FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Brexit and EU Referendum = EU impose 'no deal'?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16090
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TonyGosling wrote:
Patricia McKenna: EU want its own army

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR02ewLfNpo


The Left Case For Brexit
by Bryan Gould Sat 26th Mar 2016
http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/2460/the-left-case-fo r-brexit

An uncommitted reader of the British press would rapidly conclude that, on the issue of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union, there is an easily-drawn dividing line. Those who favour withdrawal are on the right in political terms; those who would retain membership are on the left.

Readers of the centre-left or liberal press would go further; coverage of the issue would suggest that the supporters of Brexit are not only right-wing, but ignorant, prejudiced, xenophobic, or just plain deranged. The possibility that there is a perfectly rational and moderate case for reconsidering our future in Europe, a case that is not only consistent with a left-of-centre stance, but actually required by it, is overlooked. The debate is all the poorer for it.

My own involvement with this issue goes back a long way. A s a new recruit to the Foreign Office in 1964, I worked on Common Market issues and later, from our Brussels embassy, I helped to organise the Wilson-Brown tour of Common Market capitals as part of a further attempt to have the Gaullist veto on our membership lifted.

By the time I returned to the UK in 1968, I was clear that the issue was not whether we should or could be part of Europe, since no one could doubt that we were historically, geographically, culturally, politically, and inevitably, an integral part of that entity, however defined. The question was not whether, but what kind of Europe?

I came to the realisation that what we were offered was not “ Europe” but a Franco-German deal guaranteeing free trade in manufactures to the Germans in return for subsidised agriculture to suit the French.

Joining “Europe” in 1972 represented for Britain a restriction of our trading opportunities and an abandonment of a rational and long-established trading pattern. It meant, through the Common Agricultural Policy, to whose costs Britain was and remains a major contributor, a substantial increase in food prices and therefore in domestic costs, making British manufactured goods more expensive. It also meant an end to preferential markets beyond Europe, and opened us up instead to direct competition from more efficient manufacturing rivals in a single European marketplace.

But have we not derived great advantage from our trade with the EU? Well, hardly. Let us put to one side the very large annual contribution we pay to the EU (a continuing burden, as it happens, on our balance of payments). We have now run a trade deficit every year since 1982, which was just as the full impact of EU membership took effect – not just a coincidence, since the greater part of that deficit is with the other members of the EU, and much of it arises in the trade in manufactured goods.

The result is that our manufacturing sector has shrivelled away, and our net investment in new manufacturing capacity is virtually nil. W e are of course solemnly warned that our EU partners will refuse to trade with us if we insist on a different and better Europe; but are they really going to turn their backs on a one-sided trade relationship that has been so much to their advantage?

The weakness of the case for continuing membership of the current arrangement is shown by the fact that it is almost always articulated in terms of rival pessimisms; we are constantly told that the burdens of membership are outweighed by the risks of being left out in the cold.

But we should take courage from the lessons of experience. Similar arguments led us to join the European Monetary System, which proved disastrous, and were then repeated in respect of the euro. Most people in Britain will offer daily thanks that we had the courage to reject those arguments and to stay out of the euro, and there is no reason to suppose that they have any greater weight in the current debate. Our trading partners in Europe need us at least as much as we are said to need them, as post-Brexit negotiations would surely demonstrate.

In any case, a decision in favour of Brexit would not mean, as is so often alleged, turning our backs on Europe. It would signal instead the opening of a new agenda, aimed at developing a better and more constructive Europe, and one with a greater chance of success.

A new Europe would not operate, as it has done since its inception, as a manifestation of free-market capitalism, serving the interests of big business rather than those of ordinary people. It would not impose a policy of austerity in thrall to neo-classical economic doctrine. It would not run a hugely diverse economy in terms of a monetary policy that suits Germany but no one else. It would not impose a political structure decided by a small elite, but would allow the pace of cooperation and eventually integration to be decided by the people of Europe as they and we became more comfortable with the concept of a European identity.

If we have the courage, we could, in other words, not only benefit ourselves but help the development of a Europe that truly does serve the people of Europe. That is surely a project to attract even the most enlightened of bien pensants.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16090
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brexit voters ARE 'stupid' and it should be 'reversed' says Juncker's EU chief of staff
BREXIT voters made a “stupid decision” and it is still “legally” possible for the UK to reverse the withdrawal from the Brussels bloc, a top EU official claimed.
By Matt Drake
PUBLISHED: 07:47, Tue, Sep 5, 2017 | UPDATED: 07:48, Tue, Sep 5, 2017
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/850048/EU-Brexit-juncker-stupid -voters-reversed-nigel-farage-withdrawal-bill-hammond-soubry

Martin Selmayr, chief of staff to EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker, announced in a conference yesterday the democratic decision to leave the EU could be stopped.

Speaking in Brussels, Mr Selmayr said: “Brexit is bad, and it’s a stupid decision. The only people who can reverse it would be the British people and I am not a dreamer, I am a realist. Brexit will happen on March 29, 2019.”

The German lawyer added that it would be “arrogant of us” to say the EU could force a reversal to happen.

The comments come after the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier said he needed to "teach" Britons what leaving the EU means, as voters didn't know what leaving the single market meant.

He later backtracked to say he meant Brexit was an "occasion to explain single market benefits in all countries".

Mr Selmyar's comments have been described as “pig-headed” and an attempt to interfere in the forthcoming Parliamentary vote on the EU Withdrawal Bill....

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16090
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juncker Unveils Grand Vision For A United States Of Europe
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-13/juncker-unveils-grand-vision- united-states-europe

Sep 14, 2017 4:58 AM

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker delivered his annual state of the union address on Wednesday, in which he laid out his grand vision for federalist Europe, and urged European Union governments to use economic recovery (i.e., Mario Draghi's nationalization of the bond market), the political weakness in the US and Brexit as "springboards" toward a closer union, built on an expanded euro zone and a pivotal role in world trade. The allegedly unintoxicated Juncker sketched out a vision of a post-2019 EU where 30 countries would be using the euro, with an EU finance minister running key budgets to help states in trouble.



Among the key proposals put forward by the EU Commission president were compulsory Euro membership for the remaining eight European states outside the bloc, for new countries to join the Schengen zone, plans for closer defensive cooperation leading to the creation of a European army in the next decade and easier ratification of EU-wide trade treaties with foreign powers. Tax and welfare standards would converge and Europe, not the United States, would be the hub of a free-trading world.

In short, a blueprint for a United States of Europe.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Jean-Claude Juncker ✔ @JunckerEU
Let's throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the harbour. Catch the trade winds in our sails.
My 2017 #SOTEU speech: http://europa.eu/!xj73Vj
9:18 AM - Sep 13, 2017
183 183 Replies 559 559 Retweets 686 686 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
“The wind is back in Europe’s sails,” Junker told the European Parliament quoted by Reuters, citing economic growth and the easing of a succession of crises -- Greek debt, refugee inflows, the rise of eurokcepticism reflected in Brexit - that seemed to threaten the EU’s survival.

