take warnings. The more closely the pretendedly opposing policies are examined 'plus c'est la même chose'; that is to say the actual aim, the camouflaged aim, plainly visible to the observant and unideologically bespectacled eye, is the same, the steady, the geometrically progressive destruction of all individual initiative and enterprise, of all individual independence and security. The political parties are, as it were, only the various speed-gears; the vehicle, the road and the direction are all the same.

Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, Mi Contra Fa: the Immoralisings of a Macchivellian Musician, from the essay La Trahison des Clercs: Music and War-Mongering.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Itvis difficult to appreciate the opinion of someone who didn't like C V Stanford.

Thal

[ahinton]

Itvis difficult to appreciate the opinion of someone who didn't like C V Stanford.

Which "someone" might that be? It couldn't be me; I may not be as young as once I was but I'm far too much so to have known him. As to his work, he was rarely less than competent and not often much more than that.

Why it should be thought "difficult" (by/for whom?) to appreciate the opinion of someone who might have a higher regard for Stanford than I do I have less than no idea, especially in the present content in which Stanford himself died a quarter of a century before even Council of Europe was launched and was in any case Irish!

Incidentally, a pianist I know (no names, no pack-drill) has a daughter and a son of whom the latter is named Stanford; when I asked said pianist why he called his son Stanford, he replied "because I didn't want him to end up as a composer"...

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

OT: I read somewhere that legalists/super-statists are already looking into ways to make the referendum result 'illegal', i.e. make the voice of the people redundant.
The capitalist tool to measure good and bad is the stock market. Firing people and exporting the jobs to China=good. Not good obviously for the people who lose their job but who cares about them? Good in capitalist terms equals any action that benefits the money guys(you know those synagogue cronies that create money out of thin air; caveat: Yellen is obviously the fall gal here).
So of course Brexit is bad for the stock market.
Why?

Look at other super-states; China, US of retarded A, Russia. What do these countries have in common? Concentration of wealth and concentration of power. To rule a super-state the people have to be conformist since any individuality is suspect. And even without the three brands of Abrahamic religion super-state China has even meeker and milder slaves than Christianity.
THAT is what the super-state is about. The few controlling the many. That's why socialists are generally for the super-state(international 'workers' revolution), that's why religious tend to be for the super-state. Religious freedom is actually something that's encouraged by the super-state. Why? Because diversity destroys a civilisations identity and since Europe has always been individualistic, non-conformist, inventive...etc etc...the best of the best....identity and unity has to be destroyed and to do this they add a little Orwellian double speak.
War=peace, love=hate, EU=Europe.
And where Judeo Bolshevism failed the EU super-state appears to be working. And with people like Angela Merkel; as an 'Ostie' (East German) she was indoctrinated with all the anti- Western propaganda and this would make her the 'best man for the job' for destroying everything that made Europe great.And then of course there's Baruso a similar story.

So whereas Hitler('the most evil man in the history of the world' according to the 'free' press) laid waste to the USSR and made the Communist world revolution, despite Yalta, a near impossibility, ergo 'the saviours of humanity' (double speak for the ones that financed and profited from WWI and WWII; the Evil Empire, the treacherous Americans and the goyim hating Jews) chose a different tactic, they invented the 'Holocaust' to stifle freedom of speech.
And Hollywood stylee propaganda instilled an emotional knee-jerk reaction to anyone accused of being a Nazi.
We all know diversity destroys a society. That's why when countries that have suffered artificially imposed borders(Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Iraq etc) where all kinds of religions, ethnicities and cultures are forced to live together, often by means of tyranny, will eventually result in war when the tyrant has been deposed, i.e. when they become 'democratic'.
This is why they indoctrinate children with hell- like-imagery, of socalled Holocaust victims. The BIG LIE of course needs repeating as does the suppression of historians like David Irving who actually did forensics at Auschwitz as well as delving into the archives...long story short...post war propaganda.
So parents send their children willingly to schools where they aren't allowed to see violent movies for fear it may harm the child yet do get to see the most disturbing of all images. We can thank our Evil Empire overlords for that. They after all need to create the knee-jerk reaction the Jesuit priests were all too aware of('give me the first 6 years of a child's life and I'll make a Catholic for life out of them'). This of course set the stage for Europeans to do the unthinkable: let in the invaders(immigration is just another Orwellian euphemism for it) without a fight.
So where Christianity failed the new religion of the Holocaust actually succeeded.
Despite destroying the Roman Empire it didn't allow an even worse form of mind-control emerging from the desert(Islam) to destroy all that was good about Western civilisation. Despite being meek and mild there was still enough warrior instinct present to repel the desert snakes at Poitiers in 732(only 100 years after Mohammed's death).

Anyone now accused of (natural instincts) Britain First is like the Nazi that killed six million Jews and aren't they just the most vile sub-humans? Perhaps if you believe the hype, but a little historical insight will show that this is more than a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
The novelty of the Holocaust was that it wasn't like their perennial victim myths of yesteryear intended for the in-group to increase group cohesion(5776 years of history AND the Diaspora) and this has the intended consequence of creating a strong distrust and hatred for their hosts.
Now like Christianity before it they instilled in Europeans the notion that Western civilisation was bad that us 'white people' were sinful and had to repent for what we did to the Jews(qui bono?) and like indulgences previously Germany and the US(?) have to pay many billions a year to the state of Israel(the 'nation within nations' biggest mistake and ultimately the hubris that showed the world the true nature of the 'perennial victims') even criticising this will lead to ad hominem attacks(Nazi or Anti Semite) and thus stifle freedom of speech. Despite the fact that Jews do show that for the Jewish State different rules apply. As it does for every other part of the world. But Europe the beacon of light for humanity, the Goldilocks Zone as far as culture and the like is concerned, is their biggest competition(as Germany was previously when they got rid of the international bankers that were destroying the country), hence it has to be destroyed.

