Britain has just had its Rosa Parks moment.
1) Brexit Victory Boosts Climate Sceptics
Lorrie Goldstein
The UK may take a more skeptical approach to addressing man-made climate change in future due to the victory of the “leave” forces in last week’s Brexit referendum to quit the European Union.
Prominent leaders of the “leave” campaign — including Conservative MP and former London mayor Boris Johnson, now being touted as a potential prime minister — are viewed as climate skeptics, at least compared to their counterparts on the losing “remain” side, headed by British PM David Cameron.
Cameron has announced he will resign in the wake of his referendum defeat, setting off a race for leader of the Conservative party, who would also become PM.
While Johnson has never denied man-made climate change and described last year’s United Nations’ Paris climate treaty as “fantastic,” he also wrote in a Dec. 20 Telegraph column, quoting prominent U.K. climate skeptic Piers Corbyn, that human beings tend to confuse weather with climate and overestimate their impact on the natural world.
As Johnson put it: “I am sure that those global leaders (who drafted the Paris treaty) were driven by a primitive fear that the present ambient warm weather is somehow caused by humanity. And that fear — as far as I understand the science — is equally without foundation.”
Other leaders of the “leave” campaign such as Conservative MP Michael Gove — another possible candidate for PM — Nigel Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Conservative MP and former environment minister Owen Paterson, are climate skeptics.
So is “leave” forces leader Nigel Farage, head of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), another big winner to emerge from the referendum campaign.
While climate change wasn’t an issue in the referendum campaign, a recent poll of 1,618 people divided evenly between “leave” and “remain” supporters by the marketing research firm ComRes, found “leave” voters almost twice as likely to believe climate change is not caused by humans as “remain” supporters.
They were also more distrustful of scientists and media reporting on climate change, more likely to oppose wind farms and more likely to support fracking.
Nothing will happen in the short-term to the U.K.’s current ambitious target to reduce its industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to climate change to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
For now, the U.K. remains a supporter of the Paris climate treaty and part of the EU, until it negotiates its way out.
The UN says when the U.K. leaves the EU, a major supporter of its climate change agenda, a “recalibration” of the Paris treaty will be necessary.
Climate activists fear the “leave” victory will distract the EU from climate change as its biggest priority becomes negotiating the U.K.’s exit from the 28-nation alliance and dealing with independence movements in other EU countries given new life by the Brexit vote.
2) Brexit, Climate Alarmism And The GWPF Myth
Peter Foster
One knowledgeable friend to whom I spoke about Brexit when I was in Britain recently said that he knew that the EU was doomed, but that he was going to vote to stay. Why? Because if Britain left, it would be blamed for the EU’s inevitable collapse.
That’s why it is important to refute the idea that Britain’s vote to leave the EU has endangered, or doomed, a fundamentally viable entity. The EU is a failed project because, to turn one of the favourite mantras of Eurocrats back on them, it is “unsustainable.” The immediate problem for Britain is that the Scaremongers of Stay, who have spent recent months preaching disaster, now have to face the consequences of their alarmism, which unfolded in falling global stock markets, and a falling pound, on Friday.
Turbulence was exacerbated by the fact that the alleged “smart money” had bet that the British bulldog would choose to continue — like the proverbial frog — sitting in the slowly heating pan of regulation rather than make the effort to jump out. It is a bit rich for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney — who is still lauded by the CBC for “shepherding” Canada through the post-2008 crisis (which we are arguably still in) — to declare the bank will take “all necessary steps” to calm markets when it was Carney who helped roil them so much in the first place.
Like “sustainability,” “all necessary steps,” or “whatever it takes” are foundational conceits of the macrostabilizers, betraying the belief that bad policy consequences can always be kicked down the road. A majority of voting Brits have now concluded it’s the road to serfdom.
Among those with omelette on their face is President Obama, who threatened that Britain would be sent to the “back of the queue” when negotiating future trade deals. The fact that he used the British term “queue” rather than “line” suggests that the Conservative government actually wrote his speech. But did he never consider how close the phrase “back of the queue” is to “back of the bus,” with its implications of flagrant discrimination?
In fact, Britain has just had its Rosa Parks moment.
On the other hand, the last thing Brexiteers needed was congratulations from Donald Trump, who was in Scotland opening a golf course. That’s because approval from The Donald provides ammunition for all those bien pensants who claimed that Brexit was all about the racism and the xenophobia of Little Englanders.
Concern about control of the country’s borders was certainly a factor, but the more fundamental issue was regaining control of the country’s laws and regulations, and thus avoiding more omnivorous supra-nationalism.
Not merely does Brexit promise to unwind — or slash — a Gordian knot of red tape, it points a welcome dagger at the heart of the greatest supra-national bureaucratic pretension since the Soviet Union: to manipulate global climate.
One of the many strong arguments against the EU is its Brussels-generated role in the pushing climate alarmism and draconian policy. The Climate Agenda is of the Eureaucracy, by the Eureaucracy and for the Eureaucracy, and is cheered on by their wonkish brethren around the world. Science has been corrupted and misrepresented. Skeptics have been cast as deranged “deniers” or shills for Big Oil, while wind, solar and biofuel policy disasters have been resolutely ignored.
Despite all the sunny talk about last year’s Paris conference being a “breakthrough,” the issue has descended into bureaucratic zombie-hood, which is just fine with the bureaucrats. There’s nothing they like more than cleaning up a mess, even if it is of their own making.
Britain has, until now, participated fully in this policy of economic self-immolation. However — as the green left has pointed out with horror — many of the leading Brexiteers are openly skeptical about the Climate Agenda. Indeed one of them, Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London, is in line to become the next British prime minister.
Some have even cast the entire Brexit campaign as a plot by the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a skeptical think tank founded by Lord Nigel Lawson, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lawson was one of the most convincing campaigners for the Leave side. Another key Brexiteer was Conservative Justice Secretary Michael Gove, who had also campaigned against the bias of climate education on the basis of a critical, and entirely accurate, GWPF report.
But claims of a GWPF plot are pure paranoia. While other prominent associates of GWPF, such as journalist and best-selling author Matt Ridley, have written about the wild exaggerations of the Don’t Leave brigade, I personally know two leading figures in the GWPF who were on the Remain side. Indeed one of them was the individual I described at the beginning of this column.
3) Brexit: Paris Climate Agreement Will Have To be Rewritten
Graham Lloyd
Top UN climate change official Christiana Figueres said Britain’s decision to leave the EU meant the Paris agreement would need to be redrawn.
This could delay EU ratification of the deal, which is already under pressure because India and Russia have said they were unlikely to sign this year.
Unless the Paris agreement is ratified this year by countries representing more than 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it will be vulnerable to being scrapped completely by a future Donald Trump presidency in the US.
Australia is a minor contributor to total global carbon dioxide emissions but federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt said “our commitment to the Paris agreement remains rock-solid”. […]
Green groups are concerned the Brexit result will sap momentum from the global climate change response and have linked the successful Leave campaign to high-profile climate sceptics such as Margaret Thatcher’s former treasurer Nigel Lawson.
Lead Brexit campaigner and potential future British prime minister Boris Johnson has also been portrayed as a climate sceptic after dismissing warmer-than-usual summer temperatures as being linked to climate change. Global Warming Policy Foundation director Benny Peiser said the decision by the British people to leave the EU would have significant and long-term implications for energy and climate policies. Carbon prices in the EU’s emissions trading market plunged 17 per cent in the wake of the Brexit referendum result.
“It is highly unlikely that the party-political green consensus that has existed in parliament for the last 10 years will survive the seismic changes that are now unfolding after Britain’s independence day,” Dr Peiser said.
“Perhaps the most important aspect of the EU referendum has been the astonishing self-determination and scepticism of the British people in face of an unprecedented fear campaign.”
France became the first major industrialised nation to ratify the Paris agreement, on June 15, but the EU cannot officially join until all 28 member states have agreed to do so. The exit of Britain from the EU means the EU agreement will need to be changed and Britain will have to negotiate its own agreement.
Concerns about what the Brexit might mean for Britain’s climate policies has seen the European carbon market plunge more than 17 per cent in the wake of the poll.
4) Brexit Calls EU Climate Action Into Question As Top MEP Quits
James Crisp
The European Union’s plans to reform its broken carbon market have been thrown into turmoil after the British lead MEP on the bill to revise the Emissions Trading System resigned after the UK voted to leave the bloc.
Ian Duncan, the only Conservative MEP for Scotland, tendered his resignation just hours after it became apparent that Britain has chosen Brexit. […]
Revamping the world’s biggest scheme for trading carbon emissions allowances is a vital part of the EU being able to meet the Paris Agreement commitments it made to cap global warming at the UN Climate Change Conference.
The Paris Agreement – in the process of ratification – will now need to be rewritten.
Speaking yesterday, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres said, “From the point of view of the Paris Agreement, the UK is part of the EU and has put in its effort as part of the EU so anything that would change that would require a recalibration,” she said at a press conference.
EurActiv exclusively reported that British conservatives are planning to call a general election in November to hand a mandate to a new ‘Brexit government’.
The leading figures of the Leave campaign are likely to have significant roles but, as well as being Eurosceptic, some are also climate-sceptic. That has fuelled further uncertainty over the future of British climate action.
5) Big Blow To Obama As India Delays Paris Ratification Indefinitely
Indrani Bagchi
NEW DELHI: India’s high energy, high profile campaign to get into the NSG failed Friday morning, as China remained adamantly opposed to even considering the issue.
After a plenary meeting in Seoul, which saw Chinese diplomats attempt to block even a discussion, the 48-member nuclear cartel could not take a decision on India’s membership.
A last minute diplomatic outreach by Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Chinese president Xi Jinping also failed to cut any ice.
A big outcome of the NSG failure is that India will now not ratify the Paris Agreement anytime soon. That agreement is a key element of US President Barack Obama’s legacy.
The Indian statement says clearly, “An early positive decision by the NSG would have allowed us to move forward on the Paris Agreement.” This will be a big blow to the Obama administration which wanted India to ratify the pact so it could enter into force.
It was understood that an NSG membership would help India clear the Paris Agreement.
6) Brexit: Implications For Energy Policy And Legislation
Global Warming Policy Forum, 27 June 2016
John Constable
The decision by the British electorate to leave the European Union has major and on balance positive implications for the UK’s energy policy. However, it is also possible that Brexit will increase the cost of EU climate and renewables policies for the remaining members, since the UK’s burden share was large and it was a leading customer for renewable energy equipment manufactured in the EU.
Disentangling the EU’s legislation as it bears on UK law will be a necessary activity for the government in the coming years, but this will not be simple. The bulk of law is large, and much is supported by legislation enacted by Westminster. Some may even be worth retaining.
However, since the UK will need to sail fast and free if it is to prosper post-Brexit, the economic engine must be fuelled as cheaply and efficiently as possible, a requirement that is incompatible with currently applicable EU regulation, and much of it will consequently have to be rejected.
The scale of the undertaking can be judged from the number of Directives, regulations and implementing decisions with effects on energy supply. The following document lists 230 items with a direct impact:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014-12-19-ener-legislation.pdf
However, many other areas also bear on the energy sector, for example, the numerous environmental regulations listed here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/chapter/environment.html?root_default=SUM_1_CODED=20
While all of the legislation described above will have to be examined, there are a number of elements that are of pressing concern and may prove controversial:
1. The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), the successor to the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), which constrains UK flexibility in the construction and management of its conventional electricity generation.
2. The Renewables Directive (2009), which requires the United Kingdom to obtain 15% of Final Energy Consumption in 2020 from renewable sources.
3. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
The first and last of these are very largely responsible for the counter-economic minimisation of coal in the UK generation fleet. While the IED may be relatively easy to set aside, the damage already done, due to under-maintenance and early closure of plants, is not easy to rectify. Without the IED, some plant could perhaps be brought back online, and if the UK ceases to operate within the ETS, investment may flow more freely into conventional generation, particularly if the UK abandons the Renewables Directive, which has a powerful market distorting influence weakening investment signals.
