Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay

[jollyjacktar]

Looks like they're going to be in the hurt locker.  No doubt she feels like Harper felt on election night.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Election night chaos with the possibility of a hung Parliament.Tories may have lost their majority.If this happens maybe no Brexit.

Still a lot of confusion because the predictions are based on exit polls which could be wrong. As for Brexit, I think that horse has already bolted the barn - there is no going back.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest from BBC attached - 641/650 seats reporting with Team Blue:  UK in a minority (source).

If the Tories couldn't make all the changes they wanted under their majority, wonder how easy it'll be if it ends up a minority again?

op:

 

[The Bread Guy]

And the latest (source) ...

 

[Kirkhill]

Meh....

Democracy.

:cheers:

 

[tomahawk6]

Looks like a Tory- DUP government.DUP is a fan of Brexit. May should not have called for an election, she had 3 more years before the next election.

 

[Kirkhill]

Looks like a Tory- DUP government.DUP is a fan of Brexit. May should not have called for an election, she had 3 more years before the next election.

That was then.  This is now. 

The only thing you can say for sure is it is time to pull your investments in pollsters, pundits and prognosticators.

The gods laugh.

 

[FJAG]

Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

At least they wouldn't be contesting the original text....

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm enjoying the photos of Lord Buckethead running against May in her riding.  And Elmo, too.

 

[cavalryman]

Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".

:cheers:

And yet it still sounds more sensible than the NDP's LEAP manifesto  [

 

[FJAG]

And yet it still sounds more sensible than the NDP's LEAP manifesto  [

True that although a bit apple and oranges.  ;D

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Both require faith.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".

That, and wanting to keep Northern Ireland British. 

With them being the king makers, I wonder how easy this guy's job's going to be?  Especially with a Northern Ireland-Ireland border that's used to being a lot more easy to get through lately than it used to be during The Troubles.  Not to mention that whole flag fracas.

Interesting times, indeed ...

 

[a_majoor]

The EU makes the case against itself in trying to discredit the UK's negotiating team. It seems lack of self awareness permeates much of the globalist Political and Bureaucratic classes:

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/eu-authoritarianism-complexity/

The EU: Authoritarianism Through Complexity
By George Friedman

In recent weeks, EU negotiators have claimed that the British negotiators of Brexit are not sufficiently sophisticated to understand the complex issues being dealt with, and that, in essence, it is frustrating for EU negotiators to deal with unskilled negotiators. I have found that dealing with unskilled negotiators has frequently created opportunities for me, but apparently the EU wants to have a better team to play against.

A great deal of this is, of course, political maneuvering. The EU desperately wants to avoid a British withdrawal from the bloc. By making this charge, it hopes to discredit the British negotiating team and sow distrust between the British public and the negotiators. Implicit in what is being said is that the British team is going to fail to get a good deal for Britain, and that therefore the risks of Brexit for Britain are pyramided. Why the EU wouldn’t keep this fact secret, and negotiate a superb deal for itself, is a mystery, but the posture is almost that the EU wants to save the British from their own stupidity.

It’s not a bad maneuver, but it unravels at a certain point. The British team consists of well-educated and experienced civil servants. In claiming that this team is not up to the task of understanding the complexities of EU processes and regulations, the EU has made the strongest case possible against itself. If these people can’t readily grasp the principles binding Britain to the EU, then how can mere citizens understand them? And if the principles are beyond the grasp of the public, how can the public trust the institutions? We are not dealing here with the complex rules that allow France to violate rules on deficits but on the fundamental principles of the European Union and the rights and obligations – political, economic and moral – of citizens. If the EU operating system is too complex to be grasped by British negotiators, then who can grasp it?

The EU’s answer to this is that the Maastricht treaty, a long and complex document, can best be grasped by experts, particularly by those experts who make their living by being Maastricht treaty experts. These experts and the complex political entities that manage them don’t think they have done a bad job managing the European Union. In spite of the nearly decadelong economic catastrophe in Southern Europe, they are content with their work. In their minds, the fault generally lies with Southern Europe, not the EU; the upheaval in Europe triggered by EU-imposed immigration rules had to do with racist citizens, not the EU’s ineptness; and Brexit had to do with the inability of the British public to understand the benefits of the EU, not the fact that the benefits were unclear and the rules incomprehensible. The institutionalized self-satisfaction of the EU apparatus creates a mindset in which the member publics must live up to the EU’s expectations rather than the other way around.