Juncker has also resurrected the idea of merging his own post with that of the President of the European Council, who currently represents the interests of its member state governments, saying it would be easier if “one captain was steering the ship.” Such as president would be chosen in an EU-wide vote. A powerful new EU-wide economy minister has also been touted, one which would have power to whip dissenters in line with a common EU vision.

In his best infomercial salesman immitation, Juncker urged Europeans to hurry, or else the generous offer may not last: “Now we have a window of opportunity, but it will not stay open for ever,” he said, emphasizing a need to move on from and even profit from the British vote to leave the bloc in 2019 according to Reuters.

Some promptly backed Juncker's blueprint: German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Juncker’s plan to build a closer European Union based on an expanded euro zone was largely in line with Germany’s vision for the bloc. The German also said that Juncker had discussed with Chancellor Angela Merkel his annual State of the EU speech in which he spoke of a vision of a post-2019 EU where some 30 countries would be using the euro.

“It is good that he is putting pressure (to expand the euro zone) but the preconditions (for joining the euro zone) must be fulfilled,” Schaeuble told the ARD broadcaster in an interview. “It is in fact so that EU countries who fulfill the preconditions become members of the euro under the Lisbon Treaty”. However, the German who in the summer of 2015 nearly kicked Greece out of the Eurozone, added that EU countries wishing to adopt the single currency should not do so before their public finances and economies are sound enough as they could face the fate of Greece, which had to be bailed out by the EU and IMF in 2010.

* * *

Desperate to put the Brexit humiliation in the rearview mirror, Juncker said that “we will keep moving on because Brexit isn’t everything, it is not the future of Europe," Brexit supporters promptly said his speech showed they were right to take Britain out of a bloc set on creating more powerful, central institutions. The most predictable opponent of the hour-long speech, met with stirring applause by a mostly zombified audience, was UK MEP Nigel Farage.

"The message is very clear: Brexit has happened, new steam ahead… More Europe in every single direction and all to be done without the consent of the people,” Farage told the floor.

“The way you’re treating Hungary and Poland already must remind them of living under the Soviet communists. All I can say is thank God we’re leaving because you’ve learned nothing from Brexit.

It wasn't just the Farage: Juncker's core proposal for countering what is known as a “multispeed Europe” by encouraging all states to join the euro and other EU structures was met resistance in both non-euro zone countries and potentially in Paris and Berlin, where the newly elected President Emmanuel Macron and about-to-be-re-elected Chancellor Angela Merkel are readying their own plans.

Poland’s Eurosceptic ruling PiS party, which is embroiled in a bitter legal fight suggested the plan is optimistic in view of the ongoing crisis with migration, unemployment, stagnation and terrorism. “We need to get the EU’s house in order before there can even be a discussion on centralizing even further,” said Ryszard Legutko, a PiS MEP.

Opposition also came from members of the European parliament’s left-wing coalitions.

“When I listen to [Juncker’s speech] with the ears of many people who feel left behind by the current macroeconomic policies that we have, then I have my doubts because he still pushes for free trade deals that basically are tailor-made for multinationals,” Philippe Lamberts, of the Greens-European Free Alliance group told the Daily Express.

However, the most focused and principled attack on Juncker’s plans came from Harald Vilimsky, of Austria’s Freedom Party, which prompted Juncker to leave mid-speech, and once again demonstrated the deep splinters within the core of the Union, splinters which make the integration Juncker is seeking impossible.

“What Mr Junker wants de facto is to force the European union into a single state, and we know that the euro is not a success story. The second thing Mr Junker wants is de facto to actually get rid of all the internal borders, we see 10,000, 100,000, millions of African and Arabs are going to be coming to our continent,” said Vilimsky, who serves as the vice-chair of the Europe of Nations and Freedom party within the European Parliament.

“They talk about having a defense union, but no we don’t want that. What we want is Austrians, we’re a neutral country in Austria, we do not want to participate in the defense union. The right road for Europe can only be the road where there is more democracy left to the people, more democracy left to the citizens where people can vote whether or not they want to have Schengen maintained or not, whether they want their borders or not. The vote has to be left to the citizen.”

Aside from his traditional adversaries whose opposition was expected, what was more troubling is that Juncker's "grand vision" also appeared to get the cold shoulder from leaders of nominally pro-EU nations. “Juncker is a romantic. We all have our own style, but I am more pragmatic,” said Netherlands PM Mark Rutte in response to the speech, adding that those “too concerned with vision should visit an eye doctor.”

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was against creating an EU-super-president, tweeting “Let’s not mix roles and competences. Need European Council President as voice of member states."

Meanwhile, Germany and France, the two foundational powers in the union, are preparing to submit their own plans for EU reform by the end of 2017, and while their current leaders remain in favor of the EU, it is unlikely that either will endorse Juncker’s federalism without a mandate from their respective electorates.

In short, Juncker's speech like virtually everything else out of Brussels in recent years, was just more hot air.



DJoeXCeX0AA4gU3.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  135.83 KB
 Viewed:  107 Time(s)

DJoeXCeX0AA4gU3.jpg



_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2298
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kelvin Hopkins MP: The Socialist Case for Brexit | Cambridge Brexit Campaign

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh_8fKcf970

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2298
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brexit BOOST: £65BILLION to be pumped into UK economy through tax cuts and public spending
BREXIT could boost the economy by £65billion a year through tax cuts and spending increases, according to a new report.
By CAMILLA TOMINEY, EXCLUSIVE
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, Nov 12, 2017
Camilla Tominey: Germany to make up UK shortfall post-Brexit
Play Video
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/878453/brexit-news-uk-latest-eu -economy-chancellor-budget-report-tax-cut-spending-national-debt

Quitting the EU will reinvigorate the British economy, creating a flood of extra revenue for the Exchequer that could cut taxes, boost public spending and slash the national debt.

The Budget for Brexit report was prepared by a 16-strong group of Eurosceptic economists, Economists for Free Trade.

It comes as the Office for Budget Responsibility reveals that the UK tax burden, at over a third of national income, is about to hit its highest level for nearly 50 years, when Labour’s Harold Wilson was in power in 1970.

Assuming Brexit occurs in the third quarter of 2020, the Economists for Free Trade group predicts that growth will improve as costs and unemployment fall, real wages will rise and higher output will drive down the exchange rate as new markets are sought by exporters.


The 37-page report rejects gloomy economic forecasts from the Treasury and Office for Budget Responsibility.

BrexitGETTY
Brexit boost: Exit from EU could inject £65billion into UK economy
RELATED ARTICLES

'Laughed at' Brexit backing students blamed for 'ruining' Britain

Outrage at EU 'plot to split Northern Ireland from UK' after Brexit
It is certain that the OBR will not make the positive assessment of Brexit that we have made

The Budget for Brexit report
It says: “It is certain that the OBR will not make the positive assessment of Brexit that we have made.

“It would seem that they, like the Treasury today, do not question the analysis of a clean Brexit made by the Treasury during the referendum, which asserted that the long-run effects would be substantially negative and the short-run effects would be a recession.”