Cancelling the Renewables Directive would also offer consumers prospective relief, since in the absence of the EU targets there is no need to award new subsidies, to offshore wind for example, offering a very welcome saving of three or four billion a year in 2020. However, the subsidy entitlements already granted, which are currently costing over £4 billion a year, will extend for many years into the future, and have a legal life quite independent of the Directive itself. Government might be unwilling to tamper with these subsidies, though they would in effect be redundant and the public might well wonder why they were continuing to pay when there was no obligation at EU level.
Overall, backing out of the various EU energy and climate commitments looks likely to be beneficial, and necessary. But UK withdrawal is probably not positive for those remaining in the EU, and this can only make negotiations difficult. The problem arises because the UK’s burden share in meeting the EU’s 2020 Renewable Energy target, is not only large (some 230 to 270 TWh of energy), but unbalanced.
Indeed, when the UK’s Dept. of Business looked into this matter in 2007 it concluded that the UK would be facing considerably upwards of 25% of the total EU-wide costs of the Renewables Directive (2009). It is arguable that to some degree the UK has been shielding other member states from costs by shouldering this exceptional burden. For example, the UK has been importing many of the technologies required, such as wind turbines, from Danish, Spanish, and German companies. Without these exports the net economic effect of the targets within Europe may begin look much less attractive.
It is obviously too soon to say that Brexit will significantly increase the net cost of the renewables targets for the remaining EU members, but there is clearly some doubt about the matter, and this will inevitably make negotiations controversial, and it can only add to the pressure on other member states to seek significant changes to the EU’s climate and green energy policies.
From Nuccitelli… Think of the children! Brexit = GW de-nial
The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Youth will bear the brunt of the poor decisions being made by today’s older generations
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/27/the-inter-generational-theft-of-brexit-and-climate-change
Maybe if it is predominantly older voters who voted Exit and who doubt climate alarmism and have less trust in the mass media and ….. well think for themselves. … it may be time to consider whether they may have learnt something in their time on Earth that the younger generation have yet to learn.
There used to be an expression : older and wiser. In most cultures older people are respected as being wise.
Oddly, in western culture they seem to be regarded as ‘old selfish gits’.
Oh, the foolish arrogance of youth.
Arrogant and lazy. I understand that the Brexit vote breakdown by age was something like Under 25s only about 33% bothered to vote! whilst for over 65s about 80% voted. Serves them right!
The ‘older generation’ also remember the completely independent UK successfully managing its own way in the world without the need for ‘directives’ from faceless unelected EUrocrats. They therefore have more faith in the country’s capability than the younger generation that grew up in ‘the fur lined mousetrap’ (tm Parkinson)
Boyfromtottenham below is right.
Nuccitelli is using the alarmist’s tactics with selective stats.
The following is a breakdown by age group of the percentage of eligible voters who voted
Sky Data % of who got through our final #EUref poll turnout filter age group :
18-24 36%
25-34 58%
35-44 72%
45-54 75%
55-64 81%
65+ 83%
The figures Nuccitelli gives are from Yougov poll data. From them we see 75% of the 18-24 age group who voted, voted remain.
So since only 36% percent of the eligible voters of that age group actually voted that means only 27% of the eligible voters in that age wanted to remain.
Similarly with the 25-49 group 56 % who voted said remain. 65% of the age group voted ( I’ve averaged the 58 & 72 in the two closed group from the Sky figures). This means 36.4% of the eligible voters in the group actually voted remain.
Aren’t stats wonderful !
Spot on Greg. It is because people who think for themselves will look at the evidence and make an informed decision; they don’t just swallow the hype unchallenged.
We all know the man-made climate change disaster does not stand up to this, and neither does the EU. Many people believe for example the UK got more out of the EU that it puts in. If you Google it, you will find in 2013 the UK provided just under 20% of the EU budget, but there are 27 member states. That simple fact shows the fallacy of believing what you are told without question.
Same goes for the climate rubbish people believe. So if a person does the simplest research of the facts in either debate, then they are likely to be anti EU and not to believe in man-made climate disaster.
It is wonderful to see from these age-group voting stats that a great many people who hadn’t a CLUE had the responsibility NOT to vote. I applaud those who stayed home!
generational theft LOL. Maybe he’s worried some will steal his PINK scooter.
Oh dear. Now that the EU have a REAL existential threat to worry about they may have less time to worry about what the weather forecase for 27th June 2100 is.
Damned good thing.
The same groups so determined to cry over BREXIT are the very groups pushing an undisclosed Educational Neuroscience agenda globally with lots of meetings they jet off to. It’s not just that the youth have been propagandized, but they have been habituated to think from the regions of the brain that process emotions. They are also trained to respond to visual images and told that media literacy is as important as print literacy. The results, and the UK has been in the lead on this, are young people’s brain that have literally been rewired from what a traditional fact-based, transmission of knowledge, and fluent reading type of curriculum would have produced.
In 2001 Sir Michael Barber wrote the book Irreversible Change while working on ed for Tony Blair. We see the results in the BREXIT vote and the young people’s false belief systems that are virtually impenetrable now to undesired facts.
The trouble is that once children are trained to ‘think’ based on emotional inputs and processes you can never fix the critical thought process in the child. The future is looking very dark indeed.
I imagine all across Britain children are now worried about the collapse of Stonehenge due to moles digging under the megaliths. It’s because of climate change that there are so many moles. Not a word about simple solutions to the problem like a trap, poison bait or a cat. Nope. It’s going to collapse.
“Stonehenge could be toppled by moles if the earth’s temperature keeps rising, a United Nations report warned yesterday.”
“The world heritage site is one of many that will be threatened by climate change – with other famous sites under threat including the Statue of Liberty, Venice and the Galapagos Islands.”
“The report was produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the UN Heritage body Unesco and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3611827/Could-moles-really-end-toppling-Stonehenge.html
Thanks for making the effort to wake the sheeple up Robin.
I think that the Statue of Liberty is under more threat from our unsustainable (used in its proper sense for once) debt. Think the Chinese are going to bother maintaining it when they confiscate the country for failure to pay?
I have noticed a difference between students 15 years ago and today. While pretty much every young adult is prone to stupidity from approximately 18-25, today’s young adult seems to base their opinions much more on emotion than actual thought. There have been plenty of people caught in this trap over the last few decades, but it seems to be getting worse.
Or maybe I am just getting old and cranky (crankier). Get off my lawn!!!
The “inter-generational theft” is from those pushing the climate change agenda.
That’s because we are older and wiser and so voted out!
Ironically, what Nuccitelli said about “inter-generational theft” ACTUALLY applies to what the Climate Naz!s would have done if given the opportunity, by pressing forward with their agenda which would leave future generations starving and freezing to death in the dark, and fighting wars with one another for the crumbs that are left. I’m sure the Climate Naz!s will keep trying, though, so “Brexit” is only the beginning. The Climate Naz! politicians need to be given the boot worldwide.
This conflation or equivalency of the EU and climate change politics is quite funny, but not helpful or valid.
It’s kind of sad really. Again – I’m a libertarian, just this side of anarcho-capitalism and yet have made peace with the fact that my radical notion of freedom does not fit with many people. So I live with the politics we have – like the weather. I save my anger for issues over which I have personal control.
From my view, the EU has the laudable goal of increasing freedom of movement of capital, goods and people across arbitrary national boundaries. It has very messy politics with power hungry politicians, but so does every country, with or without the EU. England is some bastion of political freedom on its own? HA! And the British politicians who presided over this mess have abandoned the ship as the rats they are – all sides.
Climate change politics is another power grab by politicians, but is founded on a completely faulty premise – humans are changing the climate for the worse and only politics can help.
Both the EU and climate change involve politics, of which I am no fan, but they are not equivalent issues, I’m all for freedom – bogus science not so much.
It would appear that the Ministry of Silly Walks won’t survive Brexit!
“And now for something completely different! <-The media missed out on using that headline. 😉
Even though I might object to the message I find that cartoon hilarious – priceless 🙂 🙂 🙂
great post
enjoyed reading it
thank you
I’ll wait (a long time) for the headline that reads, “Brexit Triggers Rational Look at AGW Model Predictions and Other Fact Checking of Politicized Science Process and Related Funding Streams”
“It don´t happen here” is always wrong – politicized science happens everywhere.
I find it rather interesting how polarized this is. Skeptics everywhere in the world mostly supported Brexit. Warmongers the opposite.
I find it of interest because, from my own experience, we very seldom based our preference on climate issues.
Could it be that skeptics are skeptical of a one world government whereas warmongers have a sheepherder requirement mentality?
We seem to differ, drastically, not only on climate issues, but also on adherence to facts vs theory, political inclinations, human population and so forth.
The polarization is quite drastic, I think
Some of us understood early that the global warming campaign was a project of the Left and that it received a center stage role in undermining Western societies after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Would you take notice when all the people you know that have been Soviet cheerleaders and apologists of one kind or another suddenly start supporting a scientifically questionable project?
It wasn’t just the ‘left’ it was the Bilderberg gang. They meet very secretly and their meeting was this last week in Germany of all places. Topic of interest: Brexit and the ned to force places like the US and Britain to take in a couple million more angry males from the Middle East.
Left or right doesn’t matter.
Both sides are backed by the same bankers who want a One World Government where fascism and free trade policies offshore what’s left our formerly productive economies to slave wage countries, while at home, job and industry killing socialist/green policies finish off what’s left to a point where everything collapses. Then they get to create their new global financial system and world government
If you understood how banking really works you should be in a state of shock. Here is some rare truth to be found at The Bank of England.
“Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.”
That’s right, the new loan does not come from the bank’s deposits, it is created by simply typing the amount of the loan into the borrower’s account. The mortgage would then be the bank’s asset while the deposit is the bank’s liability to the financial system. So much for the fractional reserve system they taught me in my advanced finance classes.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
If you like video instead the Bank of England will explain it to you here in their gold bullion vault at the 1 minute mark of the 5 minute video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw
Having money does not make one a creature of the right.
If you examine the politics of the “Bilderberg gang” they are singing from the lefts songbook.
Yes, there is a new deposit in the new bank, since that’s where the money went.
However not one red cent of new money was created. That’s because the money supply is not determined by adding up all the accounts a bank has, but rather by adding up the cash on hand that each bank has.
That cash on hand goes down when a loan is made to someone.
So the increase in one account is matched by a decrease in another account.
As to the myth of slave wages being the all powerful factor in economics. It isn’t.
What matters is the total value of what is being produced. Slave labor is useful for low tech work only.
It is also notoriously inefficient. Plus you have to add in the cost of the guard force needed to keep your slave labor in place.
There’s a reason why nobody has ever gotten rich off of slave labor.
@ MarkW
“That cash on hand goes down when a loan is made to someone.”
Cash on hand has very little to do with bank deposits Mark. Go to your bank that has several million in deposits to be sure and ask them for $5,000. They will have kittens and tell you that you need to give them 3 days to get it.
This is why I told you that if you knew how money was created you would be shocked.
Read the exchange between Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman and some former City of London bankers on how money is created… Krugman has no clue but he knows enough not to discuss this important fact.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-20/banking-buffoonery-modeling-mysticism-and-why-paul-krugman-should-be-sweatin-bullets
Bank of England admits LOANS MAKE DEPOSITS!
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-20/bank-england-admits-loans-come-first-%E2%80%A6-and-deposits-follow
And check out what Lietaer was told by Krugman about getting Nobel prizes… “never talk about the money creation issue”. It only takes 45 seconds…
The BoE was setup to FUND a war machine. It did. It is the basis for most monetary systems we know in the west. It is the source of interest bearing debt, and only those “in” the system make any profit. The rest of us pay.
Carbon pricing is EXACTLY the same.
Sceptics appear to be more practical that the adherents of progressive policies. One of the more telling features of progressive policies is their almost total incompatibility with basic human nature. Theoretical discussions, over tea in the faculty lounge or Martinis at a beltway cocktail party are far removed from and rarely coincide with core human drives. Thus, they are always impractical.
Humans are a culturally obligate species, Francesco.
The emergence of Enlightenment rationalism was a cultural speciation event. The polarization you’re seeing is the clash of two coexistent cultural species competing for the cultural environment.
One will come to dominate, and the fate of a better future rests on the winner being the cultural species given to rationalism (the skeptics).
Are you saying Leftists are an inferior species?
HATE CRIME!!!
