Brexit busted.

[Freja]

Jimmie Åkesson, party leader of the Sweden Democrats is the only party leader in Sweden who has congratulated the UK on brexit. He wants Sweden to do the same.

He says: "The british vote(to leave EU) has greatly shook up the political elite. Finally a big leap in the right direction! I am a friend of Europe and incredibly proud of our joint heritage. There are lots of things uniting us historically, culturally and politically. But I also have respect for our differences. Let us hope that the UKs brave decision is the beginning to the end of the federalists unpleasant, freedom-hostile plans. Let us, friends of Sweden, friends of Europe walk in the same direction to become one of those brave frontrunning countries. Let us take back our country!"

Once again, congratulations to you! I'm sure you have taken one of the best decisions in modern history!

 

[Vagabond63]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.

Given we're likely to get either Gove or May as Prime Minister imposed on us any time soon, we really shouldn't make judgements about the level of sanity in other countries. At least you get to vote for whichever incompetent gets to screw you over.

Better than having Corbyn who cant even spell his own name, and is supportive of child rape in the name of islam and increasing taxes for the workers to help pay for unemployable migrants

I thought you said that was Blair and the champagne socialist neo-Marxists?

 

[Phoenall]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.

Given we're likely to get either Gove or May as Prime Minister imposed on us any time soon, we really shouldn't make judgements about the level of sanity in other countries. At least you get to vote for whichever incompetent gets to screw you over.

Better than having Corbyn who cant even spell his own name, and is supportive of child rape in the name of islam and increasing taxes for the workers to help pay for unemployable migrants

I thought you said that was Blair and the champagne socialist neo-Marxists?

Which is what Corbyn and the rest of his supporters are, they are the follow on champagne socialists after Blair, Brown and the rest

 

[LastProphet]

from Jun 23, 2016, page 93

Female politician "killed" before "referendum": Brexit 2016 remake of Sweden eurozone 2003
"Murdered" in headlines: all fake blood setting the stage for the BIG BANG.

Talk of setting the stage:
Fake murder of a woman politician before a EU referendum: agenda is NOT to influence the result.
Illuminati don't need that, because the other side is always ALSO led by illuminazi agents whose main role is to validate the rigged results.
Examples other than leaders of the Brexit 2016 and anti-eurozone in Sweden 2003 range from pro-independence in Scotland to anti-gay marriage in Ireland.

So why did the illuminati stage the murders of Lindh in Sweden 2003 and Cox in England 2016?
Answer: psychology, part of creating explanations to solve the contradiction between reality (rallies, stickers) and what will be announced as results.
In other words: have the human cattle accept the simulated reality.
...
BASICS
Apr 2014:
Rigged Scotland's referendum: illuminati jokes with the actor playing #1 and #2 in UK's Britain's biggest lottery winners
Jokes by the Illuminati - mock the human cattle: Rigged Scotland independence referendum mocked by lottery jackpot collector

...

More precisely: the simulated "head to head race" while more than 70% voted LEAVE.

BASICS
BREXIT LEAVE: WHY Illuminati changed 75% to 51% not 48%: FULL script was exposed in advance: start here:
Last Prophet's words (revised July 2016 after the fake coup in Turkey) from Sep 11 2015, one week before the illuminati "victory" in Greece.
In other words: nine months after the illuminati "defeats" in the January 2015 "election" and two monthes after the "NO" to "EU austerity" in the "referendum".
Election repeated Turkey Greece: 2015: parallel reversed script before Brexit
BIG LIE TECHNIQUE: Election repeated Turkey Greece parallel reverse script before Brexit

Apr 2017: Increasingly viciously scary May before June : predicted, explained only by one:
"Theresa May", the main actor in this chapter, was already playing the leading role before May 7, when tranny "Brigitte Macron, first lady of France" will also be placed in the spotlight.
The chapter's title is meant as literal parallelism to both the timing (starting with Theresa May's image in May) and the main agenda (repeat UK "election" to "undo Brexit" in June).
End Times Prophet: Brigitte first lady of France: why tranny scripted as 24 yrs older than pimp Mac

 

[Tommy Tainant]

from Jun 23, 2016, page 93

Female politician "killed" before "referendum": Brexit 2016 remake of Sweden eurozone 2003
"Murdered" in headlines: all fake blood setting the stage for the BIG BANG.