And like in all 1984 esque societies it's done by claiming the opposite of what's true. Like the religions tried previously to deny human instinct turning women into chattle and later thru (Max Weber) Protestantism to Capitalism, into whores. IF one has ever wondered why classical music is so much better than today's shite and why science has barely improved since Newton, it's because women wouldn't normally select on the basis of something as unnatural as money.
That's why the usual suspects like the male dominance hierarchy. And the irony is that women actually like marriage more than men(in the end they loved Big Brother).

Conclusion:

The fact that Europeans even want the EU shows the success of the propaganda, the 'free press' which is a contradiction in terms like democracy or even socialism for that matter, since in a society run by the people that create money out of thin air there is no free press, no democracy because they all have nuclear families all have vested interests all have reasons to betray the many for the benefits of the few because journalists and politicians are cowards that
do as their money masters tell them.
And if the information age has any benefit at all it must be unlimited stupidity that makes people once more choose what they are brainwashed to choose, the super-state.
And what can our overlords like more than slaves that actually think they are free?

[ahinton]

OT: I read somewhere that legalists/super-statists are already looking into ways to make the referendum result 'illegal', i.e. make the voice of the people redundant.

The referendum already has no mandate so, whilst it was itself "legal" (i.e. set up by an Act of Parliament), its result is not legally enforceable; that's the way UK referenda are - there's no need for lawyers to do anythiing about that other than issues warnings fo Parliament that if it doesn't hold a debate and vote before invoking (or not) Article 50, it might be subject to Judicial Review. That's not an act of "super-statism". The two other challenges, one over offical misleading of the electorate and the other from an individual who does not wish his human rights to be infringed by the actions of Westminster resulting in the removal of his EU citizenship are not examples of "super-statism" either.

"The voice of the people"? Which people? Where? How many of them? &c.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

The two other challenges, one over offical misleading of the electorate and the other from an individual who does not wish his human rights to be infringed by the actions of Westminster resulting in the removal of his EU citizenship are not examples of "super-statism" either.

All politicians use statistics to fool the public as they say lies damned lies and statistics, nothing new here. I always choose the lesser evil. Like I'd prefer Palestine to Israel and Saddam Hussein to ISIS. What I'm stating here is deductive reasoning, a priori reasoning, using logic and history and just looking at the world with open eyes.
Do you really want a super-state? Sure the Rheinland model is better than the Anglo-Saxon model, but how long will that last when Europe is invaded by immigrants(caused of course by the Evil Empire and flunky Britain)? Do you really think they'll feel solidarity with infidels?
Do you really think they'll be as tolerant of us as we are of them? Ehm, just look at desert cultures in general and you'll see that individualism doesn't apply(how can one survive in the desert alone?), nor does rationality, nor does freedom that we value so highly.
And look what they're planning:
War with Russia, like war with Germany in the past, doesn't serve our interests, nor does fighting the desert snakes war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just so the EU can annex Ukraine that historically has been part of Russia for the longest time. Of course Judeo Bolshevism did a lot to destroy that unity(only more deaths than the '6 million Jews'), but who mentions that in the 'free press'.
No wonder they want a European army, perhaps even to suppress such dissenting voices as expressed by the world's first Parliamentary democracy in the world, England.

And again you being for the super-state only convinces me that slaves are indeed deluding themselves they are free.

[ahinton]

All politicians use statistics to fool the public as they say lies damned lies and statistics, nothing new here. I always choose the lesser evil. Like I'd prefer Palestine to Israel and Saddam Hussein to ISIS. What I'm stating here is deductive reasoning, a priori reasoning, using logic and history and just looking at the world with open eyes.
Do you really want a super-state?

No - but nothing that I have written on the subject suggests that I do. Margaret Thatcher, when she assumed Prime Ministerial office in 1979 (and also before she did so) was very much an outward-looking Europhile but her principal reason for changing her view as her Prime Ministership continued was that what she saw favourably as a trading partnership was melding into an increasing desire for ever closer political union of the members states. I'm absolutely no fan of Thatcher but, in that sense, I could appreciate her reasoning. Yes, there are those within EU that do advocate and seek ever closer political union, but the future of EU as a unit does not depend upon that. So, again, no - no super-state. I also think that the more member states EU has, the less the chance of super-state advocates getting their way.

Sure the Rheinland model is better than the Anglo-Saxon model, but how long will that last when Europe is invaded by immigrants(caused of course by the Evil Empire and flunky Britain)? Do you really think they'll feel solidarity with infidels?
Do you really think they'll be as tolerant of us as we are of them? Ehm, just look at desert cultures in general and you'll see that individualism doesn't apply(how can one survive in the desert alone?), nor does rationality, nor does freedom that we value so highly.
And look what they're planning:
War with Russia, like war with Germany in the past, doesn't serve our interests, nor does fighting the desert snakes war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just so the EU can annex Ukraine that historically has been part of Russia for the longest time. Of course Judeo Bolshevism did a lot to destroy that unity(only more deaths than the '6 million Jews'), but who mentions that in the 'free press'.
No wonder they want a European army, perhaps even to suppress such dissenting voices as expressed by the world's first Parliamentary democracy in the world, England.