The promise of a big boost to the economy over the next decade is based on a new economic forecast which factors in a fall in prices because of the scrapping of EU tariffs on goods from the rest of the world, improved export performance and an end to the annual EU subscription of £10billion.


The economists predict this will push growth up to nearly three per cent a year by the mid-2020s.

Over the first half of the 2020s, state borrowing and the national debt will fall.

Philip HammondGETTY
The report forecasts that the Chancellor could give away an extra £25bn a year over 2020-2025
The budget surplus is expected to reach £40billion a year by 2025, rising to around £90billion by the end of the decade.

The report forecasts that the Chancellor could prudently give away an extra £25billion a year over 2020-2025 in lower taxes and/or higher spending and still pay off debt.


From 2025 onwards he would have an extra £40billion to play with, making a total of about £65billion a year.

The research has been led by Margaret Thatcher’s former adviser, Professor Patrick Minford.

To illustrate the scale of the potential tax cut dividend from Brexit, the report says it would cost just £12billion by 2025 to reduce corporation tax by two per cent, the higher rate of income tax by two per cent and the additional rate by seven per cent.

Nations putting the EU in danger
Mon, October 23, 2017
Euroscepticism is rising across the continent
PLAY
Austria: The hard-Right Freedom Party (FPO) has previously been accused of xenophobia and racism [AFP/Getty Images]
AFP/GETTY IMAGES1 of 7
Austria: The hard-Right Freedom Party (FPO) has previously been accused of xenophobia and racism [AFP/Getty Images]

Austria: The hard-Right Freedom Party (FPO) has previously been accused of xenophobia and racism Italy: Italy's populist Five Star Movement wants to ditch the euro and recently elected an ex-waiter, Luigi Di Maio as leader Germany: Eurosceptic AfD emerged as the country's third-biggest party, campaigning hard against Merkel's open-door stanceFrance: Marine Le Pen advocates abandoning the euro and curbing immigration while endorsing anti-Islamic policies Hungary: Viktor Orban (R), leader of the anti-immigration Right-wing Fidesz party, which is firmly opposed to further EU integration Netherlands: Geert Wilders' far-right Freedom Party wants to LEAVE the EU and BAN Islam Poland: President Andrzej Duda (R), leader of PiS, was elected in 2015 with policies largely focusing on anti-Islamic and anti-Russian concerns
This would leave another £13billion which could be spent, for instance, on the NHS.

With an extra £40billion of revenue resulting from fast post-Brexit growth after 2025, the report calculates that corporation tax could be cut by a further three per cent, the higher rate of tax by another two per cent and the standard rate by two per cent.

This would cost around £20billion leaving a further £20billion to raise public spending while keeping debt at a prudent level of below 60 per cent of national output.

Professor Minford said: “When Britain leaves the EU it is essential the right policies are in place to ensure our economy thrives and seizes the economic opportunities of Brexit.

“The Chancellor and the Treasury play a central role in this and must show ambition and leadership. Regrettably, since before the referendum the Treasury and the OBR have been consistently negative about a post-Brexit economy. The Chancellor must use this Budget to set out a positive vision of a Britain thriving outside the EU.

“We have set out a Budget for Brexit that would provide huge tax cuts for hard-working people and cuts to corporation tax while at the same time reducing the debt to GDP ratio and enabling spending rises.

“We urge the Chancellor to set out a Budget that will take full advantage of the opportunities Brexit brings.”

Related articles
'Put a sock in it!' Jeremy Corbyn mocked in hilarious BBC sketch show
German MEP rages at Barnier for 'unfair' Brexit strategy towards UK
Guy Verhofstadt meeting showed MP Britain MUST leave EU with no deal

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2298
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

United States of EUROPE: Shock claim EU plans own OLYMPIC TEAM to 'destroy national ID'
DISCUSSIONS are underway to create an EU Olympic team as part of the bloc’s push for an ever closer Europe, it is claimed.
By MARK CHANDLER
09:08, Tue, Dec 26, 2017 | UPDATED: 11:25, Tue, Dec 26, 2017
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/896644/EU-Olympics-team-Brexit-Je an-Claude-Junker-Emmanuel-Macron

West Midlands MEP Bill Etheridge said the suggestion of a team comprising EU members was the subject of "serious" debate behind closed doors in Brussels and Strasbourg.

The UKIP MEP said Brussels chiefs would like like an EU team enter the 2036 Games, the 100th anniversary of the Berlin tournament, which was opened by Adolf Hitler.

Mr Etheridge said the move was out the latest attempt by EU leaders to “destroy national identity”.'

'Brexiteers shocked': Remainer Nick Clegg ‘to receive knighthood’
And he claimed it was partly driven by envy of Great Britain’s success in Rio and London.

He said: “There have been quite a lot of conversations about it among other MEPs and it was being taken quite seriously by some of them.

"They were using the word solidarity, which tends to be code for ever closer union.

EU chiefs are said to be envious of Team GB success
“It speaks to their plan to create a united states of Europe.

"I'm almost certain there was some jealousy at Britain's success in 2012 and 2016 and they want a piece of our success.

"It's a crazy EU effort to destroy national identity.”

The secret discussions have only been held informally so far and no official approach has been made to tournament organisers, The Telegraph reported.

Team GB finished the 2016 Rio Games second in the medal table behind the US, having won 27 golds.

Germany came fifth with 17, France seventh with 10 and Italy ninth with eight golds.

British success followed the 2012 Games where 29 gold medals were won on home soil, the highest of any European nation.

News of trying to bring the bloc’s members together for the world’s biggest sporting event comes at the end of a year where key Brussels figures have launched plans for a much tighter union.

European Commission President Jean Claude-Juncker and French leader Emmanuel Macron have led the charge, with proposals for a joint budget and EU army.

Nigel Farage reacts to 'delusional' State of the Union debate
Play Video

In a landmark speech in September, Mr Juncker set out a vision for a united states of Europe.

He said he wanted more financial unity across the bloc, headed by a new finance ministry while transforming the eurozone’s bailout powers into a European Monetary Fund.

Mr Juncker also wants every member state to join the Euro.

Brexiteers pointed to the speech as a demonstration of why the UK was right to leave the bloc.

Among high-profile critics of the approach was ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage who raged: "I think Europe is about diverse nations and cultures.

“It makes it the most fascinating continent on Earth and provided that all democratically run, they will be at peace.

"I've seen time and again the peoples of Europe in referendums reject deeper integration, reject the European constitution just to be wilfully ignored by Brussels who have either made them vote again or ignored them and gone round the back of them."

Related articles
Austrian coalition set for EU clash over Brussels agenda
EU rejects UK’s finance plans as ploy to ‘make Europe be nice'
Sebastian Kurz blames rupturing EU on 'failed' migrant quotas
EU on the brink as German farmers furious at new prosals
Brexit News



Whitehall_Bin_Men wrote:
Again
Bump!
Amazing!
TonyGosling wrote:
Boioioioing!

