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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 – @ur momisugly 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