Talk of setting the stage:
Fake murder of a woman politician before a EU referendum: agenda is NOT to influence the result.
Illuminati don't need that, because the other side is always ALSO led by illuminazi agents whose main role is to validate the rigged results.
Examples other than leaders of the Brexit 2016 and anti-eurozone in Sweden 2003 range from pro-independence in Scotland to anti-gay marriage in Ireland.

So why did the illuminati stage the murders of Lindh in Sweden 2003 and Cox in England 2016?
Answer: psychology, part of creating explanations to solve the contradiction between reality (rallies, stickers) and what will be announced as results.
In other words: have the human cattle accept the simulated reality.
...
BASICS
Apr 2014:
Rigged Scotland's referendum: illuminati jokes with the actor playing #1 and #2 in UK's Britain's biggest lottery winners
Jokes by the Illuminati - mock the human cattle: Rigged Scotland independence referendum mocked by lottery jackpot collector

...

More precisely: the simulated "head to head race" while more than 70% voted LEAVE.

BASICS
BREXIT LEAVE: WHY Illuminati changed 75% to 51% not 48%: FULL script was exposed in advance: start here:
Last Prophet's words (revised July 2016 after the fake coup in Turkey) from Sep 11 2015, one week before the illuminati "victory" in Greece.
In other words: nine months after the illuminati "defeats" in the January 2015 "election" and two monthes after the "NO" to "EU austerity" in the "referendum".
Election repeated Turkey Greece: 2015: parallel reversed script before Brexit
BIG LIE TECHNIQUE: Election repeated Turkey Greece parallel reverse script before Brexit

Apr 2017: Increasingly viciously scary May before June : predicted, explained only by one:
"Theresa May", the main actor in this chapter, was already playing the leading role before May 7, when tranny "Brigitte Macron, first lady of France" will also be placed in the spotlight.
The chapter's title is meant as literal parallelism to both the timing (starting with Theresa May's image in May) and the main agenda (repeat UK "election" to "undo Brexit" in June).
End Times Prophet: Brigitte first lady of France: why tranny scripted as 24 yrs older than pimp Mac

Get help mate.

 

[Mindful]

And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.

These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.

Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.


The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’

 

[Tommy Tainant]

And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.

These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.

Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.


The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’

Why does democracy scare you so much ?

 

[Mindful]

And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.

These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.

Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.


The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’

Why does democracy scare you so much ?

Why do you flamebait?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.

These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.

Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.


The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’

Why does democracy scare you so much ?

Why do you flamebait?

You are supposed to add some personal content. Cutnpaste is frowned on without it.

 

[Mindful]

And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.

These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.

Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.


The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’

Why does democracy scare you so much ?

Why do you flamebait?

You are supposed to add some personal content. Cutnpaste is frowned on without it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.

These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.

Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.


The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’

This should have some input from yourself rather than cut and paste. Its in the rules somewhere.

 

[Mindful]

And, as always on Brexit, class differentials are key. So where 47 per cent of those in these Labour Leave constituencies who have a professional qualification would consider supporting a Full Brexit party, among those who only achieved secondary-level education the percentage rises to 55 per cent. More strikingly, where 51 per cent of the educated in these constituencies would welcome Brexit being stopped, just 32 per cent of the less educated would. Forty-eight per cent of poorer voters said they would still vote to leave the EU, against 39 per cent who said they would vote to remain. Worryingly for Labour – or not, given it is now fashioning itself as the party of the pro-EU middle classes – very few people in these Labour Leave constituencies think the party is serious about making Brexit happen. Twenty-seven per cent of those with a professional qualification and just 23 per cent of those without such a qualification believe Labour ‘officially supports’ leaving the EU.

These findings are important because they point, yet again, to the existence of Two Britains. On one side, a comfortable, mostly London-based group of influential players who cheer loudly when any poll suggests people’s support for Brexit is waning, and on the other side some of the least well-off, most ignored voters in the country who see in Brexit a new way of doing politics. When elite Remainers celebrate the deflation of the Brexit spirit, they are celebrating the deflation of the political aspirations of these isolated people. It is elitist reaction disguised in the pseudo-democratic language of having a ‘People’s Vote’ to let people decide on the deal.

