• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay

While Britain is getting all the attention on this side of the pond the EU is just as bothered.

A great article in Der Spiegel on the State of Play.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-triggers-eu-power-struggle-between-merkel-and-juncker-a-1100852-2.html

Short form: Juncker and Schulz may have over-played their hand.  They sought to side-line the nation states of Europe, a long held dream of the Socialist International (and for that matter the Catholic Church).  It looks as if Britain's leaving has moved the dynamic in favour of the nation-state.

More to follow.

Meanwhile:

  a review of the 10 year trend lines of the major stock market indicators shows that the Brexit blip doesn't escape the level of background noise - so much for armageddon.

and

in the UK, a scenario that Ralph Klein would have recognized, a stampede of politicians trying to get to the head of the parade.  Along the way they are doing their level best to secure a hold on the most powerful negotiating tool since Colt's Peacemaker - the right to sign off on Article 50 -

Britain has given their politicians (and for that matter the European ones) a great opportunity to secure a better arrangement.

A loaded gun - and a stampede of politicians knifing each other to get at it.

Better than day time soaps.



 
Further to the debate on who has the greater right to represent Europe - Juncker's Commission and Schulz's Parliament or the Heads of the National Governments:

No.1-EP-2014-general-results.png


Most countries couldn't get more than 50% of their population to be bothered to vote.  Only 3 countries rose to at least Canadian levels of involvement (perhaps unsurprisingly two of them are Belgium and its gated community of Luxembourg) and Slovakia only say 13% of its population turn out.

The vast majority of Europeans just couldn't be bothered.

Meanwhile "About one-third of the 751 MEPs are Eurosceptic." per the BBC

So the majority couldn't be bothered and of the minority that could fully one third (from all points of the political compass) are opposed to ever greater integration.

And finally

Europeans opposed to more Europe:

_89905503_how_europeans_view_eu_gra624.png
 
And Bryony Gordon presents "A Regiment of Women"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/while-male-leaders-stoop-to-willy-waving-it-is-the-women-who-are/

Poor old John Knox.  [:)

For what it's worth - I'd be backing Andrea Leadsom right about now.
 
Don't read too much into the Belgian election turnout.  In Belgium, voting is mandatory.
 
That explains something:

They also have one of the largest Nationalist sectors - Vlaams et al.

Thanks YZT
 
daftandbarmy said:
Like the gross mismanagement of colonies? :)
  You may inadvertently or maybe intentionally hit on a significant truth.  The direct descendants of the folks who screwed up the Congo and other such places are the mandarins that are running the EU. Perhaps the same mindset prevails.  It is indeed chapel vs. church as Chris suggested a couple of pages ago. Leopold of Belgium believed in the hereditary divine right of kings to rule without interference from the masses and established the Congo as his own personal fiefdom in order to exercise this privilege.  In this he was aided by thousands of his own countrymen who took advantage of his stance to fill their pockets. 

Here is a thought to think on. Democracy has done its most development in countries which were at the very least protestant and more often than not reform or chapel dominated.  Countries dominated by either the RC or by the 'so-called' enlightenment lagged far behind in the emergence of a dominant democratic movement and as France demonstrated, such movement as there was often resulted in very bloody revolt.
 
On the Somme, Democracy and Dependency.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-01/author-michael-morpurgo-writes-poem-to-mark-100-years-since-the-battle-of-the-somme/

CHcwfIhWEAAwLF5.jpg



https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cardinal-sarah-those-who-want-to-eradicate-poverty-make-christ-a-liar-they

A poor person feels dependent on God; this bond is the foundation of spirituality.

- Yes, poverty is a Christian value. The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish, and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God.
 
YZT580 said:
  You may inadvertently or maybe intentionally hit on a significant truth.  The direct descendants of the folks who screwed up the Congo and other such places are the mandarins that are running the EU. Perhaps the same mindset prevails.  It is indeed chapel vs. church as Chris suggested a couple of pages ago. Leopold of Belgium believed in the hereditary divine right of kings to rule without interference from the masses and established the Congo as his own personal fiefdom in order to exercise this privilege.  In this he was aided by thousands of his own countrymen who took advantage of his stance to fill their pockets. 

Here is a thought to think on. Democracy has done its most development in countries which were at the very least protestant and more often than not reform or chapel dominated.  Countries dominated by either the RC or by the 'so-called' enlightenment lagged far behind in the emergence of a dominant democratic movement and as France demonstrated, such movement as there was often resulted in very bloody revolt.