TonyGosling wrote:
Absolutely MINDBLOWING article - survey etc - repeating this from above

Scots prefer post-Brexit UK to independence, poll finds
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/scots-want-stay-part-post -brexit-uk-poll-finds/

The poll's findings suggest that most Scots do not want another referendum on independence despite the EU vote
(Photo: Getty) Chris Green 0:01 Saturday July 30th 2016
A clear majority of Scots want the country to stay part of a post-Brexit UK rather than becoming independent and remaining part of the EU, an opinion poll has found. The results of the survey, carried out a month after the result of the European referendum, calls into question Scotland’s appetite for a re-run of 2014’s vote on independence. “The arguments for Scotland remaining a part of the UK are just as compelling as they were in 2014 – in or out of the EU” Lord Dunlop The YouGov poll found that 46 per cent of Scots would prefer to remain part of a post-Brexit UK, while only 37 per cent favoured of breaking up the Union and being allowed to remain in the EU. The results will be seen as a blow to the SNP’s hopes of securing independence for Scotland following the UK’s decision to leave the EU last month, which came despite 62 per cent of Scots voting to remain.
IndyRef2? Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, warned in the aftermath of the result that a second referendum on Scottish independence was now “highly likely” as voters would be furious at the prospect of being dragged out of the EU against their will. The survey also found that the result of the EU vote has not had much of an impact on people’s opinions on independence, with a majority of people continuing to favour remaining part of the UK. Only 47 per cent said they want Scotland to become an independent country, while 53 per cent want to keep the Union intact, the poll of more than 1,000 Scottish adults found. The survey also showed that more Scots would rather be part of a post-Brexit UK with no access to the EU’s single market than leave the Union to secure continued free trade, with 40 per cent favouring the former scenario and only 34 per cent the latter. “Inevitably, some will suggest that the high-water mark of Scottish independence has now passed, especially as it was thought that leaving the EU might persuade No voters to change their minds and vote against the Union,” said Joe Twyman, YouGov’s head of political and social research. “However, the situation is, naturally, more complicated than that. There remains a great deal of uncertainty about what the UK’s relationship with the EU will look like…once precise details of Brexit are hammered out it could change the whole context of the independence debate.” ‘Divisive constitutional debate’ The Scottish Conservatives said the poll’s findings “completely exposes the SNP’s post-Brexit hyperbole” and called on Ms Sturgeon’s party to “get back to the day job, instead of agitating for yet another independence drive”. Scotland Office Minister Lord Dunlop added that another “divisive constitutional debate” was not want the country wanted. “The arguments for Scotland remaining a part of the UK are just as compelling as they were in 2014 – in or out of the EU,” he said. “The Prime Minister has been very clear that we are going to make a success of Brexit, and the focus now needs to be on collaborative working with the Scottish Government as ‘Team UK’ to ensure the best possible deal for Scotland and the rest of the UK.” However, the SNP pointed out that support for independence had risen since YouGov’s last poll on the subject, suggesting that No voters were reconsidering their views in light of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. “In light of the overwhelming vote to remain in the EU, it is right that the Scottish Government explores every option to protect our relationship with and place in the EU – including the option of another independence referendum if that is what it takes,” said SNP business convener Derek Mackay.

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/environment/fears-china-security-m ay-underlie-mays-hinkley-delay/

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2298
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

United States of Europe by 2025: Martin Schultz ultimatum - those who resist will LEAVE EU

COUNTRIES should be forced to sign up to a “United States of Europe” by 2025 or else be booted out of the EU with immediate effect, a top German politician demanded today.
By NICK GUTTERIDGE, BRUSSELS CORRESPONDENT
PUBLISHED: 13:22, Thu, Dec 7, 2017
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/889355/Brexit-news-EU-must-bec ome-United-States-of-Europe-says-Martin-Schulz

Martin Schulz, who hopes to enter a coalition with Angela Merkel and become Berlin’s second most powerful figure, said any member states who refuse to join his new superstate must leave.

He called for a new treaty to formally convert the EU into the United States of Europe, along the lines of the United States, though bizarrely claimed this was “no threat” to individual countries.

The socialist leader, who humiliatingly led his party to its worst ever showing in September’s general election, is now attempting to stitch together a coalition deal with Mrs Merkel.

Mr Schulz a bombastic former MEP and EU Parliament president who quit his Brussels job to take on the German chancellor, has never hidden his federalist ambitions.

His proposals would create federal Europe, which can act together in policy in areas including domestic and foreign security, tax and monetary affairs and asylum and international development.

In a conference speech he warned European values were being systematically undermined in countries like Poland and Hungary and that the EU needed more powers to uphold its laws.

Afterwards he tweeted in English: “I want a new constitutional treaty to establish the United States of Europe. A Europe that is no threat to its member states, but a beneficial addition.

“A convention shall draft this treaty in close cooperation with the civil society and the people. Its results will then be submitted to all member states. Any state that won’t ratify this treaty will automatically leave the EU.”

In reality his plan would certainly be vetoed by the other states, who have to agree unanimously on any treaty change, and would be extremely unlikely to get past Mrs Merkel herself.

Commentators said that his desire for a United States of Europe is not even that popular within his own party, which is heavily europhile, and stands virtually zero chance of success.

Nonetheless, the remarks will heighten the fears of eurosceptics who suspect the EU is heading towards an ever more federalist model in light of Jean-Claude Juncker’s deeply integrationist State of the Union speech.

Yesterday the Commission unveiled new plans for a beefed up eurozone, with its own finance minister, whilst plans for an EU army are also rapidly progressing towards reality.

Countries that are in the European Union
UNITED KINGDOM, 1 of 28 member states in the EU
AUSTRIA, 1 of 28 member states in the EU

Pieter Cleppe, an analyst at the Open Europe think-tank, said the proposals were jaw-dropping at a time of heightened euroscepticism and added: “Martin Schulz has become the EU's worst enemy.”

Meanwhile former Ukip leader Nigel Farage, who has consistently warned of plans for a United States of Europe, mocked: “If this is the route they are taking, it could be a very small European Union.”

Warnings about the possibility of an EU superstate featured prominently in the referendum campaign, with David Cameron securing Britain a special opt-out from ‘ever-closer union’.

EU leaders have seized upon the opportunity of Brexit to push forward with ambitious integration plans in a number of areas amid widespread dissatisfaction about how the project is run.

RELATED ARTICLES
Italian general Claudio Graziano to lead EU's military committee
EU President demands MORE foreign aid cash to undo Brexit damage
Shock warning from German professor over EU superstate plans

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dougal
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 29 Dec 2017
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi All, has anyone read or come across a book, All Honourable Men, by James S Martin?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2298
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can't make their mind up, first it was PESCO, Permanent Structured Alliance, which didn't last long, now it's European Deterrence Initiative, or EDI

U.S. seeks "robust involvement" in EU defence pact - sources
Andrea Shalal
FEBRUARY 28, 2018 / 9:56 AM
BERLIN (Reuters) - The U.S government has told EU states that it and other non-EU NATO allies should play a key role in a European defence pact, diplomatic sources said on Tuesday.