Here is the bottom line: to have a second referendum before the result of the first referendum has been fully enacted and given the time and space to take effect would not be an act of democracy, but of anti-democracy. It would be an attempt to usurp the largest democratic vote in British history. It would represent the cynical, Orwellian deployment of pseudo-democratic language to the end of wounding and killing a great and historic act of democratic engagement. And it would tell voters in Labour Leave constituencies, and elsewhere, that they don’t matter. They are irrelevant. Society does not and will not listen to them. This would be the terrible price of a so-called ‘People’s Vote’: in seeking to undermine the democratic decision of June 2016, it would throttle democracy itself. Is remaining attached to Brussels really more important than maintaining the hard-won existence of democracy in the United Kingdom? Remainers must now ask themselves this question.


The terrible price of a ‘People’s Vote’

This should have some input from yourself rather than cut and paste. Its in the rules somewhere.

You think I take you seriously? You're a troll.

 

[Mindful]

I’ve just been reading about Greece, 260bn in bailouts, 322bn in debt. 24bn left in the bank to survive another 2 years, then basically they start paying it back until 2060. And to do that they’ll need above 2% growth year on year...if not then it’ll be back to the ECB (ie the Germans)...

 

[Mindful]

From the pen of Boris Johnson.

So it is “Cabin crew, doors to manual” and, as you settle back and prepare to hand over €20 for an easyMeal, you may be reflecting on that delightful week you just had in the Med – the bustling marinas, the crowded restaurants – and you may conceivably have been persuaded by all those UK cheerleaders for the EU that the euro crisis is indeed at an end.
You may now go along with the fashionable pro-EU narrative, that the nice Mr Draghi of the European Central Bank has cracked it, that the euro is in robust health, that Club Med countries are on the way to durable recoveries. And you may even ask yourself whether they are therefore right – those same London-based cheerleaders for the EU – when they say that this tentative euro recovery proves that the UK’s best bet is to stay in legal lockstep with Brussels, to the point of doing exactly what the EU tells us to do – even when we have no influence on those decisions.

Is that what you have concluded, after a week in the sun? If so, you have been drinking too much retsina. The euro crisis is far from over. The single currency remains an unmitigated disaster. One day it remains highly likely that it will implode. And in the meantime the experience of Greece alone is a lesson in the absolute insanity of any country allowing itself to be bullied by EU negotiators.

Drive around any big Greek city, away from the tourist spots, and in every boarded-up building and smashed window you see the devastation of Greek industry – which, in three years from 2010, went from boasting 80,000 factories to 57,000. In the frenzied anti-establishment graffiti you see the rage of a lost generation of young people who still feel they have no hope of a job. Overall unemployment is still running at 20 per cent; the economy is still a quarter smaller than in 2008; and there are an astonishing 35 per cent of people living in absolute poverty.

That is an extraordinary figure for an EU country; yet it is so high precisely because Greece is an EU country and meekly obeyed the prescriptions of Brussels. It wasn’t just that they could not (or dared not) reclaim their monetary independence. The Greeks were forced – mainly by Angela Merkel of Germany – to accept an austerity regime of draconian budget cuts that became a self‑perpetuating downwards cycle of economic decay.

It is absolutely crucial to understand that when the EU imposed this programme they were not thinking first of Greece or the Greek people. No, they were thinking of the EU; of the balance sheets of EU banks; of the risk to the euro of a Greek default. So the Greeks found themselves in the appalling position of negotiating with people who did not really have their interests at heart, and who believed furthermore that it was politically useful to make an example of Greece, and that Greek suffering might be a memento mori to anyone tempted to differ with the orthodoxy of Brussels (sound familiar?).

Ten years after the crisis began, it is just nonsense to believe that the EU project – to save the euro at all costs – has worked. Yes, Greece has become a kind of economic colony with many Greek assets (state telecoms, 14 regional airports) now owned by Germany. But the economy is still plagued by debt. And as you look around the Mediterranean, you can see elements of the same story: how the euro has not only failed in its objective, but produced the exact opposite of what was intended.

The economic advantages of monetary union were always sketchy – something to do with boosting cross‑border trade by reducing transaction costs. But as Helmut Kohl and others made clear, the real purpose was political – to knit the peoples of the EU together in a union of hearts and minds.

Neither outcome has happened. There has been no measurable intra-EU trade boost as a result of the euro; and instead of producing economic and political convergence, the euro has been a force for divergence, as the northern economies – mainly Germany – have done better, and the less productive economies have done worse, as so many economists predicted before the euro was launched.