Whilst what you write here is important, you omit to express a view on what difference any of it could make if UK leaves EU; in other words, would any of this likely be different in a Europe with UK out of EU?

Immigration was not the biggest of deals among the Leave advocates during the referendum campaign; yes, that subject did feature, more forcefully in some areas than others, but it was by no means the ultimate guiding factor in how Leavers voted across UK. In any case, most of the concerns about immigration expressed by Leavers during that campaign related to those from other EU nations, whereas what we know as the "migrant crisis" concerns vast and increasing numbers of displaced individuals from outside Europe as a whole so, whilst of great gravity, it is a quite different issue to that of the free movement of people within EU.

For the record, I do not favour the idea of pan-European armed forces either; even so, those within EU who do so advocate not pan-Europen armed forces but pan-EU armed forces, which is a quite different thing - i.e. no Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia/Hercegovina, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, &c. as none of those are EU member states or likelyt to become such in the foreseeable future. EU's future is likewise not dependent upon its having its own supranational armed forces.

And again you being for the super-state only convinces me that slaves are indeed deluding themselves they are free.

You make a false assumption here, as addressed above; merely repeating it does not validate it.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

Yes, there are those within EU that do advocate and seek ever closer political union, but the future of EU as a unit does not depend upon that. So, again, no - no super-state. I also think that the more member states EU has, the less the chance of super-state advocates getting their way.

The facts show otherwise. They claim EU is the same as Europe when in actual fact it's the very antithesis of European thinking. And so why can't there just be open trading borders if that's all it's about? Why do we need the high paid eurocrats whose track record is so abysmal that anywhere else outside of politics they would have been fired at best and sued for criminal activities at worst.
And how can you have the benefits of a common market without a common currency? That will be the first things Eurocrats will claim. And it bodes well for English independent thinking that they stayed well clear of that. And the ability to set ones own exchange rate made Britain outperform the Euro countries and Greece would have done well if they'd stayed out, but that only goes to show the populace isn't really in charge.
And then the next thing the Eurocrats will claim when even their lies that the Euro is good for trade don't work any more, will be that you'll need tax harmonisation for the Euro to work. And then the next step will be handing over all sovereignty to Brussels.
So please, a little common sense would become you.

I also think that the more member states EU has, the less the chance of super-state advocates getting their way.

Mr Logic I presume?
Don't you think that the very fact that the EU (or Europe as the Eurocrats confusingly call it) is expanding into areas that have very little to do with Western Europe, have far less developed economies, cultures, money, is a sign of economic sense or more like power hungry politicians working to further the benefits of the few over the many?
And don't you think the very fact they have achieved this (at the expense of the net contributors to the EU) is a sign that the EU isn't in the national interest?

Whilst what you write here is important, you omit to express a view on what difference any of it could make if UK leaves EU; in other words, would any of this likely be different in a Europe with UK out of EU?

I think a lot of Brits are taken in by the Rheinlands model because it's a fairer system. The British class system has done a lot to destroy Britain and judging by the British working class it's self perpetuating(they're actually proud to be working class slaves).
What I meant to say is that we ought to take the good and thereby leaving the super-statists with very little support. The reason we were lured into two world wars is for a large part due to the upper class elite, like the 'greatest Englishman of all time' WC (what's in a name?)

[ahinton]

The facts show otherwise. They claim EU is the same as Europe when in actual fact it's the very antithesis of European thinking. And so why can't there just be open trading borders if that's all it's about? Why do we need the high paid eurocrats whose track record is so abysmal that anywhere else outside of politics they would have been fired at best and sued for criminal activities at worst.

And how can you have the benefits of a common market without a common currency? That will be the first things Eurocrats will claim. And it bodes well for English independent thinking that they stayed well clear of that. And the ability to set ones own exchange rate made Britain outperform the Euro countries and Greece would have done well if they'd stayed out, but that only goes to show the populace isn't really in charge.

And then the next thing the Eurocrats will claim when even their lies that the Euro is good for trade don't work any more, will be that you'll need tax harmonisation for the Euro to work. And then the next step will be handing over all sovereignty to Brussels.
 
So please, a little common sense would become you.

Did I suggest that EU was perfect? I don't think so. But while it continues to exist, UK has to engage with it, whether in or out of it, especially as it's its second largest economy. UK leaving EU will undoubtedly damage both economicall and perhaps in other ways too. There was common consensus among all 28 EU member state leaders in favour of UK remaining within EU yet, so far, UK appears to have gone against all of that; this is hardly going to endear it to the rest of EU when negotiations commence! UK's had several special concessions while an EU member - no Euro, no Shengen; that won't get forgotten and will hardly be likely to help when UK tries to engage with the rest of EU as an exited member!

Don't you think that the very fact that the EU (or Europe as the Eurocrats confusingly call it) is expanding into areas that have very little to do with Western Europe, have far less developed economies, cultures, money, is a sign of economic sense or more like power hungry politicians working to further the benefits of the few over the many?

And don't you think the very fact they have achieved this (at the expense of the net contributors to the EU) is a sign that the EU isn't in the national interest?

What you appear to imply here is that EU membership is not in the national interest of any of its member states, not just UK (correct me if I'm wrong about that). What precisely do you mean, though, by EU's "expanding into areas that have very little to do with Western Europe"?.

How would you define "Western Europe", "Central Europe" and "Eastern Europe" in any case? There's no right or wrong about it.