The message, sent to defence and foreign ministries, was meant to underscore Washington’s worries that the pact could duplicate NATO efforts and possibly shut out U.S. arms makers from future European defence contracts, the sources told Reuters.

Twenty-five EU governments launched the agreement in December to fund, develop and deploy armed forces together, ending the squandering of billions of euros by splintered defence policies and reducing Europe’s heavy reliance on Washington.

The message, sent in a diplomatic cable earlier this month, said Washington supported the plan, but expected the “robust involvement” of NATO and particularly non-EU members of the trans-Atlantic defence alliance, the sources said.

“The two main concerns are that there’s no duplication with NATO and that non-EU allies are not cut out of competitions for future weapons,” one of the sources told Reuters on Tuesday.

“If the EU countries are joining forces to make acquisitions that are ultimately going to be used in the NATO context, there should be fair and open competitions,” the source added.

France and Germany have already announced plans to develop a next-generation European fighter jet and Germany is leading an effort to develop a new European drone.

“IRONIC”

One European official said the U.S. concern about being shut out was “a bit ironic,” given U.S. President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy, and the problems that European firms have historically had breaking into the U.S. weapons market.

The U.S. message echoed remarks made by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month in which he highlighted the importance of non-EU allies in paying for European defences.

Once Britain leaves the EU, he said, 80 percent of NATO defence spending will come from non-EU allies.

The sources said Washington also told EU states in a separate cable that it planned to boost funding for increased U.S. military exercises and training in Europe by $1.7 billion to $6.5 billion in the fiscal 2019 year beginning on Oct. 1.

The initiative, initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative, was launched in 2014 by then U.S. President Barack Obama in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. It has since been renamed the European Deterrence Initiative, or EDI.

The cable, sent out late last week and early this week, said the U.S. was living up to its obligations to ensure the defence of all NATO members in what one of the sources called “a subtle prod to other allies to increase their own funding.”

Trump has been pressing European countries to increase their defence spending and honour agreements to move towards spending 2 percent of economic output on the military by 2024.

NATO expects eight of NATO’s 29 members to meet the target in 2018, growing to at least 15 in 2024.

Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Andrew Heavens
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16090
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

George Soros delves back into British politics by backing 2nd Brexit referendum bid
Published time: 30 May, 2018 08:42
https://www.rt.com/uk/428194-george-soros-brexit-referendum/

US-Hungarian Billionaire philanthropist George Soros faces new accusations of interfering in British politics after announcing he’s supporting a bid to push for a second Brexit referendum within a year.
Speaking during a summit organized by the European Council of Foreign Relations think tank, the US-Hungarian financier said that the EU is facing an “existential crisis,” but that Britons should nonetheless be given the chance to vote again on any final Brexit deal and whether to stay in the EU on current terms.

Soros has been heavily criticized over his donations of over £800,000 ($1,062,000) to pro-EU campaigns. The pledges included £400,000 to Best for Britain, a campaign group founded by Gina Miller, who successfully defeated the government over its triggering of Article 50 – the letter officially kicking off the Brexit process – without parliamentary consent.

Read more
© Bernadett SzaboGeorge Soros’ Open Society foundation ends operations in Hungary
“Most of the damage is felt right now when the European Union is in an existential crisis, but its attention is diverted to negotiating a separation agreement with Britain. That’s a lose-lose proposition but it could be converted into a win-win situation,” Soros said.

“Ultimately it’s up to the British people to decide what they want to do. It would be better, however, if they came to a decision sooner rather than later. That’s the goal of an initiative called the ‘Best for Britain,’ which I support. Best for Britain fought for, and helped to win, a meaningful parliamentary vote which includes the option of not leaving at all.

“This would be good for Britain but would also render Europe a great service by rescinding Brexit and not creating a hard-to-fill hole in the European budget. But the British public must express its support by a convincing margin in order to be taken seriously by Europe.”

The billionaire has already come under intense scrutiny after former UKIP leader Nigel Farage warned MEPs in Brussels over Soros’ “truly extraordinary” influence on Brexit. The comments were made after it emerged Soros injected $18 billion (£12.97 billion) into the Open Society fund.

“I fear we could be looking at the biggest level of international, political collusion in history,” Farage said in the European Parliament last year. “When we are talking about offshore money, when we are talking about political subversion, when we are talking about collusion, I wonder if we are looking in the wrong place.”

“And I say that because George Soros recently gave Open Society, which of course campaigns for freedom of movement of people and supranational structures like the European Union, $18 billion. And his influence here and in Brussels is truly extraordinary,” Farage said.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2298
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'Brexit was never really about immigration, and it's time Labour talked about that' https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-immigration-nhs-uk-wages-e ducation-labour-eu-vote-reasons-a8404346.html

Stopping immigration has never made salaries higher or public services better. That’s why Labour governments have responded to complaints about an ‘immigration problem’ by tackling the root cause of dissatisfaction

Chuka Umunna @chukaumunna 23 hours ago

Last week in the House of Commons, there was the biggest rebellion of this parliament by MPs of both main parties. It was on a vote on whether we should continue to participate in the EU’s single market through being part of the European Economic Area (EEA).

In spite of this Labour MPs were whipped by our leadership to abstain on this issue, whereas the government whipped their MPs to vote against. Seventy-six Labour MPs (more than half of our backbenchers) defied the whip – myself included – to vote for the UK to stay in the EEA. We were joined by the Conservatives Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke, with another 11 Tory MPs signalling their support for the EEA by abstaining on the issue instead of following the whip’s instructions to vote against.

However, 15 Labour MPs actually voted against the UK remaining in the EEA. This is a small minority – less than 6 per cent of our MPs – but their views cannot and should not be dismissed.

A few commentators suggested the division on the Labour side fell along geographical lines, with London MPs in favour of staying in the EEA and non-London MPs against. But this is not supported by the numbers. Fifty-three of the 76 Labour MPs voting for the EEA actually represent seats outside of London, and a majority of those 76 represent seats in Leave-voting regions.

A number of objections are raised against the EEA in Commons debates by MPs in both main parties. Some say that if we stay in the EEA, we will somehow have blocked “the will of the people” – even though nothing like that was put on the Brexit referendum ballot paper. It seems that some commentators are determined to tell us all Brexit voters specifically wanted to come out of the single market and the customs union. In reality, we have absolutely no idea where they stand on these issues apart from the fact that they did think leaving the institution of the EU was a good idea – and that could have been for a number of very different reasons.

Yet none of the objections I’ve heard have gone to the heart of where most concern lies about the EEA: immigration and the continuation of some form of free movement, a requirement of participating in the EEA.

I am the son of an immigrant and represent a constituency where the majority of families are of immigrant stock. But many of the communities Labour represents are the opposite, which is why more than half the seats we hold voted to leave the EU. That doesn’t mean that people are xenophobic or racist, but there is concern about the levels of immigration to certain places and, as I’ve said before, we cannot duck or ignore it. Honesty is required: views are just as strong, if not stronger, in relation to non-EU immigration as they are in relation to EU immigration.