Well, they are impaired logically and can’t do even fairly simple math. They react emotionally to any issue accompanied by violin music and they always proceed in circles to the left as if blind to the “right” way to go. It could be a result of toxoplasmosis as most are cat lovers but my vote? Inferior species!
Nah! It’s just a “HATE CLAIM”.
I think warmongers, goto-haters, IP-packet-filters-ophiles, EU-lovers, are mostly just osmotic. They are in equilibrium with their bath of factoids, catch-phrases and PR stunts.
They just avoid real issues. They make always changing claims and when they are cornered can be quite agressive. People can be quite angry when you tell a packet filter at the IP level can do much subtle high level filtering, that goto is absolutely not evil and often useful, that the CAGW “science” is pseudo-science bologna with layers of obfuscation, lies, made-up data, stonewalling, legal obstruction, libel, and threats.
I have seen the gogo-rage (display of increasing anger when confronted to the idea that a goto statement could ever be useful, a very common mental disease), not on the Internet, but in the real world. It wasn’t pretty, and I had to stop seeing someone in my family. It goes without saying that he is “firewalls”phile, nuclearophobe, warmist, etc.
Also, he loves free software, although I had to explain to him (several times) what free software meant and when a licence is called “open source” or “free”. I am not sure he even understand what a software licence is (or what a contract licence is) and its relation to copyright law.
He has an ability to get plenty of technical information on the detail of something (usually getting lost in these) without knowing anything about the general architecture.
He had set-up a DNS server but didn’t knew the meaning of “.” in the DNS (and how this isn’t the same “.” used in IP adresses) and how orange.fr doesn’t need to be registrated in some database in the US, or that the US (in principle) doesn’t gets to say know owns orange.fr. He got that DNS runs on port 53, but not that’s a hierarchical system.
He was probably looking like a hacker on a computer (with linux, bash…) but I don’t remember a single case where he really knew was he doing when he wasn’t doing the extremely simple routine tasks. I kept explaining technical him stuff then gave up.
And no, he wasn’t young. And he was from the very reputable engineering school, one the best in France.
He may have been able to solve problems one day in some restricted area, but he had no remaining ability to think by himself.
Overall, I would see him as a fraud – by lack of abilities.
Skeptics are from one planet, and the Gullible are from a different planet.
I think we are dealing with more than one worldview here. One rational view, and a lot of irrational views.
The Skeptics/Right seem to be more rational and less emotional about reality, while the Gullible/Left are more emotional than rational about things.
It would seem that those who look at the world primarily through emotion are more subject to being brainwashed, and are easily led astray.
Skeptics are too skeptical to be led astray by propagandists.
Brexit is a very promising development. I do hope Hillary Clinton loses (much more than I hope Trump wins). A vote against is always much more constructive than a vote for something.
My sentiments also. I am still hopeful that the Republican convention will lead to a new nominee being put forth for consideration, and that the delegates will be allowed to vote their own choice vs their current position of support for the winner of the primary.
goldminor you are Jean Claude Juncker and I claim my 5 euro!
It will either be Trump or Hillary. No third Republican candidate will be successful. If the Republican elites try to subvert the votes of the people, they will destroy the Republican Party for the rest of our lifetimes, and very possibly the United States as we know it, if Hillary Clinton gets in Office.
Trying to replace Trump now is a recipe for disaster. A disaster of monumental proportions. No matter what you think of Trump, Hillary Clinton is worse, by far.
Sometimes things need to be turned upside down in order for a new idea to form. I understand your sentiment. I am afraid that Hillary will beat Trump, because of his backwards campaign efforts.
Tom Halla June 27, 2016 at 9:06 am says;
A vote against is always much more constructive than a vote for something.
I would say most Albertans would argue this contention,….
Aha! Anyone concerned about uncontrolled illegal immigration and the influx of Sharia believers hostile to the foundations of the Western civilization better shut up! You are providing ammunition to the people who benefit from such immigration and the resulting societal transformation!
The left has always wanted a one-world government, and the EU was a stepping stone towards that goal. Climate alarmism is failing, and now this vote for independance has put another nail in the coffin. Their dream of a socialist utopia is threatened and it frightens them.
The EU was not a stepping stone in that it is so undemocratic that no one will be willing to live under a globally expanded version of it. That doesn’t rule out federation at the international level any more than the federation of 50 US states or 11 Canadian provinces. It is a constant surprise to me that there are only two positions spoken of here on how society can be organised: independent nation states with no mutual obligations, or a single dictatorship. I think humanity is a bit more imaginative that that.
Nations were formed by unifying regions under independent control of lesser kings. Nothing prevents the same from happening now at a higher than national level. We already cooperate a lot. Not all cooperation is bunk. For example there are good reasons for the East African Union to be revived. It doesn’t mean they will create a dictator for three counties, it means there is common cause and common responsibility.
The African Union is an example of an international government and judiciary that recently convicted a tyrannical former leader of a member state, as he justly should have been, when no other authority on Earth was willing to do so, sure as heck no one at home. An African tyrant is not ‘their’ problem, it is our problem because we are human beings. Admitting we have mutual global interests for justice and prosperity does not mean we have to have a dictatorship. The fact that many of the ‘self-enlightened’ EU commissars think they know more therefore they should be the only ones to have a say (i.e. they propose they will be the dictators) is instructive. The EU as presently constructed is exactly that: a dictatorship of a cabal who always “know better”.
Some things of course they do know better, but that being the case doesn’t mean they get to rule on matters without convincing the mob of elected representatives. If they know so much more and are so smart, then they should use that knowledge and those smarts to convince those who are elected to rule. Why is the answer to a Right wing dictatorship always a dictatorship of the elite of the Left? I can’t see the difference. Monckton had it right: rulers should be elected, and often. I propose annually.
For democracy; against partocracy, against dictatorship
More imaginative? Sure, we can imagine all sorts of governments. Actually make them work for more then a century? Pffft. Nope. They will always devolve unto a bunch of squabbling groups or be crushed under a single iron fist.
Welcome to Humanity.
I already recycled it, and am too lazy to look up the actual wording, but WaPo had a Brexit headline that would infuriate any real American. It referenced the will of the people as being a “problem” for governments/societies. Apparently POTUS is not the only one who has never read the Constitution.
One of the red flags about AGW and other alarmism is that the proposed solution is the same no matter what the supposed problem: let our “betters” have full control and everything will be fine. Anyone living in the real world should realize that this is a load of crap, but I think we all know that a large chunk of the global population seems to be living in Fantasyland, non-Disney version.
Whoops. Meant to say “referred” not “referenced”.
I think climate will not cross the mind of anyone important for about five years. That’s not entirely good news.
I would disagree with your prediction. I think the change which is coming will have everyone’s attention.
I think climate–and its subset, weather–will cross people’s minds as it always has. The difference will be that climate CHANGE, as a human product due to our generation of CO2, will become less prominent in our thoughts and conversations; and the actual SCIENCE of climate may perhaps be discussed on its merits and in true terms, at least by those to whom the science is the most important. If Brexit takes climate change out of the immediate conversation, in favor of discussion of actual data and actual scientific inferences and deductions using that data, that would be a good thing, as I see it.
We very much need leaders around the world to voice their judgement that Climate politics has gone too far and threatens progress and peace. That it is exaggerated beyond what is practical or necessary and the apparatus of awful-ism needs to be pared back to something that people and political structures can handle. Enough of the tail wagging the dog. Politics is about power and the politicians have ceded that power to special interest and self interested groups. No politician worth his corrupted salt should stand for it. If Boris Johnson or Donald Trump steps up to say these things, we need to be ready to say clearly and broadly that we agree. Write your papers, call in on the radio, phone your elected representatives and talk to friends and neighbours. It’s important.
There is a very real risk to renewable energy projects and funding as a result of Brexit, especially the more uncompetitive varieties. That ecosystem of special interests is heavily intertwined with politicized climate overreach science and intolerant of fact checking.
Brexit may take a while. Cameron said that if he lost the vote, he would notify the EU the next day, but he resigned instead and left that to a successor who may not be in any hurry at all.
He resigned, but it won’t be effective for a few months.
Despite the mis-information provided by the Guardian, Cameron has NOT resigned as prime minister of the UK.
To do that he needs to met the Queen ( the head of state ) and offer his resignation.
What he has said w/e is that at some unspecified point in the future he will step down as leader of the Conservative Party. Once a new leader is elected THEN he will presumably tender his resignation to the Queen. The new incumbent, having a solid majority of MPs in the house, will then propose to the Queen that he can command a majority in the Commons and offer his services as prime minister.
She can be expect to except the offer.
Cameron is still PM in every legal and practical sense and has at no stage spoken of “his resignation”.
MarkW
June 27, 2016 at 9:39 am
He resigned, but it won’t be effective for a few months.
———————————-
Regardless of your opinion and that of Anthony, it may never be effective..
You guys have a weird understanding of democracy and democratic mechanisms especially when public and electorate is involved, to a point that you end up irrationally creating a division on the count of the way the public voted,,,,,,,,, get real is no one to blame because the way that some one voted or even if it did not vote at all,,,,,, that is democracy,,,,, and in essential it prevailed this time, it gave a huge slap to the government and to the whole political sphere to a point that the British political sphere actually is in turmoil, not knowing left from right.
Completely the opposite of what D. Cameron and his government intended.
The democracy and its mechanisms main purpose is to chose the best possible government and check balance the government’s power, is not meant to dictate or force national policy.
The referendum has already served its purpose, by denying extra power to the government and the political sphere, where from here is actually up to the next government…….. tough yes under the circumstances but that is how it is,
cheers
Greg: I hold no brief for the rag that is the Guardian, but when Cameron said he would resign – in front of the TV cameras; and when he went to the Palace to explain this to the Queen; and when the Conservative party put in place a timetable to elect his successor; and when DC has agreed that the new leader (PM) will be in place Sept/Oct time in time for the party conference – how is that not a resignation?
All he has managed to do is kick the Article 50 invocation down the road and delay the inevitable.
whiten, disputing whether the current British PM has resigned or not means we have no understanding of democracy?
Regardless, while the myth is that democracy is about better government, the reality that democracy is about getting as much as possible for the minority for the least amount of effort.
This is why socialism is so popular. They get to loot other people’s wealth and feel good about themselves at the same time.
MarkW
June 27, 2016 at 12:57 pm
——————-
Sorry Mark.
My fault. Not been clear with my comment to you.
I did not mean the PM resignation been effective or not. I meant the possibility of the Brexit not to be effective once the resignation of the current PM in effect.
Sorry a bit rushy of me.
Is like in the context that once a new PM and a new British government in power there still exist the probably of referendum’s result to be defaulted as not proper and not come to effect…….that is all what I was trying a say……….
really sorry for the misunderstanding.
cheers
The UK climate nutters were often leading from the front in recent years in the EU. Many countries, such as Germany, skilfully found a way to ignore agreed restrictions. It’s something the British, and our politicians, understood only up to a point: EU laws were generally seen as ‘guidance’ by many countries and peoples, not laws to actually be obeyed.
Of course, Germany and France have always known that they could get special dispensations, when required, such as breaching ‘unbreachable’ budgetary constraints prior to the formal introduction of the Euro. The EU was often described as a German horse ridden by a French jockey. Germany’s, and France’s, CO2 emissions will be set at levels that suit Germany and France, and the rest can go hang. And that is actually a good thing. Germany is building more coal-fired power stations.
UK voters may now have a better chance to require UK politicians to do the same. Many UK voters want UK politicians to be answerable to them, not some lawmaker in Brussels who is often ignored by much of the rest of Europe.
Buy coal futures. Now. Peabody nearly tanked with Chapter 11 in April 16, then bounced back slightly just recently. If Britain decides to “go Coal”, this could be a wise investment…prior to the current USA administration and it’s current war on coal, Peabody stock was trading around $750-800 per share – today it’s around $1.60. Just a tip…….
This is ignorant.
“U.S. auto industry takes a hit after Brexit”
Daily News
It is interesting to the see the parallels in the media between GW and Brexit. The same shotgun pattern of unashamed stupidity is being displayed with stories, headlines, and concocted connections.