Although there may indeed be a link between Protestantism and Democracy, I'm a bit more inclined to suggest that the development of the "maritime system" by the Netherlands and then England starting in the 1500's probably had a lot more to do with this. Continental powers needed to spend most of their time and energy looking over their shoulders at other continental powers, and needed large, effective hierarchies to manage the resources needed to maintain effective standing armies.

Maritime powers, in contrast, could spend much more time and energy focused on getting rich through trade, since the Navy was generally sufficient to maintain security (this works best when you are an island, or a separate Continent, as in the case of the United States, the Netherlands and earlier the Hanse always had a land border to defend as well...). Traders generally resent people trying to muscle in on their business, regardless if these are pirates, other traders or their own government, so work to ensure people are NOT in their business, and support structures and institutions which give them the most leeway.

Britons, being a "nation of shopkeepers" from way back, are simply reverting to form. When 60% of your laws are being imposed on you by outsiders who you don't even have any means of redress against, then you most certainly will go to support the structures and institutions  that impede your work the least.
 
Thucydides said:
Although there may indeed be a link between Protestantism and Democracy, I'm a bit more inclined to suggest that the development of the "maritime system" by the Netherlands and then England starting in the 1500's probably had a lot more to do with this. Continental powers needed to spend most of their time and energy looking over their shoulders at other continental powers, and needed large, effective hierarchies to manage the resources needed to maintain effective standing armies.

Maritime powers, in contrast, could spend much more time and energy focused on getting rich through trade, since the Navy was generally sufficient to maintain security (this works best when you are an island, or a separate Continent, as in the case of the United States, the Netherlands and earlier the Hanse always had a land border to defend as well...). Traders generally resent people trying to muscle in on their business, regardless if these are pirates, other traders or their own government, so work to ensure people are NOT in their business, and support structures and institutions which give them the most leeway.

Britons, being a "nation of shopkeepers" from way back, are simply reverting to form. When 60% of your laws are being imposed on you by outsiders who you don't even have any means of redress against, then you most certainly will go to support the structures and institutions  that impede your work the least.

Yep....

'Cargoes'

Quinquireme of Nineveh from distant Ophir,
Rowing home to haven in sunny Palestine,
With a cargo of ivory,
And apes and peacocks,
Sandalwood, cedarwood, and sweet white wine.

Stately Spanish galleon coming from the Isthmus,
Dipping through the Tropics by the palm-green shores,
With a cargo of diamonds,
Emeralds, amethysts,
Topazes, and cinnamon, and gold moidores.

Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack,
Butting through the Channel in the mad March days,
With a cargo of Tyne coal,
Road-rails, pig-lead,
Firewood, iron-ware, and cheap tin trays.

John Masefield

https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/cargoes.html

 
Isn't there something more than coincidence that the rise of the "maritime system" in the Netherlands and "England"/Britain was concurrent with both the reformation and with the local attraction to Calvinism?

In the North, which had only been attached to the Church system for a couple of hundred years, the preferred mechanism for resolving disputes was the Thing - a gathering of peers.  They didn't appeal to higher authority, lord or priest, they resolved matters themselves.

The notion seems to have had some currency in Switzerland for some time.  Apparently Zwingli was hired by City Council as the People's Priest, not appointed by the Church - and this was contemporaneous with Luther's call for reforms.  The same City Council called for debate and a plebiscite on the issue of smashing statues with the outcome determined by a show of hands.

The Swiss still prefer the local referendum.

The British prefer trial by jury of peers to judgement by authority.

The Scots Covenanters and their English counterparts, the presbyterians, like the Swiss chose to elect their priests locally and retain the right to fire them and hire replacements.

I am not debating whether protestants are nicer people than catholics, or better, or better intentioned.  Clearly they are not.  We have both burned a lot of witches and quite a few of each other.  But I do think there is a difference in cultural affinities.

Nor do I think it is a British thing although I do think there is some merit to the notion of Britain as being a "nest of pirates" - a phrase apparently coined by Phillip II of Spain.

Along the Atlantic Seaboard it is hard to the point of being impossible to determine when nationalities begin and end. 