There are parallels between the discontent in some traditional Labour-voting areas about EU immigration and the same discontent regarding Commonwealth countries in the 1960s. There was, after all, a form of free movement from the Commonwealth until 1971 – my own father took advantage of that.

I have never denied that immigration can pose both economic and cultural challenges to communities, but it need not be this way if we deal with it in the right way. A reform package of policies to better manage migration from the EU could include things like action to prevent the undercutting of wages by immigrants, removing newcomers after nine months if they fail to find a job, and putting in place a bigger infrastructure fund to help mitigate the impact of migration on local communities.

I would add that we need to do far more to help integrate immigrants into local communities, as the All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Integration, which I chair, argues in our report Integration not demonisation. My father was so successful in this regard that he married an English woman and had mixed heritage children.

We can do all of these things now while we are still in the EEA because of our EU membership.

But what are the real underlying causes of concern about immigration? Not enough decent, affordable housing. A shortage of school places. An NHS in crisis. Not enough well-paid and decent jobs. These problems will not disappear or be mitigated if we leave the EEA. They will get worse because there will be less revenue going to the Exchequer to pay for these things.

The underlying problems we have are no more the fault of European immigrants now than they were the fault of Commonwealth citizens back in the 1960s. And make no mistake: people were saying exactly the same things in traditional Labour-voting areas about the Windrush generation, South Asian immigration and the likes of my father being the cause of those problems way back then. Ending Commonwealth free movement then and ending EU free movement now did not and will not solve these problems, and deep down we know it.

In the Commons debate on the 1971 Immigration Act which restricted Commonwealth immigration, Labour’s then shadow home secretary Jim Callaghan said, “Decent housing, decent schooling, good amenities in the areas where they are most needed… in my view, this is the way, rather than by a bill like this in which we should deal with the problem of the immigrant, if indeed it is a problem of the immigrant.”

That is why Labour governments, including that of Callaghan when he became prime minister, have always principally addressed these problems by properly funding the NHS, by building more affordable homes, investing in our schools, introducing a minimum wage and so on.

By acquiescing in the fiction that immigrants are ultimately the problem and that these underlying issues will be resolved if EU free movement ends, all we do is put British jobs at risk – which would be rather odd for a party that claims to represent the interests of “labour”.


Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2298
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

UK could enter association agreement with EU under May plan
Updated / Thursday, 12 Jul 2018 21:40
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0712/978090-brexit-white-paper/

The UK's plan envisages a free trade area between the UK and EU
The British government has published its long-awaited White Paper on its future relationship with the EU.

The plan envisages a free trade area between the UK and EU based on a "common rule book" for the production and sale of goods, as well as for agriculture and fisheries products.

The UK would develop its own services regime, but would seek reciprocal access to the EU financial markets.

Prime Minister Theresa May has said the proposal "is delivering on the vote of the British people", following comments by US President Donald Trump claiming he was unsure whether the different route Mrs May is taking fulfilled the wishes of the people.

The paper proposes a customs partnership that London claims will allow the UK to maintain frictionless trade with the EU, and to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

The White Paper states that the future trade arrangements will mean that the so-called backstop - or insurance policy to avoid a hard border - will never need to come into effect.

The paper says that disputes over how the common rule book should be interpreted would be handled by a Joint Committee and arbitration between both sides.

Britain's proposal for a Brexit deal received a guarded welcome in Brussels, with the European Parliament's delegation saying the wide-ranging draft went in the direction it wanted.

The EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said in a tweet that the paper will be analysed and looks "forward to negotiations with the #UK next week."


Read More:

UK's Brexit plan a 'real blow' to City of London
White Paper on the Future Relationship between the UK and the EU
'A good week for Brexit' - Coveney welcomes clear UK position
Senior UK ministers rally round May following resignations
More Brexit stories

The paper, titled 'The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union', envisages a close future relationship on a range of areas, from the economic sphere, to security, data, science and innovation.

The actual degree to which the UK will be subject to ongoing EU rules and regulations remains the subject of bitter debate within the Conservative Party.

The 98-page document envisages the UK remaining in a number of EU agencies, such as those which government aviation, chemicals and medicines.

However, the EU may frown on third countries being full members of such agencies, especially as they are operated under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The UK will also seek to remain close to the EU's energy and transport markets. In particular, membership of, or some kind of alignment with, the EU's energy market is seen as vital for the continued operation of the Single Electricity Market which operates on the island of Ireland.

The White Paper acknowleges this.

London also seeks to develop a common rule book for state aid and competition law, one of the most tightly regulated aspects of EU membership.

In order to ensure that the UK will not seek to undercut the EU economy after Brexit, the paper proposes "non-regression" clauses that would govern the environment, employment and social rights.

The common rule book would be legislated for in the UK by parliament and the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

On the continuing negotiations between the EU and UK on the Northern Ireland backstop, British sources insist that the White Paper effectively removes the need for the backstop to be ever needed.

Sources say that the Temporary Customs Arrangement (TCA), which was published on 7 June, remains the UK's preferred alternative to the European Commission's version of the backstop, which was enshrined in the draft Withdrawal Agreement as a protocol.

The TCA envisages the backstop being applied UK wide, so as to avoid any checks on the Irish Sea, as well as avoiding a hard land border. London also wants the backstop to be time-limited, coming to an end at the end of 2020.

Both the Irish Government and the European Commission Task Force have dismissed any notion that the backstop would be time-limited, with the EU's chief negotiator insisting that the backstop should be applied to Northern Ireland only.

The Government and EU member states have also rejected the TCA since it did not address the issue of regulatory alignment and the need to avoid checks on whether or not goods and agri-food products comply with a huge range of EU rules.

British officials, however, say that the question of regulatory alignment is dealt with in the White Paper by way of the free trade area, combined with a common rulebook on standards.

Officials acknowledge, however, that the backstop remains the subject of a parallel negotiation between the UK and EU.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney has said the British Government's position on Brexit has become much more credible following the publication of its White Paper today.

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16090
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EU leaders 'open to Brexit compromise', but Theresa May warned they may be setting a trap
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/09/eu-leaders-open-brexit -compromise-theresa-may-warned-may-setting/

Theresa May with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron CREDIT: AFP
Gordon Rayner, political editor 9 AUGUST 2018 • 9:30PM
EU leaders are considering a compromise over Brexit that would allow Britain access to the single market for goods while ending freedom of movement of people.

In the first sign of divergence between EU member states and Brussels’ chief negotiator Michel Barnier, leaders are expected to sound out Theresa May about a compromise at a summit in Salzburg next month.

However, the deal would come at a price, as it would involve Britain accepting all future EU environmental and social protections - which Eurosceptics say is “not Brexit”.

Downing Street is understood to be cautiously optimistic that leaders of the EU27 countries are finally engaging with Mrs May’s Chequers plan for Brexit after Mr Barnier had previously dismissed it as unworkable.

The European Commission declined to comment on the plan, but did not deny that member states “may be discussing it”.

Until now, Mr Barnier has insisted that Britain cannot “cherry pick” parts of EU membership, such as access to the single market, while rejecting others, such as freedom of movement.