Any doubt left that the media are part of the structural elite? How could they not be? They decide what is news and what is truth and who to believe. The internet age has just made it worse as there is now a flood of part truths where once it was relatively easy to find rational and thorough analysis. Now there are people who actually think that the Huffington Post is news. Most so-called science publications are even worse.
First, congrats to the Brits for opting for self-rule over iffy security promises from unelected elitists.
Secondly, I suspect UK politicians will be loathe to take any stance unless they are sure a solid majority of constituents support such a stance. That, as a certain ex-con is apt to say, is a good thing. Don’t look for any green projects to be forced on a disapproving community.
Finally, Obama’s ‘back of the queue’ line is hardly the first time he has treated others with the same contempt minorities were once shown. He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, “we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”
If he were a 1950s white Democrat, he would have been a good clansman.
Based on the polls and studies I have read, I think a plurality (if not a majority) of the American middle class identifies as Republican. Not that reality has ever mattered to our current Idiot-in-Chief.
I held this opinion during his campaign and continue to believe it: O is one of the most hateful people I have ever heard of who exists today.
I just heard a pollster say today that Democrats made up 30 percent of American voters and Republicans made up 27 percent of the voters.
That leaves about 40 percent who are not Democrats or Republicans.
I call it easy money.
So do you reckon we in the UK should start electing our second chamber( The House of Lords) ? or Judges? or senior civil servants? or our head of state? or many other powerful roles? Don’t talk about the EU being undemocratic, it was the nearest thing to a full democracy we had in the UK.
Just who thinks brexit is a good idea a few headlines:
In the Netherlands, the far right and anti-immigration leader Geert Wilders called for a referendum on Dutch membership of the EU. “I think it’s historic,” he told Dutch radio. “I think it could also have huge consequences for the Netherlands and the rest of Europe. Now it’s our turn.
Brexit vote met with celebrations from far-right groups across Europe
Right-wing German politician Beatrix von Storch says she ‘cried for joy’ at the news of the result
——————
Brexit: Wave of hate crime and racial abuse reported following EU referendum
The Independent – 3 hours ago
More than a hundred incidents of racial abuse and hate crime have been reported since the
———————-
Brexit has given voice to racism – and too many are complicit …
http://www.theguardian.com › Opinion › Race issues
5 hours ago – Since the EU referendum I have collated more than 100 racist incidents. Politicians and the media are fuelling this fire.
—————————————————————
Is this something we should be proud of?
Did you read the articles? If you click through the links the source of these allegations is a Facebook page that no longer exists. No actual facts, just a few anecdotal incidents.
Omar Mateen is an anecdote, Tommy Mair is not. /sarc
In Europe, socialists are often considered the conservative party.
Oh brother!
Any violent crimes?
Bombings?
Explosion?
Beheadings?
Mass shooting?
Sergei,
Brits should be proud that they chose to take back their sovereignty instead of listening to the cucked socialists who cravenly equate a Brexit vote with racism to shame voters into ignoring their real concerns about un-checked immigration and a host of other EU problems.
You should be ashamed of yourself for maligning good people without cause and trying to shame them for voting for their own democracy.
100 out of 17 million leave voters. Change always agitates the lunatics. It is unfortunate. One can only hope that with better immigration control, future tragedies of goofy Euro immigration such as Belgium and France can be avoided and contribute to a lessening of tensions
Assuming the “racist” incidents/comments/whatever a) actually happened, b) involved actual leave voters, and c) were actually racist. A lot of these claims turn out to be made up or done by leftists. Such acts are totally legit because they reflect the reality that really is occurring even though the only examples are hoaxes. Or something. /sarc off
In today’s climate, the “racist” incidents could be the aggressive act of shouting pro-British slogans. “Hail Britannia!” “We’ve taken back our rights!” “We’ve taken back Britain!” “Britain is in charge again!” None of these statements should offend someone who considers himself to be British. He is part of the “we”!
In fact, the first assumption these days should always be that these stories are hoaxes by SJWs. They’ve cried RACIST! so often that no-one should take them seriously any more.
No, you should not be proud of propaganda and lies put out by those who lost the vote.
Talk about cherry picking! The Grauniad and the Independent. Yeah right. The most left-wing rags in the UK.
Let me tell you something – I voted Brexit because I want my country to make its own laws and not have them imposed from without. I voted Brexit because the UK is full up of gimmegrants, if Germany were to have the same population density as the UK does, it would have to import 40 MILLION people. I voted Brexit because the UK can do much better than shackling itself to a dying construct of 500 million and seek new adventures with 6,500 million people.
Take your anti British stance and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine
So Britain can go back to be a coal-powered industrial nation like in the good old times?
Drill, baby, drill!
I’ll have to check with those who have more experience in this area, but I’m pretty sure that you don’t get coal by drilling.
Well, IIRC in coal strip mining at least usually you have to *drill* holes and put explosives inside in order to fragment the coal beds. =)
No boom today … boom tomorrow
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=today+no+boom&view=detail&mid=E05874689FDE521810D0E05874689FDE521810D0&FORM=VIRE
Drilling is used to determine the extent of the coal resource (the coal seam layers).
Is there still coal in England? I thought they were worrying about running out… two centuries ago.
So, they actually do haul coal TO Newcastle?
Who knew?
The Remain campaign in the UK was driven by the use of FEAR. Some folk are still trying it after the leave result. Items such as “old people shouldn’t be allowed to vote”, “people who voted leave are not bright”, “people who voted leave are racist” and on and on are being quoted either directly or implicitly. I despair. Phrases like “the referendum was a failure of democracy”. Quite disturbing. Fortunately, enough of us were robust enough to vote leave though some people were scared (they told me). In addition, sadly there are also reports of an increase in racist incidents since the leave result which should be and are being thoroughly condemned.
I read this morning that the EU has proposed eliminating English as an “official” language.
OK, what does that mean, that they will no longer print “official” documents in English? If so, so what?
It means they can go back to arguing over what language to use when actually they all speak a common one they refuse to use, lol!
That proposal is what adults refer to as a temper tantrum. Break out the pacifiers and the world’s smallest violins to play a sad song just for the EU.
Yes. Adults have entered the room, and the Lefty children are throwing their toys out of the pram.
It won’t work anyway as the Republic of Ireland and Malta both use English as their official language.
Personally I find it highly amusing, they’re still gonna have to use our language even after we’ve bu**ered off 🙂
This campaign helped me to comfirm that as bad as politicians are, journalists are even worse.
“sadly there are also reports of an increase in racist incidents since the leave result ”
The reports are false.
Remember who you are dealing with here: Lying, immoral Socialists/Totalitarians who will say anything to accomplish their goal of running your life.
On the subject of Brexit – for those who have not yet heard this – Chancellor Merkel of Germany has today stated to the board of her political party that all other member states of the EU “must be prevented” from following Britain and holding referenda; they will not be allowed to leave the EU.
Other nations who, in recent years, voted to leave or not to accept a massive treaty change have been forced to vote again, and then again until they come up with the ‘Right’ answer – ‘Right’ being the one that the EU insist upon. That is the nature of the EU’s approach to ‘democracy’.
As many are now saying, the EU is like the “Hotel California” – you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.
For those of you in the States who don’t understand the nature of the beast that is the EU – that statement from Merkel speaks volumes as to how democracy is suppressed and removed or ignored when it is incovenient under edicts from Berlin or Brussells.
Sound familiar ?? it is to those of us in the UK who grew up in the aftermath of 1939-45 and whose relatives paid for freedom, often with their blood if not their lives, as did many of your countrymen.
Freedom to determine your own destiny as a free people through democracy has no price; but in the EU it has no place because it was constructed specifically to avoid democratic accountability to the people.
Obama was received very badly by Brits when he had the nerve to butt in and try and tell us to forego democracy and to remain ruled by the unelected and unaccountable in the EU.
Commentators on online news articles such as this one about Merkel’s pronouncement today are revealing as to how the majority of Brits feel at the moment : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662027/EU-stop-following-Britain-door-Merkel-warns-amid-market-fears-bloc-no-longer-governable-Brexit.html
A number of commentators on this article who are from the States see our vote as the first fight-back against the global elites who are trying to remove democracy through an unelected global government. I have long seen the EU as the global dry-run to see how much democracy you can remove before people realise it has gone but then find it is too late.
The more the EU tries to bully us – as they are every day at the moment – the more they reveal the true nature of the EU. They are treating us like a subject nation that wants independence – and I suspect it is how the EU actually sees us and our annual payment of 15% of the total EU budget..
But the more that the likes of Merkel, Juncker, Hollande and Tusk threaten us, the greater is our resolve to untangle ourselves from EU rule as soon as possible and take our Freedom, Democracy and Sovereignty back. They have short memories and forget that although we are very easy going, kind and welcoming we won’t put up with being threatened by bullies – something that past rulers of both Germany and France discovered to their cost.
I think it does bode well for a push back against extreme greens and their policies, against dishonest science, against “post modern” everything, against political elites who treat the people as ignorant serfs and against the left-wing ‘progressive’ ideology that is shorthand for control, control and even more control.
Wish us luck and I hope you wish us well.
I wish you more than luck, I wish you freedom.
Old England
June 27, 2016 at 11:21 am
On the subject of Brexit – for those who have not yet heard this – Chancellor Merkel of Germany has today stated to the board of her political party that all other member states of the EU “must be prevented” from following Britain and holding referenda; they will not be allowed to leave the EU.
***********************************************************************************************************
There are lots of European politicians lining up to prevent similar referendums being held in other countries.
However, what they all seem to forget or haven’t realised was why David Cameron gave us the chance of a referendum – it was to head off the enormous movement towards UKIP following a 33% vote in the European elections. The answer to no referendum will simply be for the people in those countries not allowed a referendum to vote in whichever party (even if a tad extreme) will carry out leaving the EU as the main (or only) part of their election manifesto (as would have been the case with UKIP.
Cameron opted for a referendum thinking he could use overwhelming propaganda from the state and media to win it – wrong.
SteveT
Thank God, the British people are free at last….
Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number –
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you –
Ye are many – they are few.’
The markets are worried about a competent Labour radical emerging in place of the nostalgic anti-Western variety there now.
“competent Labour radical”
Ain’t no such animal mate.
It is all about sovereignty. Ask any queen.
It would seem that climate change has become completely politicized on both sides. Pity. And quite irrational on both sides.
As a firm advocate of the view that human activity has little effect on climate, and that a warmer climate and more CO2 in the atmosphere is good for most forms of life, I am largely preaching to the converted here.
But I am equally persuaded that a majority of people in the UK listened to fear mongering politicians in voting to leave the EU. As a libertarian, just this side of anarcho-capitalism, I am no lover of big government. And I believe the dimbulbs in Brussels are legion and are addicted to their petty power.
But the UK has voted to close their borders and retreat to their island. The Brexit voters, as much as the “sky is falling” warmists are standing in the way of human evolution – more technology, more energy production, and more political freedom, with greater movement of capital and people.
Evolution of humanity will carry on regardless, but the political posturing here is as misguided and foolish as the people who claim we are doomed by burning fossil fuels. I have no love of the EU’s politics – it is very messy and can be bullying. But the UK has traded one mess for a bigger one to follow.
I guess I remain an outlier. I understand the frustration of voters who wanted to send those in power a message and a giant middle finger – I agree. But this is a counter-productive way of communicating that – just as electing Donald Trump would be. But leaving the EU will change the UK much more than the Donald could ever dream – and not in a good way.
Can you point to any evidence to support your belief that the British have voted to close their “borders and retreat to their island”?
In your “opinion” human evolution can’t happen without a one world government?
The talk about closing borders is pathetic. Having border checks and immigration politics is not closing borders. Throwing in the North Korea card is way too common.
I thought I made it clear that I am a supporter of very minimal government. I am no fan of the EU in any way shape or form, except that it does encourage the movement of capital and people.
Politics is incredibly messy and I support very little of it. I hold my nose and live my life without agonizing over the petty squabbling of those who want to run my life – those on the left and the right. The two sides just differ on what they want to manage and control.
If you don’t agree that the Brexit supporters want to return to a more insular life in attempt to turn back the clock, I’m not going to argue. Time will tell how this turns out. I truly wish the people of the UK well. My own sister lives there. And most of my blood flowed through there not so many generations ago.