Far from dissolving any political tensions between the nations and peoples of the EU, the euro has actually created tensions where none existed before. The last time I was in Athens, I actually heard an anti‑German demonstration outside the foreign ministry: that’s right, people marching against the paymaster of the EU. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and it is the direct result of the euro.

It is true that the Eurozone is benefiting from a general global economic upturn – hence the eager talk of the Remainers in the UK – but it is clear that the weaker economies, notably Italy, are in a much worse position than in 2008 to withstand the next economic shock, banking crisis or whatever. There will be such a shock, of course, and this time, for the euro, it could well be fatal.

In the meantime, the Greek suffering goes on, and the lesson is clear. As the former finance minister, Yannis Varoufakis, has explained, the tragedy of the Greeks was that they never had the nerve to tell their EU masters to get lost. They were never able to take back control, to run their economy in the interest of their electors.

That has a direct read-across for Britain. Under the Chequers proposals, we are about to make a historic mistake and turn this country into a rules-taker from Brussels, with no say on those rules – not just for industrial goods and agri-foods but across a wide range of economic activity. Look at the humiliation of Greece – an EU member – and ask yourself how the EU will legislate with the UK out of the room, and when we can no longer do anything to protect ourselves from the imposition of those rules. Will the EU act in our interests and the interests of UK jobs and growth, or the interests of the EU?

The answer is clear. It is written in graffiti all over Greece. Why, then, are we proposing to turn the UK, in important respects, into the perpetual punk of Brussels? Chuck Chequers.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

From the pen of Boris Johnson.

So it is “Cabin crew, doors to manual” and, as you settle back and prepare to hand over €20 for an easyMeal, you may be reflecting on that delightful week you just had in the Med – the bustling marinas, the crowded restaurants – and you may conceivably have been persuaded by all those UK cheerleaders for the EU that the euro crisis is indeed at an end.
You may now go along with the fashionable pro-EU narrative, that the nice Mr Draghi of the European Central Bank has cracked it, that the euro is in robust health, that Club Med countries are on the way to durable recoveries. And you may even ask yourself whether they are therefore right – those same London-based cheerleaders for the EU – when they say that this tentative euro recovery proves that the UK’s best bet is to stay in legal lockstep with Brussels, to the point of doing exactly what the EU tells us to do – even when we have no influence on those decisions.

Is that what you have concluded, after a week in the sun? If so, you have been drinking too much retsina. The euro crisis is far from over. The single currency remains an unmitigated disaster. One day it remains highly likely that it will implode. And in the meantime the experience of Greece alone is a lesson in the absolute insanity of any country allowing itself to be bullied by EU negotiators.

Drive around any big Greek city, away from the tourist spots, and in every boarded-up building and smashed window you see the devastation of Greek industry – which, in three years from 2010, went from boasting 80,000 factories to 57,000. In the frenzied anti-establishment graffiti you see the rage of a lost generation of young people who still feel they have no hope of a job. Overall unemployment is still running at 20 per cent; the economy is still a quarter smaller than in 2008; and there are an astonishing 35 per cent of people living in absolute poverty.

That is an extraordinary figure for an EU country; yet it is so high precisely because Greece is an EU country and meekly obeyed the prescriptions of Brussels. It wasn’t just that they could not (or dared not) reclaim their monetary independence. The Greeks were forced – mainly by Angela Merkel of Germany – to accept an austerity regime of draconian budget cuts that became a self‑perpetuating downwards cycle of economic decay.

It is absolutely crucial to understand that when the EU imposed this programme they were not thinking first of Greece or the Greek people. No, they were thinking of the EU; of the balance sheets of EU banks; of the risk to the euro of a Greek default. So the Greeks found themselves in the appalling position of negotiating with people who did not really have their interests at heart, and who believed furthermore that it was politically useful to make an example of Greece, and that Greek suffering might be a memento mori to anyone tempted to differ with the orthodoxy of Brussels (sound familiar?).

Ten years after the crisis began, it is just nonsense to believe that the EU project – to save the euro at all costs – has worked. Yes, Greece has become a kind of economic colony with many Greek assets (state telecoms, 14 regional airports) now owned by Germany. But the economy is still plagued by debt. And as you look around the Mediterranean, you can see elements of the same story: how the euro has not only failed in its objective, but produced the exact opposite of what was intended.