However, member states are considering allowing Britain to remain in the single market for goods if it is prepared to tie itself to EU standards on environmental and social protections in perpetuity.

The Chequers plan involves signing up to a “common rulebook” with the EU but allows for Britain to diverge from Brussels in future if Parliament decides to.

A senior Whitehall source said: “The noises coming out of Brussels this week suggest some positive engagement with the Brexit White Paper. That needs to translate into positive discussions in the negotiating room.”

Tory Brexiteers say Mrs May has already conceded too much ground with her Chequers plan, and warned that promising to accept future EU rule changes would turn Britain into a “vassal state”.

David Jones MP, the former Brexit minister, said: “What this shows is that if we talk tough, as we have been doing over no deal, the EU will move towards us.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16090
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robert Kimberley
1 year ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM

Read the book "the Great Deception", a very detailed history of the EU starting after World War1. It was a British French idea that the EU does no longer explain. The plan was to hide its destiny from people and start with simple trading. A federation of Europe, like America. The UK government would be just like a European state with virtually no power at all. Unlike Hitler's idea to create a government in Europe controlled by Germany alone, thus keeping Sovereign States. VAT taxes are forced on all EU countries and the UK VAT almost is primarily collected to pay for inefficient French farmers, yet they own half the tractors in Europe! I think the UK pays more than any other country

The Great Deception: Can the European Union survive? - EU Referendum Edition Paperback – 7 Apr 2016
by Christopher Booker (Author), Richard North (Author)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Deception-European-survive-Referendum/d p/1472939662/


Review
A superb history of the EU and of Britain s relationship with it ... every MP, every senior civil servant, every journalist with any claim to understanding the current state of the country, should read it. --Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday

A tour de force ... a fascinating forensic history of the seen and unseen forces which have brought us to the present point --Spectator

A real page-turner --Church of England Newspaper

About the Author
Christopher Booker writes for the Sunday Telegraph and is the bestselling author of The Seven Basic Plots, The Real Global Warming Disaster, The Great Deception and Scared to Death. He was the founding editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye.

Richard North was formerly a research director in the European Parliament, he is also a political analyst through his EU Referendum blog and an author.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2298
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

England's Mask - A Song for Brexit and Anti Globalisation

Link

https://youtu.be/5UE9WP6gA7w

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wbpoO5aJbBs
https://youtube.com/watch?v=OQyi1hN16e4

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16090
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oldsyphilitic - 1 year ago
I voted Brexit- just to make that clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM
From 1979 until the present day, the UK has been governed by successive neoliberal governments. Between the end of WWII and 1979, average growth was higher then than under neoliberal economic policies that have ensued since then. I never supported Europe because it is undemocratic but to blame our own economic downfall on Europe is delusional. I'm glad we're out but we really could have performed far better than we have and if we don't make some dramatic changes to how the UK is run, we are going to make as much of a hash of Brexit as we have done with European membership

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16090
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

REVEALED: How Whitehall thought British public TOO STUPID to be trusted with EU decision
A SECRET document prepared for pro-Europe Tory Prime Minster Edward Heath shows how the Foreign Office knew EU membership would dismantle Britain as a sovereign nation. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/883540/FCO-30-1048-Brexit-EU-s ecret-document-damned-Britain-EU-membership

By LARA DEAUVILLE
PUBLISHED: 09:01, Fri, Sep 28, 2018 | UPDATED: 20:27, Fri, Sep 28, 2018

More damningly, in line after line, the faceless Whitehall mandarins behind the astonishing briefing paper FCO 30/1048 actively welcome Britain’s decline and Europe’s predominance.

The briefing paper acknowledges that Britain would in time become little more than a puppet state of Brussels, after ceding judicial and executive powers to the fledgling EU – then called the EEC.

But, instead of sounding alarm bells, the authors of the paper warn ministers to hide the truth from the British public.

And, damningly for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, and all those who kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s, the document, known as FCO30/1048, was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost five decades.

What the writers – famously championed by Mr Heath – could not have envisioned was that the British public would see though the audacious abuse of power and vote to LEAVE Europe in a fiercely contested referendum half a century later.

To some critics the lie is at the heart of the Brexit battle faced by Theresa May as she prepares to fae her embattled delegates at Tory Party Conference, in Birmingham next week.

The classified paper, dated April 1971, even suggested the Government should keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership means predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening by which time it would be too late to leave.

Bizarrely FCO 30/1048 reads more like an educated anarchists’ guide to crushing Britain’s political standing on the world stage than the sober briefing of civil service pillars of the British establishment.

Faceless Whitehall mandarins behind the astonishing briefing paper FCO 30/1048 actively welcome Britain’s decline and Europe’s predominance
The language suggests repeatedly that the British people are too stupid to grasp the implications of joining the EEC (which became the EU in 1993) and that indeed this stupidity could be used against them to hide the truth until it was essentially too late to do anything about it.

Again and again they assert that Britain’s parliament will be sidelined and that, sooner rather than later, there will be a United States of Europe with a single currency.

Here we read between the lines of the most damning paragraphs of the FCO 30/1048 and explain what the writers really meant:

The paper starts with a academic discussion of sovereignty – arguing that sovereignty is not necessarily a good thing.

By page five we are left in no doubt as to the author’s position on sovereignty as he writes:

“Sovereignty is a technical concept with in many ways only limited bearing on the questions of power and influence that form the normal preoccupation of foreign policy.”

And after some rambling paragraphs about the Queen having sole sovereign law making power in Britain he cuts to the chase saying:

“Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action.”

The first acknowledgement that Britain was about to transfer significant powers to Europe.

A few paragraphs later he confirms this saying: “we shall be accepting an external legislature which regards itself as having direct powers of legislating with effect within the United Kingdom, even in derogation of United Kingdom statutes, and as having in certain fields exclusive legislative competence, so that our own legislature has none.”

And further the authors not only concede the handing over of power but that this is a no-going back deal:

“we shall be accepting that the Commission will jointly represent the member states, who to that extent will have their individual international negotiating powers limited; and we shall in various fields be accepting a wide degree of coordination of our policy with that of the rest of the Community. All of this we shall be accepting “for an unlimited period,” with no provision for withdrawal.

In a clumsy attempt to diminish the massive changes to the way Britain is governed the writer says: “Overall it is clear that membership of the Community in its present form would involve only limited diminution of external sovereignty in practice.”

But just a page later the author makes it crystal clear that it is just a matter of time before Europe starts eating away at Britain’s ability to govern itself saying: “The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome 'to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples'.”

Paragraph 12(I) is one of the most damning – as it clearly details the way in which EU law will trample over British law. But that this must be kept from the common knowledge of the British people.

He writes: “By accepting the Community Treaties we shall have to adapt the whole range of subsidiary law which has been made by the Communities. Not only this but we shall be making provision in advance for the unquestioned direct application (i.e. without any further participation by Parliament) of Community laws not yet made (even though Ministers would have a part, through membership of the Council, in the making of some of these laws). Community law operates only in the fields covered by the Treaties, viz, customs duties; agriculture; free movement of labour; services and capital; transport; monopolies and restrictive practices; state aid for industry; and the regulation of the coal and steel and nuclear energy industries. Outside this considerable range there would remain unchanged by far the greater part of our domestic law.