To me, Western Europe includes the whole of Scandinavia, Germany / Switzerland / Italy / Malta and all nations to the west thereof.

Central Europe covers Finland / Poland / Czech Republic / Austria / Slovenia and all points south and as far east as to cover European Russia and the nations to the north and west of the Black Sea.

Eastern Europe covers all the rest, i.e. Turkey / Georgia / Armenia / Azerbaijan and the nations to the east and north of the Caspian Sea as far as eastern Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in the east.

Also, bearing in mind Morocco's oft expressed desire to join EU, it occurs to me that the southern border of Europe might effectively be the Sahara desert rather than the Mediterranean Sea, so one day all nations in north Africa (which is clearly very different to "African " Africa) that border the Mediterranean as well as the Middle East as far east as Waziristan could be classifed as part of Greater Europe although, obviously, it would be decades before the whole of such an Europe could hope to function in the way that EU does now.

Yes, trying to bring in nations whose economies contrast strongly with those of Germany and UK has been woefully premature, as has been the introduction of the Euro (which is used only in 19 of the 28 member states anyway), but are these facts alone sufficient reason for UK to leave EU and, if so, mightn't they likewise be sufficient reason for other members states to follow suit?

I think a lot of Brits are taken in by the Rheinlands model because it's a fairer system. The British class system has done a lot to destroy Britain and judging by the British working class it's self perpetuating (they're actually proud to be working class slaves).

Here I do indeed agree with you and the very phrase "working class" grates, although Brits have lately demonstrated beyond all doubt that they're prepared to be taken in by an awful lot more than just that!

What I meant to say is that we ought to take the good and thereby leaving the super-statists with very little support. The reason we were lured into two world wars is for a large part due to the upper class elite, like the 'greatest Englishman of all time' WC (what's in a name?)

As I stated previously, not all the bigwigs in the European Commission and European Parliament are super-statists (although some are, of course), but UK cannot expect to "take the good" in the same way outside EU as it can within it.

As to at least the second and longer of the two world wars, you don't think that a certain predecessor of Angela Merkel had anything to do with UK being "lured" into it, then?...

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

As to at least the second and longer of the two world wars, you don't think that a certain predecessor of Angela Merkel had anything to do with UK being "lured" into it, then?...

The reason London became the financial centre of the world is for a large part due to Britain staying out of the Euro. Had they been fooled like the rest of them it wouldn't have been London but Frankfurt.
Germany, like Britain, is a mini super-state. Things have gone downhill since German reunification. West Germany ended up footing the bill to pay for the backward communist indoctrinated East Germany. The EU and the Euro actually serve the German medium-super state.
It's the same story as has been the case since Bismarck, when he unified the 27 landern to become one super-state( at least in the European context). From then on German hegemony was a nigh inevitability for mainland Europe.
What was the cost for the average German? Just look at what Prussian militarism did for the German psyche! Gone were the days of great music for one, so it definitely undermined German creativity as one would expect. Individuality devolves into conformity.
But the cost for Europe was even greater, first France in 1870-71(the reason the French were so willing to go to war with Germany in WWI) and then WWI. I agree with Niall Ferguson on his view that had we stayed out of WWI, which would have saved the British Empire and millions of lives, we would have had the EU many decades earlier. The EU then being the proxy for the super-state Germany instead of what it is now namely a proxy for the Evil Empire.
Why didn't Great Britain stay out? Think of the founding of the FED in 1913, think of the mixing of inbred blue bloods with the Wall Street elites(WC for one). Of course a country is only as strong as its weakest link. The British class system was the weak link, many in debt to their money master overlords so of course they'll serve the interests of the few over the many.

After Gallipoli and other disasters fat *** and disgusting sh*t stain WC was rewarded with the most important job in the country at the worst possible time. Corrupt politicians had already been lured by bribes(like Bush taking bribes from both the Wahhabi Saudis as the money-out-of-thin-air-guys) to try and declare war on Germany and they finally got their way in '39 when Germany AND the USSR BTW invaded Poland. Hitler's plans were always in the East and what could have been better for Europe than to let two dictators fight each other to the death?
But this corrupt system of mass indoctrination, divide and rule and 1984 style double speak has very little to do with what's best for Europe, but more to do with the few controlling the many.

But of course the mass media, the 'free press' owned by the money guys, had already declared war on Germany when Hitler(the lesser evil IMO)  took control of the money system and away from the international bankers. It's a bit like today with Russia and Putin. Putin is demonized for wanting to get back the national resources that during the reign of Yeltsin when the country was in chaos and people were starving was bought up by an international banking conglomerate on the cheap. This created overnight billionaires like the owner of Chelsea and one of the destroyers of English football(the other Jewish billionaires and Arabs being the others).
Like Hitler Putin is demonized by the 'free press' of the world and they'll use any excuse to do so .but the real reason is probably for locking up one of their guys and nationalising the oil and gas companies trying to get Russian wealth back to Russia.