The economic advantages of monetary union were always sketchy – something to do with boosting cross‑border trade by reducing transaction costs. But as Helmut Kohl and others made clear, the real purpose was political – to knit the peoples of the EU together in a union of hearts and minds.

Neither outcome has happened. There has been no measurable intra-EU trade boost as a result of the euro; and instead of producing economic and political convergence, the euro has been a force for divergence, as the northern economies – mainly Germany – have done better, and the less productive economies have done worse, as so many economists predicted before the euro was launched.

Far from dissolving any political tensions between the nations and peoples of the EU, the euro has actually created tensions where none existed before. The last time I was in Athens, I actually heard an anti‑German demonstration outside the foreign ministry: that’s right, people marching against the paymaster of the EU. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and it is the direct result of the euro.

It is true that the Eurozone is benefiting from a general global economic upturn – hence the eager talk of the Remainers in the UK – but it is clear that the weaker economies, notably Italy, are in a much worse position than in 2008 to withstand the next economic shock, banking crisis or whatever. There will be such a shock, of course, and this time, for the euro, it could well be fatal.

In the meantime, the Greek suffering goes on, and the lesson is clear. As the former finance minister, Yannis Varoufakis, has explained, the tragedy of the Greeks was that they never had the nerve to tell their EU masters to get lost. They were never able to take back control, to run their economy in the interest of their electors.

That has a direct read-across for Britain. Under the Chequers proposals, we are about to make a historic mistake and turn this country into a rules-taker from Brussels, with no say on those rules – not just for industrial goods and agri-foods but across a wide range of economic activity. Look at the humiliation of Greece – an EU member – and ask yourself how the EU will legislate with the UK out of the room, and when we can no longer do anything to protect ourselves from the imposition of those rules. Will the EU act in our interests and the interests of UK jobs and growth, or the interests of the EU?

The answer is clear. It is written in graffiti all over Greece. Why, then, are we proposing to turn the UK, in important respects, into the perpetual punk of Brussels? Chuck Chequers.

What do you think ?

 

[Mindful]

From the pen of Boris Johnson.

So it is “Cabin crew, doors to manual” and, as you settle back and prepare to hand over €20 for an easyMeal, you may be reflecting on that delightful week you just had in the Med – the bustling marinas, the crowded restaurants – and you may conceivably have been persuaded by all those UK cheerleaders for the EU that the euro crisis is indeed at an end.
You may now go along with the fashionable pro-EU narrative, that the nice Mr Draghi of the European Central Bank has cracked it, that the euro is in robust health, that Club Med countries are on the way to durable recoveries. And you may even ask yourself whether they are therefore right – those same London-based cheerleaders for the EU – when they say that this tentative euro recovery proves that the UK’s best bet is to stay in legal lockstep with Brussels, to the point of doing exactly what the EU tells us to do – even when we have no influence on those decisions.

Is that what you have concluded, after a week in the sun? If so, you have been drinking too much retsina. The euro crisis is far from over. The single currency remains an unmitigated disaster. One day it remains highly likely that it will implode. And in the meantime the experience of Greece alone is a lesson in the absolute insanity of any country allowing itself to be bullied by EU negotiators.

Drive around any big Greek city, away from the tourist spots, and in every boarded-up building and smashed window you see the devastation of Greek industry – which, in three years from 2010, went from boasting 80,000 factories to 57,000. In the frenzied anti-establishment graffiti you see the rage of a lost generation of young people who still feel they have no hope of a job. Overall unemployment is still running at 20 per cent; the economy is still a quarter smaller than in 2008; and there are an astonishing 35 per cent of people living in absolute poverty.

That is an extraordinary figure for an EU country; yet it is so high precisely because Greece is an EU country and meekly obeyed the prescriptions of Brussels. It wasn’t just that they could not (or dared not) reclaim their monetary independence. The Greeks were forced – mainly by Angela Merkel of Germany – to accept an austerity regime of draconian budget cuts that became a self‑perpetuating downwards cycle of economic decay.

It is absolutely crucial to understand that when the EU imposed this programme they were not thinking first of Greece or the Greek people. No, they were thinking of the EU; of the balance sheets of EU banks; of the risk to the euro of a Greek default. So the Greeks found themselves in the appalling position of negotiating with people who did not really have their interests at heart, and who believed furthermore that it was politically useful to make an example of Greece, and that Greek suffering might be a memento mori to anyone tempted to differ with the orthodoxy of Brussels (sound familiar?).