It’s a different world out there. And if this decision to leave is upheld and made manifest, perhaps governments will look into the mirror and more importantly see that we’re not the sheep they thought we might be. That could only be a good outcome.
I know most of us here support political freedom, and just differ in the best path. But I would like to see a more vigorous political discussion than simply dumping on the EU – admittedly very easy to do. Almost all politicians of every stripe are committed to more power for them and their cronies – local, national, and those who aspire to world government. We should be as rigorous in our examination of politics as we are of climate. This wonderful website should be the scene of open debate – not an echo chamber of minds made up.
All you have done is confirm that your opinion regarding those who disagree with you remains as insular as ever.
And you “say” you are libertarian? Seriously? Free people want freedom. do you recall a flag that said “Don’t Tread on Me”? That is what a “libertarian” would be proclaiming, not bowing down and doing what the master says. You sound about as “libertarian” as Killary Clinton.
“But the UK has voted to close their borders and retreat to their island.”
No, sir, they voted to leave the EU. Now they can interact with the rest of the world.
“But the UK has voted to close their borders and retreat to their island.”
No, they haven’t. They have voted to control their borders themselves, and there is no indication that Britain is retreating from anything.
That is true, however our isolation will be decided by others. We have voluntarily given up being able to determine our own future. By the way, are you happy to see California leave the Union? Apparently it would do much better on it’s own and be free to trade with anyone.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, the Democrat party has just put the prosecution of climate skeptics into it’s party platform.
Well, that’s one way of getting you on the no fly list and by virtue of that, the no buy list as well. Call it creeping gun control. I must admit, I am most amused at how much “democrats” support democracy and how much “republicans” support republicanism. Neither party has a clue as to what their names imply.
Considering how few citizens know the US is a republic, I suppose we should not be surprised. What is kind of funny about calls for gun control is how often people say that no one needs heavy weaponry, etc. for self defense. This completely misses one of the biggest reasons for the Second Amendment: defense AGAINST the government. That is a whole other topic, but it does illustrate how far removed people can get from the actual intent and meaning of laws, government, and treaties. It is not a treaty because it is non-binding – on their end. No need for ratification. This agency can write “recommendations” that have the force of legislation, even though that is the purview of Congress. Nothing in your life will change because of this political agreement – except you can no longer have nice things.
From what I have read, the EU rules and regulations are more harmful than good, but even if the EU was the sparkliest, shiniest, glitteriest rainbow-pooping unicorn in the universe, no country should be forced to remain if its people wish to leave.
In a free society it should be that the Government fears the People, Not vice-versa.
Yeah, I saw that.
I guess the Democrat Party is now officially against the First Amendment. No more hiding in the closet for them.
Brexit only effective in combination with UNexit.
In the mean time:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/27/are-we-headed-for-a-new-solar-minimum/
I am not sure a UN exit would be wise for Britain. It is difficult to tell where this “wannabe” world government intends to take itself, so the permanent seat on the Security Council might well be something worth keeping. Realize that “climate crisis” can only be handled by a world government since “sovereign nations” will not go beyond what hurts them. That is why the EU was bad for Britain, but a “UN world government” without a say in it might be hell on Earth. After all, it might come to the point where the “world government” decides to take all necessary action to force non members to toe the line. Since Britain IS an island nation, think trade blockade, with nothing coming in or going out. Those that would rule the world would care less if 50% of the population starved to death. Leaving the EU might require finding other, better trading parties, though you can’t replace French wine with just any old wine. Still, California wines might be okay. The point is, the EU is a relatively small trading block compared to the rest of the world, yet, if the UN took over as a world government after Britain left it, well, it is not impossible to see them having the authority to do a total blockade until Britain crawled back to it on its knees, accepting a position in the general assembly as their only voice, with no more say than, say, The Maldives..
If things got to that point, what makes you think the UN wouldn’t revoke the permanent members ability to veto legislation.
There’s already been talk of that.
And that is all it is … Talk. The US has one of the veto votes. The UN Charter would have to be rewritten, which might just be a good idea.
I suggest to split United Nations. Keep what is clearly in line with its charter – Article 1.1
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”
Everything else should be left to survive on it´s own – just like all other political, idealistic or activist non-governmental organizations. I guess we are better of by cooperation between groups of countries than by the monstrous United Nations.
«The primary, the fundamental, the essential purpose of the United Nations is to keep peace. Everything it does which helps prevent World War III is good. Everything which does not further that goal, either directly or indirectly, is at best superfluous.»
— Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961
So called ‘climate crisis’ is is the product of snake oil medicine.
I would like to say that the US would help out “Candy Bomber” style, but our current (and immediate future) administration is insane enough to order the blockade itself.
Looking at some of the countries who have been given seats on the various councils, I feel secure in positing that the UN either does not understand wrongdoing or does not care about wrongdoing. Considering the amount of known corruption, it is likely both are true, but the latter is the more common problem.
Remember that global warming was a scam dreamed up by the hard line communists using the environmental movement as “useful idiots” in attempting to hobble western capitalism after the collapse of the Eastern Block and the USSR.
Some people are comparing Brexit to the Berlin Wall coming down, and expect that the EU will also collapse over the next couple of years in a similar fashion.
If it happens, I’m sure that they will come up with another scam.
Hopefully it will not be another war.
You are assuming that Boris Johnson is a 100% Brexiteer. He didn’t expect to win and now he has he doesn’t have a clue what to do next because the Leave campaign doesn’t have a plan. He will appoint George Osborne, a rabid Remainiac, to the post of Foreign Secretary if he’s voted in as Prime Minister. To explain; he is putting a Remainiac in charge of the exit negotiations. That is the equivalent of appointing a rat to guard the grain store. It’s something you just don’t do. Only another rat would think it a sensible move. You can draw your own conclusions.
As a Brexiteer I fear that democracy will be overturned or severely watered down by a political stitch-up and it’s happening right before our very eyes.
I fear you may be spot on. Think of the final scene in “The Graduate”. The jubilant eloping young couple’s faces turn from exultation to realization to despair inside a minute. “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Starting right now.
For a while it looked promising
It now seems that a lot of people are pushing for another referendum with the results of a renegotiation. Eastern block Visegrad group are pushing for it too. http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-superstate-plan%E2%80%99-by-France-Germany-report
There will be a new government shortly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/nine-tory-mps-including-boris-johnson-start-36-hour-scramble-to/
In a bid to form an “unbeatable unity leadership team”, Mr Johnson’s allies are actively courting Cabinet ministers including Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary, to support him.
The approach is surprising because Ms Rudd read out scripted insults about Mr Johnson during one of the televised debates in the campaign, notably asking viewers if they would be happy if Mr Johnson drove them home.
Ms Rudd, a moderniser who ruled herself out of the race after being tipped by Mr Cameron’s aides as a possible successor during the referendum campaign, would help Mr Johnson reach out to Remain supporters in the Tory party.
Boris might be sceptical but Amber Rudd is a raving CO2 loon!
An emphasis on “might”. Boris is a weasel that twists and turns in the political wind. He runs hot and cold when it comes to climate alarmism. His premiership would be the worst thing to happen to the UK. He is Establishment through and through. People need to wake up to the danger because his ambition to move into Number 10 outweighs everything, including the results of the Referendum. He’s already making moves to slow Brexit down. We need a Brexit government to handle EU exit negotiations but it looks like we’re going to get a wrecks it government.
Don’t forget that the majority of Tory MPs who will be voting for whoever is next appointed PM are Remainiacs. The people of the UK are being stitched up like kippers.
Here in Scotland the SNP (nationalists) are spitting blood … because … because the rest of the United Kingdom had the audacity to vote to leave a union they did not like. And it gets funnier, because they’ve been telling any press that would listen (Guardian, BBC, Independent – the three numpties of the Green brigade) that they can block brexit – but it now turns out the SNP can’t block brexit – meaning the only way they could stay in EU is to fast track independence then rejoining EU before UK leaves, but it now turns out that the UK can block the fast track membership of Scotland.
And it gets better – because the whole basis of Scottish separation is based on oil – but the SNP are against oil (for any other purposes than funding their separatist dreams as slaves inside the EU). But with fracking the oil price has come down, and that means we are now left with an energy policy based on selling wind to England – on the assumption that England would be forced to buy it under EU energy policy. But with the UK out of the EU – we’ll have no one to sell all that wind to, and with all our coal shut down and oil at record low prices we in Scotland are an economic basket case (without the rest of the UK).
you can understand why the SNP are spitting blood … they’ve been royally hoisted by their own green=gullible petard.
Just ran across this little item:
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/1534
DB
You really love reading fiction don’t you.
Simon,
As usual you’re clueless. This story is the headline article on DRUDGE right now.
The Daily Express & Daily Mail are treating the story as real, and saying the report was written by the foreign ministers of France and Germany.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-27/eu-officials-unveil-ultimatum-blueprint-final-solution-european-super-state
That is what “closer union” looks like. The anti-democratic EU will quickly try to consolidate its position because people in other EU countries have seen what is happening in Britain and want some of that action themselves. The EU will try and quell the anti-EU sentiment that is spreading like wildfire. They must not succeed.
If so it’s a political suicide pact.
“You hate EU so you will get more EU” doesn’t win hearts.
Has Britain avoided a ‘European superstate’? France and Germany ‘draw up plans to morph EU countries into one with control over members’ armies and economies’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662827/Has-Britain-avoided-European-superstate-France-Germany-draw-plans-morph-EU-countries-one-control-members-armies-economies.html
Plans for ‘a closer European Union’ have been branded an attempt to create a ‘European superstate’.
Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault today presented a proposal for closer EU integration based on three key areas – internal and external security, the migrant crisis, and economic cooperation.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/27/20/35BA34B800000578-0-image-m-15_1467057013534.jpg
Poland’s public TVP described the Franco-German proposal as an “ultimatum” designed to create a European “superstate dominated by large nations.”
Ayrault described the Franco-German proposal as a “contribution”, adding that there would be “others”.
According to the Daily Express, the nine-page report has ‘outraged’ its foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski.
He said: ‘This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.
But the plans have been described as an ‘ultimatum’ in Poland, with claims it would mean countries transfer their armies, economic systems and border controls to the EU.
European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations ‘to be morphed into one’ post-Brexit
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit
EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged today.
The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.
Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.
Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.
The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland – a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism – after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/139/590x/secondary/bank-576848.jpg
“Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.”
If Merkel continues to push new insanities at this rate, the rest of the countries will have left the EU before Britain gets around to asking to do so.
“If Merkel continues to push new insanities at this rate, the rest of the countries will have left the EU before Britain gets around to asking to do so.”
Maybe Britain and Poland could start to form the nucleus of their own bloc, with Sweden, Denmark, and Holland as potential joiners–and the rest of Scandinavia next. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage and Chris Monckton should start calling for this. It would at least be a warning to the EU not to play hardball.
Nigel Farage may be the best person for founding another Europe “union”. Not sure how to call it though.
Almost all the (usually extremely corrupt on all grounds, moral, transparency, epistemology, everything) political “elites” would be against it but asking the people would show a different answer.
Of course, small districts receiving a fire hose of money would still answer remain, but there would nobody on the other side of the money pipe.
Brexit is a rare event indeed! How often are climate change Fascists and world government establishment socialists handed their asses by one election , un-election in this case. Stay the course for freedom an self determination my British friends!
I’m a little confused – @ 5) “NSG” is discussed. I must have missed something because I don’t know precisely NSG stands for in this context. Sorry
Is that real verboten
what ever you want
than it’s better
https://www.google.at/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&q=summertime+blue&gfe_rd=cr&ei=o_BxV8CeO7Pb8AfCvobYBA
That’s Standesstolz:
https://youtu.be/sGOUuWBFca8
The Who – always welcome.
But the most relevant song for this is: Won’t Get Fooled Again
When it comes to politicians – every single one – “Meet the new boss – same as the old one.” And the UK was fooled again, by the new boss – same as the old boss.
Climate was a huge issue where I was campaigning – because after a cold spring, we then had a heat wave making it impossible to delivery leaflets (I got sunburn).
germanarei. still undead. fu’bar -Hans
[ know my gods are laughing while reading this. Hans ]
tobacco Rico act. Ever known
https://www.google.at/search?q=philipp+reemtsma&oq=phillip+reem&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.26775j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Great, Josete
https://youtu.be/QONARwauvnY
ChristDemagogicUnion against the World. Popcorn.