The EU has become an authoritarian regime insisting that it is the defender of liberal democracy. There are many ways to strip people and governments of their self-determination. The way the EU has chosen is to create institutions whose mode of operation is opaque and whose authority cannot be easily understood. Under those circumstances, the claim to undefined authority exercised in an opaque manner becomes de facto authoritarianism – an authoritarianism built on complexity. It is a complexity so powerful that the British negotiating team is deemed to be unable to grasp the rules.

In essence, the British position seems simple. The U.K. wants to be part of a European free trade zone, modified again like it has been in the past. It wants to determine its own fate rather than be governed by the EU. If there is to be aid to member states, then it will be voted on by the Parliament. In other words, they do not want to disrupt trade. Nor do they want to be governed by a system that doesn’t work very well.

So long as the British negotiating team plays by EU rules, it will lose. The myriad points of darkness that make up the vast complexity of the EU structure cannot be negotiated. In part, they exist so that they cannot be understood. If the British negotiators start with the elegant institutional and moral principles that frame their unwritten constitution, they can present the terms under which they will work with the EU. Not to worry – the Germans won’t stop trading with the British. They can’t stop, and the British will have the upper hand if they employ British aplomb and remember that excluding Britain from the free trade zone is not an option for the EU. From there, it is simple.

 

[Kirkhill]

I hear the voice of Humphrey - 

Secret document FCO 30/1048 kept truth about EU from British for 30 years

A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late.

By LARA DEAUVILLE
PUBLISHED: 16:01, Fri, Nov 24, 2017 | UPDATED: 17:43, Fri, Nov 24, 2017

Almost all of the shocking predictions – from the loss of British sovereignty, to monetary union and the over-arching powers of European courts – have come true.

But 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.

The classified paper, dated April 1971, 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.

That last detail was the only thing the disgraceful paper – prepared for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) – got wrong.

This 1971 document shows exactly what the plan was

The unknown author – a senior civil servant – correctly predicted the then European Economic Community (the EEC effectively became the EU in 1993) was headed for economic, monetary and fiscal union, with a common foreign and defence policy, which would constitute the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty since 1066.

He went on to say “Community law” would take precedence over our own courts and that ever more power would pass away from Parliament to the bureaucratic system centred in Brussels.

The author even accurately asserts that the increased role of Brussels in the lives of the British people would lead to a “popular feeling of alienation from Government”.

But shockingly politicians were advised “not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures… to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”.

Prime Minister Edward Heath kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s

They were told to preserve the impression that the British Government was still calling the shots rather than an unelected body of foreign politicians – and that the ruse would last “for this century at least” – by which time Britain would be so completely chained to Brussels it would be impossible to leave.

Document FCO30/1048, which has now been declassified under the 30-year rule, still shocks and angers Brexiteers.

Annabelle Sanderson, a Brexit expert and former advisor to Nigel Farage said: “Despite all the claims from politicians of many parties that the EU was not about becoming a central state this 1971 document shows that is exactly what the plan was.

“Arch Remoaners from Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories need to check this out and ask themselves why they are MPs if they don’t actually want Westminster to be in charge of this country.

“We voted for Brexit what needs to happen is a proper clean break from Brussels so we can once again become a sovereign nation with money being spent in this country on services we need and have Parliament and courts making and ruling on the laws.”

Document FCO30/1048 still shocks and angers Brexiteers

The writer and journalist Christopher Booker, one of the founders of the satirical magazine Private Eye, said: “Here was a civil servant advising that our politicians should connive in concealing what Heath was letting us in for, not least in hiding the extent to which Britain would no longer be a democratic country but one essentially governed by unelected and unaccountable officials.

“One way to create an illusion that this system was still democratic, this anonymous mandarin suggested, would be to give people the chance to vote for new representatives at European, regional and local levels.

“A few years later, we saw the creation of an elected European Parliament – as we see today a craze for introducing elected mayors, as meaningless local figureheads.”

The pro-Europe Sir Edward Heath was leader of the Conservative Party from 1965 to 1975.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public

 

[Kirkhill]

And this -

'No EU-UK deal? It is not the end of the world', says WTO chief

Liam Halligan
25 NOVEMBER 2017 • 9:43PM

Roberto Azevedo is not your typical Brazilian. Quietly spoken, and instinctively cautious, the director general of the World Trade Organisation is a career diplomat to his well-manicured fingertips. While a highly effective communicator – fluent in four languages – he belies the national stereotype for flair and flamboyance.

Azevedo, though, is a major figure on the global political stage – by far and away the most important trade diplomat on earth. As such, he’s been taking a keen interest in, and has some interesting thoughts on, the UK’s Article 50 negotiations with the EU.

.... If Britain fails to strike a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU ahead of March 2019, when we’re scheduled to leave, then UK-EU trade reverts to WTO rules. While some claim this would be a disaster, not least parliamentarians determined to frustrate Brexit, Azevedo disagrees.