So anyway back to Ostie and 'former commie' Merkel. It should be obvious to anyone that the new super-state mainly serves Germany and not all Germans since the tax payers have to pay for the folly of the Euro, while the corporations get all the advantages. And again the money guys are looking for a reason to go to war with Russia, that's why MH17 probably happened, that's why they're supporting Ukraine like they supported Poland in WWII, so a nation that would have most likely been cooperative had the 'EU'(the politicians representing the Wall Street fascists)  stayed out of giving their support even threatening with war if they should be invaded. Poland had annexed German land with German inhabitants after WWI all Hitler wanted was this land so he could use it as a springboard to the Russian invasion, but the greedy Polish politicians didn't want to give the land back and they knew they could depend on Western support, consequence: the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and the start of WWII that resulted in the destruction of Europe, the end of the British Empire and the start of the occupation by the two powers most antithetical to European thinking. The two super-states the USSR and the USA.
The west was forced to decolonize( while the Jews colonised Israel) and after establishing a firm postwar propaganda indoctrination overrun Europe with peoples and cultures that would destroy the identity and unity of a people that just a generation previously were willing to defend their island whatever the cost may be. Then feminism was the next step to not only destroy the family but also to eradicate the developed European population by feeding women's heads with unnatural believes resulting in some cases like Germany in negative population growth. While simultaneously having primitive uncivilised peoples flood the country and abuse the welfare system and creating much society destroying diversity.



 

[ahinton]

The reason London became the financial centre of the world is for a large part due to Britain staying out of the Euro. Had they been fooled like the rest of them it wouldn't have been London but Frankfurt.

It's not quite the "financial centre of the world"(!), but it is an important one and has been so since well before the Euro was even launched in 1999.

Germany, like Britain, is a mini super-state. Things have gone downhill since German reunification. West Germany ended up footing the bill to pay for the backward communist indoctrinated East Germany. The EU and the Euro actually serve the German medium-super state.

Germany's a larger one than UK but with a shorter history; UK didn't have to be split apart and then reunited like Germany, so the comparison is perhaps not especially helpful in the context. Something similar could be said of Italy which was not always the united nation that it is today (since Guiseppe Verdi united in the 19th century!). Au contraire, Yugoslavia has done the opposite and fragment into several nations of which two are EU member states.

It's the same story as has been the case since Bismarck, when he unified the 27 landern to become one super-state( at least in the European context). From then on German hegemony was a nigh inevitability for mainland Europe.

What was the cost for the average German? Just look at what Prussian militarism did for the German psyche! Gone were the days of great music for one, so it definitely undermined German creativity as one would expect. Individuality devolves into conformity.

"Gone were the days of great music" in Germany post-Bismarck?! Bismarck died near the close of the 19th century, so are you claiming that Strauss, Reger, Schmidt et al up to Henze, Stockhausen, Lachenmann et al were all mere minor Kapellmeistern in some kind of "Land ohne Musik? I think that such a view might just upset a few tens of millions of music lovers!

But the cost for Europe was even greater, first France in 1870-71(the reason the French were so willing to go to war with Germany in WWI) and then WWI. I agree with Niall Ferguson on his view that had we stayed out of WWI, which would have saved the British Empire and millions of lives, we would have had the EU many decades earlier.

That's an interesting speculation and, whilst one can never be certain, it's far from improbable at least in tems of British lives saved, but the British Empire would have collapsed in any event because its interests outside Europe and the war in Europe were by no means closely linked.

Why didn't Great Britain stay out? Think of the founding of the FED in 1913, think of the mixing of inbred blue bloods with the Wall Street elites(WC for one). Of course a country is only as strong as its weakest link. The British class system was the weak link, many in debt to their money master overlords so of course they'll serve the interests of the few over the many.

Some of this holds true, but doesn't take account of that free movement of labour that pertains today and extends far beyond the rules and borders of EU.

After Gallipoli and other disasters fat *** and disgusting sh*t stain WC was rewarded with the most important job in the country at the worst possible time. Corrupt politicians had already been lured by bribes(like Bush taking bribes from both the Wahhabi Saudis as the money-out-of-thin-air-guys) to try and declare war on Germany and they finally got their way in '39 when Germany AND the USSR BTW invaded Poland. Hitler's plans were always in the East and what could have been better for Europe than to let two dictators fight each other to the death?

I'm not convinced that Hitler's plans were only for Germany and nations east thereof; the very desire to exterminate as many Jews as possible did not confine itself to Germany and nations to its east. Corrupt politicians, on the other hand, are and always have been everywhere and the greater the communications and travel facilities the more so that continues to become.

But this corrupt system of mass indoctrination, divide and rule and 1984 style double speak has very little to do with what's best for Europe, but more to do with the few controlling the many.

Indeed so, but that kind of thing's hardly confined to Europe!

But of course the mass media, the 'free press' owned by the money guys, had already declared war on Germany when Hitler(the lesser evil IMO)  took control of the money system and away from the international bankers. It's a bit like today with Russia and Putin. Putin is demonized for wanting to get back the national resources that during the reign of Yeltsin when the country was in chaos and people were starving was bought up by an international banking conglomerate on the cheap. This created overnight billionaires like the owner of Chelsea and one of the destroyers of English football(the other Jewish billionaires and Arabs being the others).

Like Hitler Putin is demonized by the 'free press' of the world and they'll use any excuse to do so .but the real reason is probably for locking up one of their guys and nationalising the oil and gas companies trying to get Russian wealth back to Russia.

But that kind of activity goes on almost everywhere - selling the family silver, trying to get it back and all the rest; the only difference now compared to what that kind of thing was like in the immediate aftermath of WWII is that everything can be done much more quickly, especially the passing of information. There'll alway be corrupt speculators seizing advantage for themselves and they, too, are not confined to Europe / European Russia.