While fully understanding the desperation caused by the endless AGW debate and despite of considering myself skeptic, I disagree with this post:
AGW is not in the centre of Earth. It is not in the centre of the EU and it certainly is not in the centre of Britain removing itself from the European Union. Making it sound as if is sad.
AGW and Brexit are related as much as Nigel Farage’s understanding of democracy is with reality. The minimum is to wait the person 0.01% of Brits select as the new head of state Britain, to rule aside their (AGW) monarch by birth, makes his/her first public address on AGW.
“AGW is not in the centre of Earth”
Are you f… kidding me?
There is no issue more central than energy.
“Other leaders of the “leave” campaign such as Conservative MP Michael Gove — another possible candidate for PM”
It was pointed out to Gove that nearly all economists predicted a smaller economy after Brexit. Gove said that the people have had enough of experts. This is exactly the sort of response you would expect from a climate sceptic. I find it profoundly depressing that the British people would fall for this line that you can ignore experts in favor of the ignorant and uninformed.
I also find it depressing that you title your post a “Rosa Parks” moment. The Brexit campaign was fueled by racism and xenophobia. Although not the only issue it was instrumental in the leave victory. To group this with Rosa Parks is offensive to me. You say “Concern about control of the country’s borders was certainly a factor, but the more fundamental issue was regaining control of the country’s laws and regulations” What was most fundamental is totally beside the point. What matters is why people voted – and it was not on the bassis of being fundamental. You are right that constitutional issues are more fundamental, which is why it was xenophobic that most people put immigration as more important.
You remnant ponce!
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/brexit-divide-wasnt-young-old-ponces-non-ponces/
I would say there was more than racism and xenophobia. It’s really a deep down, visceral fear in many people, that the world is spinning out of control led by big institutions. And let’s face it, there is some truth to that. The experts and the UK government ignored and dismissed those very real fears.
The big institutions are unresponsive to peoples’ concerns and work on their own agenda. The sad thing is that there is going to be a world of hurt in the UK if this goes through and it’s not going to make anyone less fearful – only more. If it wakes up some of these big institutions, good could come of it, but that’s not a certainty.
The world is moving to greater globalization and integration, with greater movement of people and capital. And that is fully consistent with greater energy production and consumption, regardless of the chicken littles who tell us the climate sky is falling.
There is Zen saying about the man who throws a rock at the dog and the dog chases the rock. Throw a rock at a lion and the lion chases the man. The voters in the UK were obsessed with government in Brussels. Now they’ll just have to deal with their national government, which is not better. But they’ve lost preferred access to an enormous market for their goods and services.
They missed the bigger picture. Scotland leaves, the financial services center in London is cratered, the economy contracts, and the British will still be under the yoke of government. Fight the future all you want, but grief will come, and the future arrives regardless. I say this with sadness, and as someone who dislikes government regulation and control as much as anyone here.
“Gove said that the people have had enough of experts.”
He is right. The anti-brexit sources cited are IMF and the likes, the same buffoons who find that oil is subsidized. AFAIK, nobody on the remain camp called out the other remainers on the use of the reports from IMF and the likes. Using such a buffoon as an authority on anything makes you a buffoon. Letting people behave as buffoons without saying anything makes you a buffoon too.
The throw anything at the wall and see what sticks method has failed.
Seaice says:
The Brexit campaign was fueled by racism and xenophobia.
Oh, please. Are you still fixated on the “racist” name-calling? That’s such a mindless pseudo-argument that it has no effect any more. And who cares what you deem “offensive”? Your countrymen don’t agree with you.
Rampant lawbreaking is much more ‘offensive’, but you don’t seem to mind the fact that your country’s immigration laws are being disregarded, using the tired excuse of political correctness. And as usual you emit silliness like this:
What was most fundamental is totally beside the point.
Nonsense. And people didn’t vote for Brexit out of ‘xenophobia’. For example, I like puppies. But if someone was illegally dumping dozens of puppies in my house every day, and their puppy dump was accelerating, I would eventually run out of patience. Who wouldn’t?
The puppy analogy is no different from the endless influx of unskilled foreign invaders demanding that their illegal immigration must be accommodated. But you think those lawbreakers should be taken in without limit and be put on the dole.
Brexit shows you’re wrong. If things are not to their liking in their own country, they should stay there and fix what’s wrong, instead of demanding that UK taxpayers must support them.
And:
What matters is why people voted
Wrong again. What matters is how they voted. As they say in the U.S. military: “Suck it up!” You lost. Time to MovOn.
************************
And from Scottish Sceptic’s very amusing comment @3:08 am:
“…the three numpties of the Green brigade,” LOL!
That whole comment was a good analysis of the ‘morning after’ situation in Scotland.
dbstealey. You are not here. You did not see the campaigns. You do not talk to the people that voted. You have no idea. Situation normal.
john Campbell has a good point: I would say there was more than racism and xenophobia. It’s really a deep down, visceral fear in many people, that the world is spinning out of control led by big institutions.
That fear fuels xenophobia. Since the global situation will remain the same regardless of an in or out vote it is difficult to address. In fact control has been handed to the right wing of the conservative party who represent the big business more than the common man. The only economic analysis that suggests a growing economy is based on unilateral free trade. That is Britain abandons tarrifs and barriers regardless of whether other countries impose them on us. Not only is this never going to happen, it is the opposite of what the fearful people above voted for.
seaice1 – There really is a massive cultural divide between those in support of the EU and those against it. This divide presents an enormous challenge to us all. Unfortunately the internet is filed with many political echo chambers that amplify this divide.
The understandable fear and justified frustration with the EU has fueled xenophobia, as you say. There are so many failures on both sides, that it is impossible to count them all. Both sides simply cannot understand the other or even conceive of their ideas and concerns. The world is in for a bumpy ride because this cultural divide is only going to show up more often.
And I agree with your assessment of the Rosa Parks metaphor. To suggest that this decision to leave the EU was some profound moral crusade is absurd and insulting. Neither side has any monopoly on morality in this.
“That is Britain abandons tarrifs and barriers regardless of whether other countries impose them on us. Not only is this never going to happen, it is the opposite of what the fearful people above voted for.”
Prove it
Seaice whines:
You are not here. You did not see the campaigns. You do not talk to the people that voted. You have no idea. Situation normal.
Here is someone who was there, right in the middle of everything. I agree with him — and a majority of your country does, too. So once again you’re the odd man out, and on the losing side.
Next, John Campbell says:
To suggest that this decision to leave the EU was some profound moral crusade is absurd and insulting.
That’s exactly what it was, John. It is immoral for any democratic nation to submit to an unelected government (and don’t kid yourself, that’s exactly what the EU is), which imposes its will on subsidiary nations like the UK.
Brexit was clearly a moral crusade. Lord Monckton wrote in Thank You, America:
…the so-called “European Parliament” is no Parliament. It is a mere duma. It lacks even the power to bring forward a bill, and the 28 faceless, unelected, omnipotent Kommissars – the official German name for the shadowy Commissioners who exercise the supreme lawmaking power that was once vested in our elected Parliament – have the power, under the Treaty of Maastricht, to meet behind closed doors to override in secret any decision of that “Parliament” at will, and even to issue “Commission Regulations” that bypass it altogether.
Worse, the treaty that established the European Stability Pact gives its governing body of absolute bankers the power, at will and without consultation, to demand any sum of money, however large, from any member state, and every member of that governing body, personally as well as collectively, is held entirely immune not only from any civil suit but also from any criminal prosecution.
That is dictatorship in the formal sense. Good riddance to it.
Mr. Campbell, if allowing its subjects to exit from a dictatorship is not a moral crusade, then where would you draw the line?
To suggest that the EU is akin to racial segregation is just silly. The EU has pluses and minuses. The EU’s governmental structure and basis has very shaky moral foundation – as does every single governmental structure on the planet. I am no lover of most activities of government, but I have stopped worrying about it and have accepted that governments do provide some useful structure and services in my life. I consider it like the weather – a mixed bag beyond my control – apart from moving. And on balance I love the country where I was born and live.
And I certainly do not question the right of the people of the UK to vote to leave the EU. But Scotland will very likely leave the UK. Do you question their right as well? Messier still.
what pluses are those I cant think of any at all
Oh and by the way why is it Scotland are hell bent on denying us our independence when they couldnt vote to secure it for themselves – seems a little odd when they will need independance from the EU first before they can join the EU as a separate entity anyhow – surely this will speed the process for them and they could be indepenant far quicker.
Its very odd dont you think, looks to me like they want everything their own way with everyone else paying for it. (it couldnt just be pure spite that anything England votes for Scotland does the opposite could it – surely not)
mwh. Access to an essentially free market in goods and services is one plus. I am surprised you are unaware of this. Or maybe I am not surprised. I sent a sample to Brazil recently. It was held up for weeks in customs. Sending a sample to an EU country is like sending one domestically. This is a plus.
Leaving the EU is bad, ya know, cause racism and phobia and stuff.
Nationalism is bad, ya know, for the same reasons.
Scotland leaving UK is good, ya know, cause …
Scottish nationalism is good, ya know, cause …
Are you crazy? Are you f… crazy?
Simple touriste. I understand you are simple, but your post makes little sense. It may be wise to remain silent rather than confirm your simplicity.
Leaving the EU is bad, ya know, cause racism and phobia and stuff.
Nationalism is bad, ya know, for the same reasons.
Scotland leaving UK is good, ya know, cause …
Scottish nationalism is good, ya know, cause …
Are you crazy? Are you f… crazy?
I m not sure who’s sanity you are speculating about, but I recommend a look in the mirror. Leaving the EU because of racism is bad because racism is a bad reason to do anything. Do you agree?
There are valid reasons to leave and there are valid reasons to remain. Racism is not a valid reason for either.
The online dictionary provides two definitions of nationalism:
a, patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
b. an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries
a. can be argued to be good, b. is almost certainly bad. I think you want to conflate the two definitions to make your point.
Scotland leaving the UK may be good or bad for different people.
Scottish nationalism my be good if it is type a. bad if it is type b.
Your speculations bout sanity seem to be based on very shaky understanding of the arguments.
“Leaving the EU because of racism” was just a silly accusation made by desperate brexiters haters, do you agree?
“Racism is not a valid reason for either.”
Accusations over the murder of Jo Cox are not a valid reason for either.
By pushing it too much, the remain camp lost all credibility. Or maybe someone in the remain protested over Jo Cox murder claims, but I haven’t seen it. (When it was time, that is. Now it’s too late for regrets over the exploitation of a crime.)
“an extreme form of patriotism marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries”
So you are saying we can’t say our country is superior to some other country?
John Campbell writes:
To suggest that the EU is akin to racial segregation is just silly.
Who said that??
Next, you asked about Scotland. My response is that it’s up to Scotland to determine what they want to do.
However, Scotland wasn’t the point at all. What concerns me is the way the EU acts, which is explained in the passage of Lord Monckton’s in my comment above. Any government that acts like that deserves to be deserted. The UK didn’t vote to withdraw because they were being treated especially well, you know.
If the UK’s political leaders actually supported their subjects, they would make Brexit work. It would be easy. With one less layer of government and a ‘can-do’ attitude, that would be no problem at all.
But it’s clear that the UK’s ‘powers that be’ are going to blame every possible problem that crops up on the Brexit vote. Clearly, they want Brexit to fail. Do you approve of that attitude?
It seems that your government thinks Brexit was a total disaster; that it cannot possibly work, or be any good for the country (meaning: good for the government). It’s only been two days, and they’ve already decided what the long term result will be. Now they just need to find some handy factoids to support their confirmation bias. Readers here know how that works.
Seen from a distance, one less layer of bureaucracy and much less meddling in your economy are solid benefits. If your government looked at Brexit as an opportunity instead of a disaster, you would come out much better than if you had remained under the EU’s thumb. Attitude means a lot. As the great Henry Ford said:
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t — you’re right.”