Ten years after the crisis began, it is just nonsense to believe that the EU project – to save the euro at all costs – has worked. Yes, Greece has become a kind of economic colony with many Greek assets (state telecoms, 14 regional airports) now owned by Germany. But the economy is still plagued by debt. And as you look around the Mediterranean, you can see elements of the same story: how the euro has not only failed in its objective, but produced the exact opposite of what was intended.

The economic advantages of monetary union were always sketchy – something to do with boosting cross‑border trade by reducing transaction costs. But as Helmut Kohl and others made clear, the real purpose was political – to knit the peoples of the EU together in a union of hearts and minds.

Neither outcome has happened. There has been no measurable intra-EU trade boost as a result of the euro; and instead of producing economic and political convergence, the euro has been a force for divergence, as the northern economies – mainly Germany – have done better, and the less productive economies have done worse, as so many economists predicted before the euro was launched.

Far from dissolving any political tensions between the nations and peoples of the EU, the euro has actually created tensions where none existed before. The last time I was in Athens, I actually heard an anti‑German demonstration outside the foreign ministry: that’s right, people marching against the paymaster of the EU. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and it is the direct result of the euro.

It is true that the Eurozone is benefiting from a general global economic upturn – hence the eager talk of the Remainers in the UK – but it is clear that the weaker economies, notably Italy, are in a much worse position than in 2008 to withstand the next economic shock, banking crisis or whatever. There will be such a shock, of course, and this time, for the euro, it could well be fatal.

In the meantime, the Greek suffering goes on, and the lesson is clear. As the former finance minister, Yannis Varoufakis, has explained, the tragedy of the Greeks was that they never had the nerve to tell their EU masters to get lost. They were never able to take back control, to run their economy in the interest of their electors.

That has a direct read-across for Britain. Under the Chequers proposals, we are about to make a historic mistake and turn this country into a rules-taker from Brussels, with no say on those rules – not just for industrial goods and agri-foods but across a wide range of economic activity. Look at the humiliation of Greece – an EU member – and ask yourself how the EU will legislate with the UK out of the room, and when we can no longer do anything to protect ourselves from the imposition of those rules. Will the EU act in our interests and the interests of UK jobs and growth, or the interests of the EU?

The answer is clear. It is written in graffiti all over Greece. Why, then, are we proposing to turn the UK, in important respects, into the perpetual punk of Brussels? Chuck Chequers.

What do you think ?

As it's you, a troll post.

 

[Mindful]

A veteran man of the left like me, proud to be the former editor of Living Marxism magazine, now finds he has more in common on the biggest issue of the age with the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg than with their allegedly left-wing opponents. A major realignment in British politics is surely long overdue. Let people stand for what they really believe today, instead of half-heartedly waving whichever faded colours they are still wearing for Britain’s zombie political parties.

‘Get Boris?’ It’s another backdoor plan to stop Brexit

 

[Mindful]

Brexit means cosmic apocalypse…

As we edge closer to the UK leaving the EU, the hysteria coming from the Remain lobby (aka The British Government) gets greater but I think it MAY have reached a peak in this revelation!

THE European Union will stop warning the UK about potential fatal space debris plummeting towards Earth in the event of a no-deal Brexit, new Government papers have sensationally revealed despite claims the bloc and Britain will work closely together after the divorce.

So, I hope the 17.4m who voted to leave the EU are feeling totally ashamed of themselves and their reckless action in condemning the UK to possible cosmic obliteration.

Posted in ATW

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Brexit means cosmic apocalypse…

As we edge closer to the UK leaving the EU, the hysteria coming from the Remain lobby (aka The British Government) gets greater but I think it MAY have reached a peak in this revelation!

THE European Union will stop warning the UK about potential fatal space debris plummeting towards Earth in the event of a no-deal Brexit, new Government papers have sensationally revealed despite claims the bloc and Britain will work closely together after the divorce.

So, I hope the 17.4m who voted to leave the EU are feeling totally ashamed of themselves and their reckless action in condemning the UK to possible cosmic obliteration.

Posted in ATW

If it actually happens we will be praying for a comet to sink the country.