Scots found refuge in the Netherlands and also, in turn, fought for the Netherlands against the Spanish.
Henry VIII's Mary Rose foundered, in part, because the crew spoke a number of languages and lost cohesion when panicked.
Dutch Sea Beggars found refuge in English ports.
The Sea Beggars also found refuge in La Rochelle
Richelieu had to hire Dutch and English ships to take on La Rochelle
Champlain's neighbour in Brouage was a Dutchman who carved on the lintel above his door "Wol Gode Betrout Die Heft Wolgebout - He who puts his trust in God has built well"
Champlain served alongside Brits in Brittany against the Guise faction.
Champlain surrendered his post of Quebec to merchants from Dieppe who had business interests in London and La Rochelle and who, like Radissons and Grosseillers, sailed under the British flag.  The Kirkes were subsequently burned in effigy in France as traitors.

Brits and French sailed together to take on Spaniards.
Dutch, Brits and French, and Spanish Moriscos, took to the seas and turned Turk, sailing from Moorish ports like Sallee, rather than serve under the Pope.
The same people later found refuge in places like Port Royal Jamaica and New Orleans and flew what ever flag pleased them.

The common denominator is a rejection of authority, and a "catch me if you can" life.  Property was to be earned, taken, possessed, owned by the actions of the individual.  It was not something to be surrendered to authority and redistributed, to be dispensed.

Were they nice people? No, not necessarily.

They were different people - and they saw the world differently and regardless of the language they spoke: Dutch, Breton, Provencale, Xaintongeais, Palatine German, any of the Swiss languages or even Spanish or Italian, they all ended up finding a secure refuge in the United Kingdom under the Union Flag and the Hanoverian monarchs.

Refugees from the Languedoc and Savoy became:

Commander in Chief British Forces in 1759 - Jean Ligonier
Lt Governor of Nova Scotia prior to Cornwallis - Paul Mascarene
Governor of Jersey  and Peer of Ireland - Maj General Joan Cavalier

Other foreigners of note to the army are names like Prevost, Bouquet, de Rottenberg.......

That is Britain's exceptionalism. In my opinion.
 
Then I guess it took them a long, long time, but they just (finally?) voted not to take any more refugees.  ;D
 
This latest mob doesn't appear overly willing to sign up for King and Country - and a decent beer ration.
 
And the heirs of Merovech seem to be taking another hit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/03/angela-merkel-to-oust-jean-claude-juncker-as-europe-splits-deepe/
 
http://takimag.com/article/ancient_history_all_over_again_taki?utm_source=Taki%27s+Magazine+List&utm_campaign=fc2867c231-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f7706afea2-fc2867c231-379415789#axzz4DLrcQFO5

Ancient History All Over Again

by Taki Theodoracopulos

July 01, 2016

The two most beautiful words in the history of the world, and in any language, are “Molon Labe,” the accent on the second syllable of both words, the b pronounced v in the second. These two little words were the laconic response by King Leonidas of Sparta to the offer by the great Persian king Xerxes of not only safe passage, if they lay down their arms, but also a settlement of lands of better quality than any they had possessed up to that time.
     
You know what I’m talking about. The Hot Gates, or Thermopylae, in Greek. The year is 480 B.C., the month is August, and the Persians number more than 1,250,000 fighters, accompanied by 1,800 triremes in support. The rest of the Greeks under Themistocles are praying for time—and gales—farther south, and Leonidas has only 300 Spartans he can count on. (The Thebans have already seen the Persian hordes arriving and have left the battlefield.) The Persian scouts who surveyed the Hot Gates’ defenders in astonishment were allowed to gallop around freely. Later in the day an emissary from Xerxes approached the Spartans. The offer of safe passage and riches to come if they lay down their arms was made, followed by Leonidas’ answer, “Molon Labe,” or “Come and get them.” The great Brit historian Tom Holland called these Spartan bits “gems of cool,” and they were the coolest words one could utter in 480 B.C. When the Persians tried to reason with the Spartans, who brazenly combed their long hair, by telling them that their million arrows would hide the sun, they announced this excellent news: “If the Medes hide the sun, then so much the better for us, we can fight in the shade.” (The Spartans thought arrows mere spindles, to be swiped away with their shields.)

“You Brits chose freedom. You should be proud.”

It was gallows humor, but those two words by Leonidas I first heard from my Spartan mother when I was very, very young. They led to immortality for Leonidas and his 300, the preference for death to a life of cowardice and shame, but a richer one, to be sure, and a far more comfortable one. The Spartan never gave it a second thought. “Come and get them” was all he said when asked to lay down his arms. “Molon Labe,” the two greatest words ever uttered.
     