The nay-sayers sound just like everyone who blames a local cold snap on ‘global warming’. They’re starting to do the same thing here: blaming everything bad on a vote of the people, just because it didn’t go the way the government wanted.
That political narrative — blaming voters for everything bad that might conceivably happen — is as silly as the whole ‘global warming’ scare. But as we’ve seen, with enough money and a compliant media, the government can convince folks who should know better that the cow jumped over the moon.
John Campbell writes:
To suggest that the EU is akin to racial segregation is just silly.
Who said that??
dbstealey, what do you understand by the term “Rosa Parks moment?
dbstealey. I am not surprised that you agree with the uninformed rant you post. Some factual errors in the first few minutes. The petition for the re-run of the referendum was started by a leave supporter when he thought they might lose. Anyway, given your respect for petitions I would have thought you would have found the fact that millions have signed a compelling case. He talks of the deceitful media losing its power. Rupert Murdoch’s paper The Sun among others supported leave. A crushing victory of the people over the establishment that will probably see one Eton educated man replacing another Eton educated man as PM. Some victory over the establishment.
Paul Watson complains that economists warning of shrinking economy after Brexit is fear mongering, then says the EU is all about obliterating the Nation State. The leave leaders have already back-tracked on their campaign promises. Their battle bus said £350M sent to EU every week. Lets spend it on NHS instead. All lies. No, the lies and fear mongering were more on the leave side.
So, about your level. Short on facts but very high on vitriol.
The fact that you cannot distinguish this from the civil rights movement in the USA says it all really, but you won’t be able to understand why. You equate the institutionalised racism in the USA that Rosa Parks personified with the membership of the EU. I feel a little sad for you.
“The petition for the re-run of the referendum was started by a leave supporter when he thought they might lose.”
The medias have (so far) interviewed too different guys, each of them was the only creator of this petition.
We also have at least too very different stories of how Jo Cox was killed, each of these is fact.
/sarc
“The leave leaders have already back-tracked on their campaign promises”
Should be all over on the news. And yet you don’t have any actual quote.
No, a paraphrase won’t do.
seaice says:
I am not surprised that you agree with the uninformed rant you post.
I assume the “rant” that disturbs you is Lord Monckton’s excellent analysis, since it’s the only comment in my post. But your typically vague comments are often hard to decipher.
As for your petition, I recently read that your government had stated that whichever way the Brexit vote went, that would be the end of it; there would be no ‘do-over’. Therefore, whatever anyone signed after the vote cannot be “compelling”. The proper term is “meaningless”.
Of course, that’s when the government thought they had the vote in the bag. Now they’re trying to figure out how to spin their way out of losing the vote. Can they claim that they had their fingers crossed behind their backs? This will be so much fun to watch…
I must say your entire comment is amusing, and very satisfying. I love it that you can’t admit the people have voted, and democracy rules. Instead, we’re treated to a litany of weak excuses — and those lame excuses are certainly feeding my schadenfreude.
So please, keep it up. Your impotent consternation ices the Brexit cake. ☺
dbstealey. You posted a link to youtube. It was this rant I refered to. I even mentioned the name of the person in my description. Sorry if this was too difficult for you to follow.
I assume the “rant” that disturbs you is Lord Monckton’s excellent analysis, since it’s the only comment in my post.
Perhaps you forgot you posted that youtube link.
My comment on the petition was to point out that the ranter in the youtube video was wrong. I was not endorsing the petition.
“Of course, that’s when the government thought they had the vote in the bag. Now they’re trying to figure out how to spin their way out of losing the vote.”
Since you believe what was in the rant, you do not understand that this is not an attempt by the Government to spin their way out. The petition was not started by remainers who want to wriggle out of the vote, but was started by Brexiteer who wanted to wriggle out of the vote when he thought they might lose. It is quite simple really.
From CNN: “Robin Tilbrook, chairman of English Democrats, said that Healey had created the petition to help frame the terms under which the referendum would be contested.” Healey is a fervent leave believer. The petition was not started by anyone in the remain camp, and the Govt. has said that it will not be acted upon. So you and the ranter have got it wrong.
My reference to your opinion of petitions was because you gave such credence to a petition that was signed by only 30,000 people that one signed by over 3 million ought to be even more compelling. You may remember that I argued that petitions are not a good way to assess the relative strength of opinions, and you vehemently supported the petition as a convincing argument that proved the majority opinion.
To remain consistent you must either reject the notion that petitions are a reliable guide to assess the majority, or accept that the overwhelming majority of Britains now want to remain, and the referendum is a travesty of the true position. It appears that you have come round to my way of thinking.
dbstealey
seaice1
June 28, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Their battle bus said £350M sent to EU every week. Lets spend it on NHS instead. All lies. No, the lies and fear mongering were more on the leave side.
**************************************************************************************************************
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
This was a referendum not an election. The referendum asked a question as to how to proceed with the EU. When the result was known, exactly the same people who were in charge before the referendum were in charge after it.
How much intelligence does one have to have to realise that any “promises” from the leave campaign (and some remainders) were worthless as they wouldn’t be able to carry them out (not being elected – just giving an answer to the question posed).
Anyway, I think you’ll find that nobody actually said the money WOULD be spent on the NHS, all the quotes and pictures said COULD be spent on the NHS. This is a perfect example of the distortion involved in by the remainders.
Many of the “debates” that were televised made it clear that many people (who should have known better) seemed to think it was an election campaign (Angela Eagles notably, but not alone). It wasn’t. Whether this was deliberate misdirection or lack of sense is a close call to my mind, I think either is equally believable.
This “would” or “could” language (very different meaning) is endemic in politics (and climate change) and this difference completely evades the vast bulk of the people who have suffered modern education where the emphasis has been on feelings and has seemingly done away with the ability to analyse and think logically and rationally.
SteveT
Oh dear, simple touriste. It is all over the news. Please try to keep yourself at least minimaly informed if you want to take part in a discussion.
From the Telegraph: “Asked by ITV’s Good Morning Britain whether he could guarantee that the £350m that was sent to the EU would now go the NHS, Mr Farage said: “No I can’t, I would never have made that claim. “That was one of the mistakes made by the Leave campaign.”
It is not a mistake to have it in 10ft letters on your battle bus.
The Independant: “The cached version includes a banner image touting the pledge to ‘give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week’ – which has already been walked back by Leave supporters.”
The Guardian: “Leading Brexit campaigner Iain Duncan Smith has distanced himself from a pledge by the official leave campaign to spend £350m “sent to the EU every week” on the NHS, saying he had never made the claim. During the referendum campaign, Vote Leave issued posters reading: “Let’s give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week.” The campaign’s battlebus, outside which the former work and pensions secretary was frequently photographed, featured the slogan: “We send the EU £350 million a week – let’s fund our NHS instead.”
Sky News: “Backtrack On ‘Give NHS £350m EU Money’ Promise”
There are similar articles in The Express, Huffington Post, The Miror, New Statesman, Business Insider, London Standard and probably every other news outlet you can think of.
Steve T. “Anyway, I think you’ll find that nobody actually said the money WOULD be spent on the NHS, all the quotes and pictures said COULD be spent on the NHS. This is a perfect example of the distortion involved in by the remainders.”
Staggering. The leave battle bus says in huge letters:
“We send the EU £350M a week. Lets fund the NHS instead.”
Immediately after the election all the leaders that have been photographed in front of this sign say they never intended that the NHS would receive an extra £350M a week, nor anything close.
Apart from the intentions of the leavers if they won, they all knew that even if the new leaders wanted to give this money to the NHS it was impossible because the £350M ignored the rebate and money the UK gets back from the EU. There never was £350M to distribute and they all knew this.
You conclude that this is distortion by the remainders.
Lying is intending to deceive. I challenge you to really look at that slogan and honestly say that it was not intended to deceive.
Steve T. Anyway, it is not only the remainers that are accusing the leavers of backtracking – it is the likes of Sky News.
Simple-touriste “The leave leaders have already back-tracked on their campaign promises”
Should be all over on the news. And yet you don’t have any actual quote.
No, a paraphrase won’t do.
Oh dear, simple touriste. It is all over the news. Please try to keep yourself at least minimaly informed if you want to take part in a discussion.
From the Telegraph: “Asked by ITV’s Good Morning Britain whether he could guarantee that the £350m that was sent to the EU would now go the NHS, Mr Farage said: “No I can’t, I would never have made that claim. “That was one of the mistakes made by the Leave campaign.”
The Independant: “The cached version includes a banner image touting the pledge to ‘give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week’ – which has already been walked back by Leave supporters.”
The Guardian: “Leading Brexit campaigner Iain Duncan Smith has distanced himself from a pledge by the official leave campaign to spend £350m “sent to the EU every week” on the NHS, saying he had never made the claim. During the referendum campaign, Vote Leave issued posters reading: “Let’s give our NHS the £350m the EU takes every week.” The campaign’s battlebus, outside which the former work and pensions secretary was frequently photographed, featured the slogan: “We send the EU £350 million a week – let’s fund our NHS instead.”
Sky News: “Backtrack On ‘Give NHS £350m EU Money’ Promise”
There are similar articles in The Express, Huffington Post, The Miror, New Statesman, business insider, London Standard and probably every other news outlet you can think of.
We may be a little at cross purposes here, but I still can’t see where this says we WILL fund the NHS. This is clearly a suggestion to fund the NHS and not a promise.
This is another example of the misdirection I remarked on (this time from the leavers) but if one can read and understand English and remembering these are politicians, more close examination of what is said would have made it obvious that this amount of funding was never intended or possible.
As I say again, this was said by politicians and was almost certainly intended to deceive. If you read analytically the intention is obvious. I gave an example of distortion by the remainders because they claimed the leavers had “promised” something they clearly hadn’t. I stick by my statement that this is a distortion. Don’t believe for one moment that I believe that similar ploys were not undertaken by the leavers as well.
Remember, they are all politicians and if you want to know what they are really saying then you have to read carefully. The vast majority of them will not want to be proven liars and carefully chosen words will misdirect the unwary. Hence my cross purposes comment above.
Exactly, even Sky News think they have said something they haven’t. Despite it (the meaning of language) being their profession, even they get it wrong. Leavers can’t be backtracking if they didn’t say it. P.S. I haven’t checked what Sky News have or haven’t said – for the purpose of this discussion I will accept your understanding of what they said because it doesn’t really matter who misinterprets what was said – it supports my contention that people are not careful enough, especially with what politicians say.
The appropriate saying is – Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
SteveT
First time with blockquotes, hope they’ve worked.
“The Guardian: “Leading Brexit campaigner Iain Duncan Smith has distanced himself from a pledge by the official leave campaign to spend £350m “sent to the EU every week” on the NHS”
I asked you ONE quote, a relevant one; not a list of irrelevant sound bites.
There was never a “pledge” of the leave camp and even a child would understand that.
Money not sent to the UE can be used in any way GB wants, including NHS. But it doesn’t have to be NHS. Mentioning the NHS is merely a distraction.
GB would have control.
Steve T says:
I think you’ll find that nobody actually said the money WOULD be spent on the NHS, all the quotes and pictures said COULD be spent on the NHS. This is a perfect example of the distortion involved in by the remainders.
Several examples of “promises” were given by ‘seaice’. Most of them were like this:
“We send the EU £350M a week. Lets fund the NHS instead.”
Steve T is right:
This “would” or “could” language (very different meaning) is endemic in politics (and climate change) and this difference completely evades the vast bulk of the people who have suffered modern education where the emphasis has been on feelings and has seemingly done away with the ability to analyse and think logically and rationally.
Is the NHS issue is the best the losers of the Brexit vote can do?
Next,
Seaice says I don’t understand. But I understand at least two things:
1. You lost.
2. You can’t accept it.
I’ve explained that reasons don’t matter at this point. Everyone has their own reasons for the way they voted; a million voters, a million reasons. What matters now is that you lost. But you can’t get over it.
Arguing about the outcome now is pointless. The rational response is to make the best of it. I’d say ‘get over it’ once more, but obviously you can’t accept the voting results; the ‘consensus’, if you will.