So anyway back to Ostie and 'former commie' Merkel. It should be obvious to anyone that the new super-state mainly serves Germany and not all Germans since the tax payers have to pay for the folly of the Euro, while the corporations get all the advantages. And again the money guys are looking for a reason to go to war with Russia, that's why MH17 probably happened, that's why they're supporting Ukraine like they supported Poland in WWII, so a nation that would have most likely been cooperative had the 'EU'(the politicians representing the Wall Street fascists)  stayed out of giving their support even threatening with war if they should be invaded. Poland had annexed German land with German inhabitants after WWI all Hitler wanted was this land so he could use it as a springboard to the Russian invasion, but the greedy Polish politicians didn't want to give the land back and they knew they could depend on Western support, consequence: the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty and the start of WWII that resulted in the destruction of Europe, the end of the British Empire and the start of the occupation by the two powers most antithetical to European thinking. The two super-states the USSR and the USA.

The west was forced to decolonize( while the Jews colonised Israel) and after establishing a firm postwar propaganda indoctrination overrun Europe with peoples and cultures that would destroy the identity and unity of a people that just a generation previously were willing to defend their island whatever the cost may be. Then feminism was the next step to not only destroy the family but also to eradicate the developed European population by feeding women's heads with unnatural believes resulting in some cases like Germany in negative population growth. While simultaneously having primitive uncivilised peoples flood the country and abuse the welfare system and creating much society destroying diversity.

There's not much that I can agree with there. Feminism has not destroyed families and is also not confined to Europe. USA and Russia have been superstates for many years although neither has done much to expand its territory. The Euro is a folly only insofar as it was introduced way too soon,, especially in the light of the absorption of poorer nations into EU. Where were the Jews supposed to go? Do you not consider that they merited a nation of their own?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Jesus H Christ. Don't he ever chuck it in??

Thal

[ahinton]

Jesus H Christ. Don't he ever chuck it in??

I wasn't aware that He's a member here and I do not in any case know His views on Brexit; do you?

Anyway, just to update, there are now no longer just four legal challenges but five, as outlined in the article at https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/11/news/economy/brexit-legal-cases-lawsuits/ .

One is from a 94 year old WWII veteran who, having exhausted his options within UK Courts, is now having his challenge heard by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights - see https://www.italianinsider.it/?q=node/4012.

Another is in the form of a letter signed by 1,054 barristers from all four parts of UK - see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-result-not-legally-binding-lawyers-letter-a7129626.html

A third is from a law firm on behalf of corporate clients - see https://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_news/article_50_process_on_brexit_faces_legal_challenge_to_ensure_parliamentary_involvement_07_2016

A fourth is on behalf of an individual and is due for its initial hearing a week today - see https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/legal-attempt-prevent-brexit-preliminary-hearing-article-50.

The last is slightly different in that it is the sole criminal case and is against Leave campaign leaders for misrepresentation - see https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/uk-statistics-chief-vote-leave-350m-figure-misleading.

It's unclear, however, why this article claims that

"The U.K. government has already rejected a petition calling for a second referendum, signed by more than 4 million people".

I've seen that reported in UK's Independent newspaper as well.

The reason that I was puzzled by it is that Parliament's petition website has for some time been stating that it has deferred its decision on the petition until 12 July 2016 due to some suspected fraudulent signatures and it removed some 77,000 of these a while ago; it did not state that it had rejected the petition, nor did it close down the page so that no more signatures could be added - the tally has continued to increase, albeit at a slower rate than in the immediate aftermath of publication of the referendum result.

12 July 2016 being today, the site has updated within the last few minutes to show

"Parliament will debate this petition

Parliament will debate this petition on 5 September 2016.

You'll be able to watch online at parliamentlive.tv"

Doesn't look like a rejection to me, any more than does the signatory total of 4,134,532 and still rising.

It's not the tidiest way in which to do this, of course and it really should sensibly have been addressed right from the outset rather than trying to do it retrospectively - but it wasn't, so it will have to take its place alongside those five legal challenges. Lots to play for; who knows what will happen or when?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Good God

[ahinton]

Good God

So God is Good? Please don't extend that to "God is Great" as the ISIS people have an unfortunate habit of doing (although I'm pretty confident that you won't)...

Anyway, in the meantime, it would seem (for what it may or may not be worth) that Jeremy Corbyn rides again; make of that what you will or won't...

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

So God is Good? Please don't extend that to "God is Great" as the ISIS people have an unfortunate habit of doing (although I'm pretty confident that you won't)...

God is great, every time I look at my dick I'm reminded of that fact. Anyway....
There seems to be a negative publicity campaign going on even with the British Broadcasting Corporation( I spelt it out just in case some people got the wrong idea) like the SNP a 'nationalist' party supporting enslavement by the European superstate. It's very Orwellian.

People that want to leave the superstate are branded racist, stupid, murderers etc when all they want is control of their own country again, to not have Brussels decide everything, don't want to pay for the power aspirations of the Eurocrats who annex one Eastern Block country after another. And don't want war with Russia over some place as remote as the Ukraine(is there any real difference in attitudes between the two?).

We need only look at the 'success' of the Euro to see that the whole project is a massive failure and despite all the taxpayer payouts to Greece and the extra powers invested in the ECB there still no closer to solving the problems. Why because European countries aren't like the superstate that's occupied Western Europe since 1945. We don't all eat hamburgers, we don't speak the same language, we don't have a common culture/history/standards/economic cycles.
There's only one country that seems to benefit and that's the mini superstate Germany and even then it's not the ordinary people in Germany that benefit since they have to pay for the folly of having German interest rates and currency too low while the southern Europeans countries have interest rates and currency too high( so their economy suffers). But the corporations, the big multinationals, don't they just love the Euro! Look at how well the DAX has done compared to other indexes. And yet...the 'free' press keep praising the Eurocrats with their Churchillian track record while demonising any politician that dare speak out against it.