And we all know the rest: After the heroic Spartan stand, Miltiades and 10,000 Athenians slaughtered the Persians on the beaches of Marathon, and Themistocles bottled up the Persian fleet in Salamis and sank it. No Persian invaded Greece ever again, but Alexander went over there and took the whole kit and caboodle. It all started with Leonidas’ two little words. They have obsessed me ever since I was a little boy, and in a very, very small way I’ve tried to live up to them by never backing off, and by hero-worshipping Rommel’s 7th Panzer, the defenders of Iwo Jima, and the U.S. Marine Corps, among many others, including the Polish lancers’ charge at Somosierra (successful) and that of Pickett at Gettysburg (unsuccessful). Which brings me to the present.
     
Two thousand four hundred and ninety-six years later, there are no cool bits. Just a lot of moaning and groaning and “let’s do it all over again” by the losers. No, I am not comparing the self-sacrifice of the Spartans to the Leavers, but freedom is freedom and there are no other words to replace it. Fuck Juncker and the technocratic dictatorship of Brussels—they’ve already enslaved my country, but they will not enslave England. (Scotland will play it like Thebes did in 480, but then it might not.) All people should say “Molon Labe” to the Circe-like offers of money and comfort by the E.U. technocratic hordes, “Molon Labe” until the bureaucracy reforms itself and its rigid, doctrinaire ways. Juncker, an unelected Xerxes but without the king’s grandeur, showed his petty spirit when rebuffed by the Brits last week by puffing up his sunken chest and warning there will be consequences. My arse. All the Brits need to do is trigger Article 50 at their convenience, not Juncker’s, as is the law, and assure countries like Germany and France that “we continue to trade.” Brussels would never reform itself if the status quo prevailed, and would have continued to lie about freedom of “labor” movement, having turned it into free movement for everyone and anyone.

And now for the Greek chorus of women announcing doom and gloom. One American woman wrote that populism, nativism, and isolationism are the future. Bollocks. A Brit hack blamed Boris for the whole thing. More bollocks. A bald NY Times man announced the end of the world. On the BBC, a female academic (who sounded anything but) blamed us oldies. The good professor Starkey had the perfect answer: “Would you prefer we gave two votes to anyone under 30, my dear?”
     
The Greeks fought off the Persians because they tried to conquer us through force of arms. The Brits said no to the E.U. because it tried to conquer through stealth and lies. The E.U. would never reform itself without a push. Now it has been pushed rather hard. Modern Greece chose the easy way six years ago because we no longer have Spartans leading us—just Ephialteses, Ephialtes being the traitor who led the Persians to outflank the 300 through a pass. Greece is an E.U. protectorate, so heaven help us. You Brits chose freedom. You should be proud.
 
The reform may pro may not be related to the Maritime System. The Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta of the time was very Catholic, yet they too were far more "liberal" than their counterparts, and Switzerland is a bit of a conundrum since they were one of the epicentres of the Reformation without being involved in Maritime trade at all....

I suspect that the ability to trade and exposure to large numbers of outside influences had a large effect on the growth of both the Maritime System and the distrust of external hierarchies are all related.

At any rate, the Shopkeepers are back in the saddle, and we can only wait and see how the British use their new powerful negotiating position.
 
Wether it's the wise choice or the bad choice for the UK,well we'll have to wait and see(personally actually not sure if leaving was the best,but ok it's happenend now move forward)

What  i'm shocked(maybe a bit ) about is that Boris Johnson has said he's not the right man to be the future Prime. [:(
And now Nigel Farrage has said he wants his life back,so goodbye. :facepalm:

It's all well and true to light the fire but then when the voting is done and the outcome(you wanted is there)you'll have to stick around and help your country forward on the path chosen,to leave(it in political chaos) after that ,well that's the easy way out(not how it should be done)

That's how i see it.
 
Farage resigns as UKIP leader:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/nigel-farage-resigns-as-ukip-leader

Geez, the party leads are all falling like dominoes. Since when did Britain become such a nation of 'quitters'?
 
In fairness to Johnson - I don't think he had many options, or at least probably didn't see many options available, one Gove stuck the knife in right before Johnson was due to declare his candidacy.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he regretted his decision the morning after.

What a cock-up!

Still, it'll all come right in the end.
 
Back
Top