This is a good case study in human nature. You picked the ‘vanishing sea ice’ predictions early on, based on the failed conjecture that rising CO2 would cause global warming to accelerate out of control, and melt the polar ice. Your government and its paid scientists, and its subsidized universities, and the sensationalist media, and the UN all told us that would happen. But those early assumptions were based insufficient information, and because of a strong El Nino. But it’s been promoted ever since by those governments’ desire for a huge new carbon tax. A new tax that would negatively impact everyone, by ballooning the government and its already suffocating bureaucracy.
The ‘runaway global warming’ narrative (which has now morphed into the vague, meaningless, Orwellian term “climate change”) is constantly promoted by the EU and the UN, and by your government and ours. You are part of that tribe, so even if you understand that the man-made global warming hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified by observations, you still support your tribe. That is the antithesis of scientific objectivity, and it explains why no climate alarmist can be a scientific skeptic. Your gov’t tribe’s world view and its falsified narrative takes priority.
We have compiled a lot more knowledge and empirical observations since the UN/IPCC was formed. When honest scientists are faced with so many contrary observations, they normally admit their hypothesis has been falsified. But in the “climate change” debate, tribalism raises its ugly head. You have chosen to be part of the big government tribe, which is why you label those who disagree with you as “racists”.
Honestly, I had no idea Rosa Parks was being referred to. That’s how little I think of race as an explanation for anything. There are plenty of black men and women I would love to see elected, like Walter E. Williams, Keith Ellison, Thomas Sowell, Alan West, Condi Rice, Herman Cain, Ken Blackwell, and dozens of others. Those folks support individual liberty, small government, equality of opportunity (rather than equality of results, which is communism), and the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. FYI, at one time about 97% of the population supported those things. Then the leftist snake got into the garden.
Now that same gov’t/uni tribe — your tribe — has made the decision that exiting the EU must be opposed. Never mind the dangers of remaining as a subservient country in a larger unaccountable, unelected government that has already begun taking wealth from your country and re-distributing it to countries that didn’t earn it, in order to be ‘fair’. Your country had no choice, but you must still support your tribe’s narrative to avoid being an apostate, and being shunned. So you’re arguing against what the majority of your own citizens want, because your tribe comes first. It trumps democracy, the voting booth, and the good of the whole country.
Your country disagreed with the ‘remain’ narrative, just like Planet Earth disagrees with the CAGW narrative. Sea ice is not disappearing. It is well within past parameters. Sea ice has declined in only one hemisphere for a few years, and by a relatively small amount. Global warming is not accelerating, either. The planet’s temperature has changed so little over the past century that you’re forced to magnify any wiggles by using charts based on tenth and hundredth of a degree divisions. There has been no century-long time frame in the entire geologic record with as flat, unchanging, and benign global temperatures as we have enjoyed over the past century. It is really only the mountain of of grant money that keeps the increasingly ridiculous ‘carbon’ scare alive.
Based on insufficient knowledge at the time, governments decided that the rise in CO2 would cause runaway global warming, vanishing Arctic ice, and many other predicted catastrophes that never happened. And you believe that the public was stupid and uninformed when they voted for Brexit. You argue that if they only understood that the NHS was an example, not a promise, they would have voted to remain in the EU.
That’s the essence of your argument, right? Well, let me explain reality:
Over here, in the weeks leading up to the referendum we heard about ‘Brexit!’ constantly, 24/7. Every day it was on the news. It was on news aggregators like the DRUDGE Report, the Associated Press, the TV networks, newspapers, and on endless blogs. Folks from the UK were arguing pro and con Brexit over here, discussing what we would call “inside baseball” details that sometimes made Americans’ eyes glaze over.
So I can just imagine how intense the Brexit discussions were in the UK: you constantly heard all different points of view, and all the statistics, and all the predictions much more intensely than we did. The arguments were incessant, and they discussed every possible facet and nuance of staying in the EU or leaving; all the pro and con arguments from both sides.
Your pro-EU government was heavily supported by the media. No doubt you watched MP’s and many others on the news, arguing that the UK must remain in the EU. Every possibility was discussed and argued endlessly by just about everyone, in a country with a long history of debate. Is that about right?
Now that you lost you’re trying to argue that because of some fabricated, non-existent ‘promises’ that were never made, you want a ‘do-over’. But even if someone had said, “I promise…”, that would have been debated, too.
No one went into a voting booth there ignorant of what was at stake. There has rarely been a more thoroughly debated question than whether to remain, or exit the EU. No one was fooled. The turnout was very high. Voters knew what they were voting for, and why. They knew that either decision would carry risks, and they educated themselves on those risks. In the end they chose to keep the UK a sovereign country.
Those governments were wrong about global warming, and they’re wrong to criticize the people for voting against something the governments wanted.
Instead of trying to promote their EU super-government, and their ‘climate change’ narratives, think for yourself. Try to rise above their petty tribalism. Make rational decisions. Support democracy, and the right of UK citizens to direct their country’s course in national referenda.
Or, you can parrot everything your gov’t tribe says, right or wrong. You can try to overturn an honest election based on non-existent ‘promises’. Those choices are yours alone.
dbstealey. I had no idea Rosa Parks was being referred to
This says it all. It is in the sub-heading of the post. I said to group this with Rosa Parks is offensive. John Campbell says And I agree with your assessment of the Rosa Parks metaphor. dbstealey replies to these comments, yet has no idea Rosa Parks was being referred to. It is pointless discussing anything with someone who has such poor ability to follow an argument.
Steve T and others. You can nit-pick to excuse the liars all you want. Just about every media outlet agrees that the leavers are back tracking and it is pretty obvious that they were lying. I provided direct quote from Sky news. Sky News: “Backtrack On ‘Give NHS £350m EU Money’ Promise”.
Do you recognize that the referendum was never about the NHS?
Do you recognize that no reasonable person could believe the referendum was about the NHS?
Do you recognize that Mr Farage never had control over the signs painted on that brexit bus?
Do you recognize that Mr Farage was not responsible in any way for the NHS (alleged) “promise”?
Do you recognize that Mr Farage never lied about the NHS?
seaice sez:
It is in the sub-heading of the post. I said to group this with Rosa Parks is offensive.
When you refer to a “link”, call it what it is. Your comments are often vague and confusing like that. I’m sure you understand what you mean, but your communication skillz don’t translate well.
You backed and filled later with this:
You posted a link to youtube. It was this rant I refered to.
That rant, not the Lord Monckton ‘rant’? Now that you’ve made it clear which rant you were referring to, I understand why you’re upset: Watson makes sense. So does Lord Monckton, for that matter.
Next, your link to Sky News flatly contradicted your false claims of a ‘promise’:
Iain Duncan Smith says Leave never promised to give the NHS the £350m previously allocated to the EU.
So, a question: are you still lying about it? Or didn’t you read your own link?
As for Rosa Parks, what that has to do with your country’s vote to leave the EU is clear: the UK no longer has to sit in the back of the bus. They voted to sit wherever they want.
But you want your own country to remain under the EU’s thumb, watching impotently as their nameless, faceless, and unelected bureaucrats continue to give away your UK industry to other countries that “need” it. That sounds just like “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need”.
As long as the UK was not a sovereign country that international dole would continue to accelerate. There’s nothing you could do about the transfer of wealth from the UK, which earned it, to other countries that didn’t; redistribution of wealth, from the Makers to the Takers. Fortunately, a majority of UK voters had more sense than your side did.
Everything you post here is just more parroting of the Big Government narrative. You are lying when you label the voters who want to leave the EU as ‘liars’, because you’re arguing from projection; imputing your own faults onto others.
As we see in the link you posted, no one is “backtracking”. It’s just sour grapes by the losers, which includes government and their pet media. Some of the individual losers are even pretending they voted for Brexit. From the comments under your link, this chameleon says:
“I think the MP’s should veto the vote and decide what is best for our country.”
Anyone with at least two brain cells knows that the MP’s decide what is best for the MP’s.The country comes in a distant second, if at all. And now some of the more mindless head-nodders want the government to make all their decisions for them. That way, they don’t have to exert any effort trying to think.
If the UK takes the advice of that commenter, you are well into a Dictatorship. If any vote of the people that your Ministers disagree with can be reversed on a whim, then your country has rejected democracy. And that’s exactly what your bogus “NHS/promise” argument is, a whim based on misinformation and spin. It’s also the best argument you’ve been able to come up with.
I covered a lot of ground in the comment you’re replying to. The fact that your NHS nitpicking is the best you can do indicates that you don’t have a credible response to all the other points I raised. And as I’ve shown beyond any doubt, you are flat wrong in the one factoid you chose to argue (I provided direct quote from Sky news. Sky News: “Backtrack On ‘Give NHS £350m EU Money’ Promise”.)
That isn’t a “direct quote”, that’s a newspaper headline. It’s spin; propaganda based on false information. The direct quote is under the headline:
“I never said that during the course of the election.”
You can lie to your friends, ‘seaice’. And you can lie to people you meet in public. But this is the internet. When you lie here, you get caught. You’ve been caught: Mr. Duncan-Smith is quoted much more, and he never once said that anything was ‘promised’. That’s just more untrue gossip you’re passing on. That used to be called ‘bearing false witness’, back when the Ten Commandments actually meant something.
So you’re still carrying water for Big Government. In my comment above I asked you to be rational. I asked you to think for yourself, and not mindlessly parrot the government’s narrative. But I suppose the EU and your liberal MP’s can always depend on head-nodders like you:
http://65.media.tumblr.com/d8edc246f15bd4ca191e981a7d897128/tumblr_mnvvx9RRmF1qc7t4qo1_500.gif
“rather than equality of results, which is communism”
In the end, the communist countries had/have extreme inequality.
John Campbell. I agree this is a challenge us all. The instinct to lash out against “the establishment” that many feel has let them down leads to unpredictable and dangerous outcomes that are not at all what those lashing out wish to achieve. The Trump effect is an example. I heard one Scottish voter say he wanted to remain in but could not bring himself to vote for something Cameron supported. Votes are cast on the basis of factors that have nothing to do with the issues. The result is that Cameron goes, but will be replaced by someone that the Scottish voter probably likes even less.
We do not have to agree but I value your thoughtful comments.
seaice1 – I think we substantially agree. But I perhaps have more sympathy with those who are voting to “lash out” against the establishment. I am a former angry libertarian, but have made peace with my frustration against governments and those who use governments to further their agendas. I still disagree with a great deal, but refuse to devote my energy to anger with others.
Just as I believe it very foolish for the UK to live the EU, I believe it is equally foolish for us to ignore the sentiments and frustrations of those who voted to leave. We have much to learn and that education could start with governments and large institutions.
Evolution requires our listening and learning – and often even more so to those with whom we disagree. I appreciate your contribution to a meaningful exchange on this topic. Buckle up – the world is in for a wild ride. I would have said the same thing before this vote. We are in for extremely turbulent times – it’s the fault of no one – just the times we live in. Kind of exciting really.
John Campbell. I believe it is a Chinese curse -may you live in interesting times. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
Lets spend the 350m on the NHS was only a suggestion what the money could be spent on. All the money available that otherwise would have gone to the EU was never going to be spent on one cause. The leave campaign managed to be unclear on one publicised item.
The remain campaign have been unclear on many publicised items with ridiculous scaremongering on the level of alarmist climate scientists. There are some of them shown below.
Talks with Turkey will start in days, Brexit WON’T spark trade war say Germans, Brussels will NOT reform on open borders and deportation of jobless EU migrants a myth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3655236/Nailed-four-big-EU-lies-Talks-Turkey-stall-Brexit-WON-T-spark-trade-war-say-Germans-Brussels-NOT-reform-open-borders-deportation-jobless-EU-migrants-myth.html
‘Brexit’ could trigger World War Three, warns David Cameron
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexit-could-trigger-world-war-7928607
Brexit is ‘immoral’ and would cost 820,000 jobs, say Cameron and Osborne – but even the pro-EU SNP leader says their claims are ‘overblown’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603965/Osborne-warns-Brexit-force-DIY-recession-Don-t-throw-away-pleads-figures-slump-year.html
Brexit would put pensions at risk, David Cameron tells older voters.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/national/14516510.Brexit_would_put_pensions_at_risk__David_Cameron_tells_older_voters/
Some light entertainment for those who need it …
https://youtu.be/h2D8MB5s8Jg
Wikipedia’s Strength Is In Collaboration