“Community law is required to take precedence over domestic law: i.e. if a Community law conflicts with a statute, it is the statute which has to give way. This is something not implied in other commitments which we have entered into in the past. Previous treaties have imposed on us obligations which have required us to legislate in order to fulfil the international obligations set out in the treaty, but any discrepancy between our legislation and the treaty obligations has been solely a question of a possible breach of those international obligations the conflicting statute has still undoubtedly been the law to be applied in this country. But the community system requires that such Community Law as applies directly as law in this country should by virtue of its own legal force as law in this country prevail over conflicting national legislation.”

Clause III adds with shocking prescience that the seismic legal shift would in effect be creating a federal law in a United States of Europe. And this was 46 years ago, back in 1971.

He writes: “The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court’s decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.

"(iv) The Law Officers have emphasised that in accepting Community Law in this country we shall need to make it effective as part of a new and separate legal order, distinct from, but co-existing side by side with, the law of the United Kingdom. They have referred to the basic European Communities Treaty provisions as amounting “in effect to a new body of ‘Federal’ statute law.”

Next he deals with the reality of the homogenising of British life into European life and says:

“In lay terms we may say that if Britain joined the Community there would be many implications for both external and internal (particularly parliamentary) sovereignty. Some of these would be wholly novel, and the general effect particularly in the longer turn would be of more pervasive and wide-ranging change than with any earlier commitments. Largely this is because the Community treaties when drawn up were seen as arrangements not merely for collaboration but for positive integration of large parts of the economic and social life of the Member States. As a result the conventional theoretical line dividing internal from external affairs has become blurred, a process which as we have seen is already advancing with the development of transnational economic activity.”

The patronising tone deepens further as the writer suggests Britain is populated by xenophobes who have a large ‘mistrust of foreigners.’ He bizarrely quotes novelist Nancy Mitford saying: “Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

He writes:

15.(i) National Identity: "We are all deeply conscious through tradition, upbringing and education of the distinctive fact of being British. Given our island position and long territorial and national integrity, the traditional relative freedom from comprehensive foreign, especially European, alliances and entanglements, this national consciousness may well be stronger than that of most nations.

"When “sovereignty” is called into question in the debate about entry to the Community, people may feel that it is this “Britishness” that is at stake. Hence Mr Rippon’s pointed question “are the French any less French?” for their membership. There is another, less attractive, aspect of this national pride. This is the large measure of dislike and mistrust of foreigners that persists in Britain. Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

"(iii) Remoteness of the Bureaucracy: It is generally acknowledged that in modern industrialised society the impersonal and remote workings of the Government bureaucracy are sources of major anxiety and mistrust. The operations of democracy seem decreasingly fitted to control the all-embracing regulatory activities of the Civil Service. In entry to the Community we may seem to be opting for a system in which bureaucracy will be more remote (as well as largely foreign) and will operate in ways many of which are already determined and which are deeply strange to us. This bureaucracy is by common consent more powerful than compared with the democratic systems of the Community than is ideal. Yet the way to remedy this balance without reducing the Community to a mere standing association for negotiation between national Ministers is by strengthening the Community’s democratic processes which in turn means more change and more “loss of sovereignty.”

The following paragraph iv is so damningly anti-British it reads like the ramblings of some pseudo Guy Burgess type Oxbridge communist attacking, as it does, Britain’s idea she has any power on the world stage as fantasy.

He writes:

"(iv) National Power: As explained in paragraph 6 above, questions of power and influence have a close popular connection with ideas of sovereignty. The British have long been accustomed to the belief that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world and that in ordering our own affairs we are beholden to none. Much of this is mere illusion. As a middle power we can proceed only by treaty, alliance and compromise. So we are dependent on others both for the effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial and international financial conditions which govern our own economy. But this fact though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of greater British power. Joining the Community does strike at these attitudes: it is a further large step away from what is thought to be unfettered national freedom and a public acknowledgement of our reduced national power; moreover, joining the Community institutionalises in a single, permanent coalition the necessary process of accommodation and alliance over large areas of policy, domestic as well as external. Even though these areas may be less immediately relevant to survival than defence, as covered by NATO, the form of the Community structure and the intentions explicit in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome emphasise the merging of national interests.”

In a section that could have been written 46 minutes ago rather than 46 years ago he deals with the inevitable – and welcome – single currency, and the prospect of an EU army.

He writes: “…but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy. This sort of grouping would bring major politico/economic advantages but would take many years to develop and to win political acceptance. If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.”

Towards the end the anti-British, pro-Europe rhetoric is in full flow, accepting Britain’s notion of itself as an independent state would be completely dismantled. Britain would be a European state, it’s Parliament neutered.

"19...then over a wide range of subjects (trade, aid, monetary affairs and most technological questions) Community policies toward the outside world would be common or closely harmonised. Although diplomatic representation would remain country by country its national role would be much diminished since the instructions to representatives would have been coordinated among member states. By the end of the century with effective defence and political harmonisation the erosion of the international role of the member states could be almost complete. This is a far distant prospect; but as members of the Community our major interests may lie in its progressive development since it is only when the Western Europe of which we shall be a part can realise its full potential as a political as well as economic unit that we shall derive full benefits from membership."

"20. …of the functions of the Community could probably only take place with concomitant development of the institutions of the Community. It is hard to envisage the necessary decisions being taken under the present organisation of the Community; more effective decision-making at Community level would either require majority voting on an increasing range of issues in the Council or stronger pressures to reach quick decisions by consensus. In either case the role of the Commission would become more important as the Community became responsible for the regulation of wider areas of the internal affairs of the member states and this would in turn increase the need to strengthen the democratic institutions of the Community, including perhaps a directly elected Parliament. In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well as the erosion of 'parliamentary sovereignty'."

FCO 30/1048 even predicts Michel Barnier’s current attempt to bully and punish Britain for having the temerity to leave the EU saying member states would probably nominally have the ability to leave until about the year 2000, but such a move would have increasingly damaging economic consequences for the defector.”

And in yet another sideswipe at the British public he says it will be important for politicians to deal with – or cover-up – “anxieties about British power and influence (masquerading under the term sovereignty) by presenting the choice between the effect of entry and on Britain’s power and influence in a rapidly changing world.”

And the pressing need to cover-up the realities goes on in the next paragraph where he writes:

“After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community. This counsel of perfection may be the more difficult to achieve because these same unpopular measures may sometimes be made more acceptable if they are put in a Community context, and this technique may offer a way to avoid the more sterile forms of inter-governmental bargaining. But the difference between on the one hand explaining policy in terms of general and Community-wide interest and, on the other, blaming membership for national problems is real and important.”

Finally, in conclusion, the writers concede openly that Parliament will be made effectively redundant saying:

“To control and supervise this process it will be necessary to strengthen the democratic organisation of the Community with consequent decline of the primacy and prestige of the national parliaments.”

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group