“About half of the UK’s trade is already on WTO terms – with the US, China and several large emerging nations where the EU doesn’t have trade agreements,” he says. “So it’s not the end of the world if the UK trades under WTO rules with the EU.”

"If you don’t have a fully functioning FTA with the EU, there could be rigidities and costs – but it’s not like trade between the UK and EU is going to stop. There will be an impact, but I suppose it is perfectly manageable"

Acknowledging that an FTA would be best, with WTO rules involving reciprocal UK-EU tariffs, Azevedo still gainsays the gloom-mongers. “If you don’t have a fully functioning FTA with the EU, there could be rigidities and costs – but it’s not like trade between the UK and EU is going to stop. There will be an impact, but I suppose it is perfectly manageable.”

He points out that to maintain current levels of access in nations where the EU has already struck FTAs, the UK will need to negotiate new agreements with such countries after Brexit. But won’t the fact that EU agreements already exist with such countries help the UK to reach such deals? “Trade deals are always complex,” says Azevedo. “But it may be helpful as some of the trade harmonisation is already there – that could act as a shortcut.”

While the EU has cut around 50 FTAs, most are with very small countries. Despite 60 years of trying, Brussels has failed to strike deals with the US, China, Brazil, India and almost all other large economies. Why is this? “Trade deals are difficult but there is an additional complicating factor for the EU, which is agriculture,” says Azevedo. “Once you start negotiating with a big agricultural exporter, they want market access – and, for the EU, that’s a sensitive sector, both politically and economically, a sector that makes itself heard.”

After Brexit, Britain can be more flexible in its approach and quicker to react within the WTO, as you don’t have to coordinate with all the other members of the EU
As the global centre of economic gravity shifts east, multilateral institutions are having to adapt. While Azevedo’s own appointment, in 2013, reflected this shifting balance of power, does he feel there’s further to go? “The WTO was updated with the entry of China in 2001, and Russia in 2012 – two very large and important economies,” he said. “That represents an update – and these members are very active, so the WTO is changing.”

And what difference will the UK make at the WTO, acting as an independent trading nation for the first time since 1973? “I hope Britain will help co-operation among nations – which has always been your traditional approach,” says Azevedo. “The UK has many qualified professionals – and generally liberal views on trade.”

After Brexit, Britain can be “more flexible in its approach and quicker to react within the WTO, as you don’t have to coordinate with all the other members of the EU”, observes Azevedo. “You will lose the weight of the EU as a market, but the UK is by no standards a minor economy or a minor player in the multilateral system.”

As our conversation draws to a close, Azevedo smiles for the first time, revealing a big toothy grin. “I think Britain has an opportunity,” he says, “a chance to contribute in a way that is consistent with the quality of your professionals and the size and importance of your economy.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/25/no-eu-uk-deal-not-end-world-says-head-wto/

 

[FJAG]

The latest cost of quitting Brussels? British farmers learn of sprouts crisis because of a shortage of seasonal workers from Europe  ;D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5117679/The-latest-cost-quitting-Brussels-sprouts-crisis.html

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

A good example of the quality of most Euro MEPs and their thought processes:

EU should 'force UK to give us English language after Brexit', former Italian PM says

The European Union should adopt English as one of its most prominent languages after Brexit because the move would "force" the UK to "give to us one of the very best products of Britain", a former Italian prime minister has said.
Mario Monti, who is also a former EU commissioner, said Europeans "should find ways to upgrade the use of English" in official bodies after Britain's departure from the EU.

The move would serve "two purposes" - forcibly taking one of Britain's "very best products", and increasing the European Union's competitiveness with the UK on the world stage.

The comments prompted raised eyebrows among Eurosceptic Tory MPs, although Peter Bone, a member of the Commons Brexit committee said: "I thank the former prime minister for recognising that English is the language of business and the international language.

"I think that's supposed to be a compliment."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/25/eu-should-force-uk-give-us-english-language-brexit-former-italian/

 

[daftandbarmy]

The English Channel: the World's Largest Tank Trap


German ambassador: second world war image of Britain has fed Euroscepticism

Exclusive: Peter Ammon says some Brexiters were motivated by a sense of national identity built around UK standing alone

“I spoke to many of the Brexiteers, and many of them said they wanted to preserve a British identity and this was being lost in a thick soup of other identities. Obviously every state is defined by its history, and some define themselves by what their father did in the war, and it gives them great personal pride.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/29/german-ambassador-peter-ammon-second-world-war-image-of-britain-has-fed-euroscepticism