Especially the treachery of the BBC is nauseating.They ought to be representing British interests. Had the BBC been the same during the war as it is today they'd be broadcasting the weak points in the British defences to Germany, would be spreading German propaganda and would get the world to hate Britain. Doubtless to say had the BBC been then like it is today Britain would have lost the war in 1940.

I occasionally listen to BBC Ulster and see the same negative campaigning going on against the Brits there. The British population that fought and died to defend the British Isles are made out to be cretins while the Catholic population that fought on the side of Germany can do no wrong.
And of course the US of retarded A our 'special ally' who cheated us out of an empire who financed the IRA killing innocent people, who fucked Europe over with their toxic debt(they even boast the credit crisis hurt the European pensioners more than it hurt Americans), have to stand shoulder to shoulder with these traitors and hypocrites. And now of course we see the Goldman Sachs effect of creative bookkeeping to get Greece(and Italy) accepted into the Euro.
Ulster used to be British, the Brits there had a small piece of land and they used to have the power and the British population. Now with higher birth rates the Catholics are taking over and to slap the Brits in the face even harder are promoting the idea of legalising the most cowardly army ever that killed many innocent Brits, while simultaneously bringing into vogue the consequences of such treachery like their tradition of celebrating the Orange victory on the 12th of July. If I was young I'd probably act similarly to the Ulster youth who have seen the Catholics take over their country so that even joking about the stupidity of the IRA in Gibralter is seen as an impeachable offence. They even tried to force Gregory Campbell to apologise to the family of those talentless murderers for the remarks he made.

And yet...and that is the success of the mass media, despite all the bloodshed, despite all the problems, both the north and the south of Ireland can unite behind the superstate.

I think it should be abundantly clear that after Churchill's pyrrhic victory in 1945 Britain and the rest of Western Europe has been run by traitors in the pay or under the influence of their Judeo American masters. And sometimes I think Europeans deserve everything they're going to get when these guys get what they want, it really makes me ashamed to be English and European when I hear how easily people are misled by their mass media and politicians and sometimes I even wish Hitler had won the war, Europe would have been European at least.


It ought to be clear that the EU is inherently anti European as are the so called national governments save maybe I hope the new May government. They don't want what's best for Europe in fact they want to destroy Europe so it can't rise to threaten the most retarded superpower ever the USA

[ahinton]

God is great, every time I look at my dick I'm reminded of that fact.

It seems that you do a fair amount of such contemplation...

There seems to be a negative publicity campaign going on even with the British Broadcasting Corporation( I spelt it out just in case some people got the wrong idea) like the SNP a 'nationalist' party supporting enslavement by the European superstate. It's very Orwellian.

Given the tiny majority across UK as a whole in favour of Brexit; you might as well argue that almost half of Brits support the same; only logic would appear to dismiss that assertion, but I cannot imagine that you would be bothered to have much faith in logic.

People that want to leave the superstate are branded racist, stupid, murderers etc when all they want is control of their own country again, to not have Brussels decide everything, don't want to pay for the power aspirations of the Eurocrats who annex one Eastern Block country after another. And don't want war with Russia over some place as remote as the Ukraine(is there any real difference in attitudes between the two?).

I've heard no such evidence of name-calling, Brussels does not "decide everything" in any case and nations that become EU member states are not "annexed" in order that they do so.

We need only look at the 'success' of the Euro to see that the whole project is a massive failure and despite all the taxpayer payouts to Greece and the extra powers invested in the ECB there still no closer to solving the problems. Why because European countries aren't like the superstate that's occupied Western Europe since 1945. We don't all eat hamburgers, we don't speak the same language, we don't have a common culture/history/standards/economic cycles.

The Euro was a premature project, just as was the absorption of certain member states, of tht there can be no doubt. Language? Go to Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands - almost everyone speaks English!

Especially the treachery of the BBC that ought to be representing British interests.

But what are they? And how would you have everyone agree as to what they are?

I occasionally listen to BBC Ulster and see the same negative campaigning going on against the Brits there. The British population that fought and died to defend the British Isles are made out to be cretins while the Catholic population that fought on the side of Germany can do no wrong.

Many in NI whjo supported Remain are trying to become citizens of the Republic in order to remain EU citizens. And since you "do mention the war" (some people will get that reference!), what of all the Poles who fought for UK during it?

And of course the US of retarded A our 'special ally' who cheated us out of an empire who financed the IRA killing innocent people, who fucked Europe over with their toxic debt(they even boast the credit crisis hurt the European pensioners more than it hurt Americans), have to stand shoulder to shoulder with these traitors and hypocrites. And now of course we see the Goldman Sachs effect of creative bookkeeping to get Greece(and Italy) accepted into the Euro.
Ulster used to be British, the Brits there had a small piece of land and they used to have the power and the British population. Now with higher birth rates the Catholics are taking over and to slap the Brits in the face even harder are promoting the idea of legalising the most cowardly army ever that killed many innocent Brits, while simultaneously bringing into vogue the consequences of such treachery like their tradition of celebrating the Orange victory on the 12th of July. If I was young I'd probably act similarly to the Ulster youth who have seen the Catholics take over their country so that even joking about the stupidity of the IRA in Gibralter is seen as an impeachable offence. They tried to force Gregory Campbell to apologise to the family of those talentless murderers for the remarks he made.

And yet...and that is the success of the mass media, despite all the bloodshed, despite all the problems, both the north and the south of Ireland can unite behind the superstate.

I think it should be abundantly clear that after Churchill's pyrrhic victory in 1945 Britain and the rest of Western Europe has been run by traitors in the pay or under the influence of their Judeo American masters. And sometimes I think Europeans deserve everything they're going to get when these guys get what they want, it really makes me ashamed to be English and European when I hear how easily people are misled by their mass media and politicians and sometimes I even wish Hitler had won the war, Europe would have been European at least.

Just about the only truth here is the extent to which and the ways in which Brits are misled and manipulated by mass media and politicians; had they not been so, UK would have remained in EU. Let's hope that the five (so far) legal challenges and the petition debate might between them help to save UK from itself as we sit back and watch its interest rates drop, possibly to below zero by early next year.

It ought to be clear

Ah, yes; "clear". The favurite buzzword of politicans when interviewed!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

People that want to leave the superstate are branded racist, stupid, murderers etc when all they want is control of their own country again, to not have Brussels decide everything, don't want to pay for the power aspirations of the Eurocrats who annex one Eastern Block country after another. And don't want war with Russia over some place as remote as the Ukraine(is there any real difference in attitudes between the two?).

Well said old boy. As a Brexiteer, I also didn't want my Country to have to bail out basket case economies and also, the thought of allowing Turkey in, giving rights to its 75 million Muslims to live here was more than sufficient to decide where I was going to vote.

Thal

[forte88]

There seems to be a negative publicity campaign going on even with the British Broadcasting Corporation( I spelt it out just in case some people got the wrong idea) like the SNP a 'nationalist' party supporting enslavement by the European superstate. It's very Orwellian.

Given the tiny majority across UK as a whole in favour of Brexit; you might as well argue that almost half of Brits support the same; only logic would appear to dismiss that assertion, but I cannot imagine that you would be bothered to have much faith in logic.

The whole point Mr Logic is that had there been no mass indoctrination NOBODY would have voted to remain, why vote to stay part of this abomination?
I'll reiterate what I wrote previously comparing other superstates and the actual goal of the superstate:
-Concentration of power; Lobby power like in the US making it suicidal for any politician to say speak out against Israel and in a country that makes a big deal about 'the moochers and scroungers' living off of food stamps to still have billions going that-a-way. Never mind companies like Monsanto who  are apparently already getting a foothold in Brussels. And these are just examples, it's much easier to do when all power is situated in one place instead of spread over many small countries, but that's just common sense something Mr Logic obviously knows nothing about.
-Concentration of wealth; A consequence of concentration of power. It's a natural law in any superstate as the reverse is also true. Small states don't tolerate too much extremity in a large state you're just one of the faceless masses. Imagine instead of the outdated nation-state(still better than the super state for above mentioned reasons) a community using technology to interact with the world and looking after their own. The elderly and young would be properly looked after and if 1% of the community owned half of the wealth it wouldn't be tolerated by the community as would the mass immigration of people that despise our culture our values and our way of life.

If you'd known anything at all about history and you obviously don't(and yet are proud to show off your blatant ignorance like it's a virtue) you'd know how Europe, comprised of many small nations, relatively free and outclassing the world in just about every human endeavour known to man from the science to the arts, ended up ruling the world.
Even the city states of Greece repeatedly invaded by the conformist superstate slaves  of the Middle East with Alexander Great defeated and conquered those vast superstates. Why? because small states allow for flexibility, critical thinking and entrepreneurial spirit.

I've heard no such evidence of name-calling, Brussels does not "decide everything" in any case and nations that become EU member states are not "annexed" in order that they do so.

Perhaps annexed isn't the right word(just from the pov of the superstate as it enlarges their influence and power) as those 2nd world countries are all too glad that the rich nations of the West are willing to send billions in tax payers money in their direction. Of course they have very different ideas as they unlike Western Europe haven't been polluted by feminism and political correctness the populace of the West have been subject to since after '45. So they obviously protest when those infidel(that's us) hating Muslims flood their lands.

Go to Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands - almost everyone speaks English!

As someone who lives in Holland I can concur, but they speak German as well, so what does that mean? What about the real countries Germany, France, Italy, Spain, how many people speak fluent English there Mr Logic? Once again a complete non sequitur.

ong.
Many in NI whjo supported Remain are trying to become citizens of the Republic in order to remain EU citizens. And since you "do mention the war" (some people will get that reference!), what of all the Poles who fought for UK during it?

After showing off your blatant ignorance in historical matter now you display your complete lack of knowledge in geographical matters. Since when was Poland part of Britain? Poles didn't fight for Britain, they were fighting against Germany, had the joint invasion of Poland not happened would they even have been there fighting for Germany?

[forte88]

Well said old boy. As a Brexiteer, I also didn't want my Country to have to bail out basket case economies and also, the thought of allowing Turkey in, giving rights to its 75 million Muslims to live here was more than sufficient to decide where I was going to vote.

Thal

Thanks for mentioning that, there's just so much to mention, but you're right. As well as the billions that go to the corrupt Erdogan government to supposedly keep the immigrants there, not that this happens so still they come through Greece a country financially destroyed by the Euro.
Now being bought up by the Chinese for next to nothing and a country that obviously now doesn't have the resources to stop the immigrants from getting a foothold in Europe via Turkey.