Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[Silurian]

Is Boris even able to become PM as a US citizen? I don't think we have any laws against that, but various other countries certainly do.

He is not a US citizen

 

[Lexicus]

A.B. de Pf. Johnson's

Please, I find this abbreviation ungentlemanly in the extreme! The proper name is Alexander Boris de Mimsy-Johnsington

 

[Broken_Erika]

Parliamentary sovereignty. Absolutely anybody could be proclaimed Prime Minister from a strictly legal point of view. Including my old teddy bear.

Does this old teddy bear of yours intend to run for PM? 'Cause i'm sure Old Teddy could probably do a better job then any of the current crop of politicians....

 

[Hrothbern]

If there is a bear appropiate, although a foreigner, it is ...

 

[Takhisis]

Please, I find this abbreviation ungentlemanly in the extreme! The proper name is Alexander Boris de Mimsy-Johnsington

I know that the UK sounds weirder than Harry Potter, but ‘de Pfeffel Johnson’ is extremely gentlemanly, Lexicus.

Does this old teddy bear of yours intend to run for PM? 'Cause i'm sure Old Teddy could probably do a better job then any of the current crop of politicians....

The very first Teddy became president of the U.S. of A., so that's good precedent.

 

[Arakhor]

He is not a US citizen

Ah yes. He has apparently renounced his US citizenship for tax reasons.

 

[Takhisis]

Aaargh I'm reading about HM's government admitting that universal credit is to blame for the increase in food bank use. What is going on?

Ah yes. He has apparently renounced his US citizenship for tax reasons.

Didn't you know? The US government collects taxes on all of its citizens regardless of whether they work, live, or othewise contribute to the US economy or not.

 

[Arakhor]

Oh, yes, I knew that and I agree that it's despicable. I just didn't realise that Boris had done it.

 

[Takhisis]

Always remember Groucho Marx.

 

[Arakhor]

"I don't want to be a member of any club that would want me as a member"?

 

[Cheetah]

I certainly would not be. I do not agree with the implied statement "The EU is evil because the president is not democratically chosen". However the response to that implied statement should not be "well the president is appointed not elected but that is still democratic" if that is not true. The truth, as you alluded to, is that the block is not (yet) ready for an executive with real power and it is the eurosceptics that would be against that if it did come up.

Very well. Then we have cleared out that point.

Since you left it out of your reply, I'll have to ask specifically, however:

Do you acknowledge that Juncker is President of the European Commission because he got elected in a fair, open and democratic parliamentary election?

And that your previous post, especially in relation to Mega Tsunami's post which I was replying to, is incorrectly implying that Juncker is not elected?

But the point is that appointed by democratically elected people is not the same as democratically elected. We do not generally refer to civil servants, judges or the house of lords as democratic, even though they are (mostly) appointed by democratically elected people.

Well I don’t recall having a chance to vote for him. Did you? And yet he is one of our presidents.

I can't vote in the EU since many people in my country are egoists who don't want to share their wealth and voted to not be part of the EU.

You, on the other hand, was supposed to have voted in the parliamentary elections in 2014.

That was your chance to vote for or against Juncker. By the next election, you won't be part of the EU.

He has the power, it seems, to scupper a good Brexit deal. That is plenty powerful. And I had no chance to vote for or against him. Did you?

Did you ever vote for your PM, or was that a choice the Conservative Party made? Do you vote on any law or motion in the UK Parliament, or do you have to rely on your representative to vote in your place?

You're fully on board with representative democracy in the UK, so your opposition to representative democracy in the EU rings awfully hollow.

You know full well I meant when the next GE came along we could vote and effectively kick whoever was pm out.

No, that's not true. You're being insincere. Quite the opposite could be read in your posts, in fact:

Juncker has parliamentary backing, just as much as May has. And both will face new elections, were voters can vote them out if they choose to.

When you claimed that Juncker can't be removed by the voters, you were implying that voters could remove May without there being a UK election.

I would say ours is ‘the least worse’ of all democracies. At least we don’t have the likes of afd, Le Penn and UKIP types having dozens of MPs in parliament.

You're literally bragging about denying democratic rights to your opponents, in the same breath as you're complaining about the EU not being democratic.

 

[Takhisis]

"I don't want to be a member of any club that would want me as a member"?

‘These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.’

 

[innonimatu]

I can understand very well what you say
But please do be aware that this France-Germany talk is severely rude towards small members, their representatives and their populations !
It happens mostly in the newsmedia and is therefore now ingrained in the popular opinion of many people.

It happens mostly in the newsmedia?

That's funny because you'll be hard pressed to find any newsmedia that has published the text of the recent Franco-German treaty. Signed in Aachen on January 22, with the attendance of the german-french lackeys Juncker and Tusk, and containing such pearls of good intentions towards the other EU members as:

Les deux États approfondissent leur coopération en matière de politique européenne. Ils agissent en faveur d’une politique étrangère et de sécurité commune efficace et forte, et renforcent et approfondissent l’Union économique et monétaire.
[...]
Les deux États se consultent régulièrement à tous les niveaux avant les grandes échéances européennes, en cherchant à établir des positions communes et à convenir de prises de parole coordonnées de leurs ministres. Ils se coordonnent sur la transposition du droit européen dans leur droit national.
[...]
Les deux États approfondissent leur coopération en matière de politique étrangère, de défense, de sécurité extérieure et intérieure et de développement tout en s’efforçant de renforcer la capacité d’action autonome de l’Europe. Ils se consultent afin de définir des positions communes sur toute décision importante touchant leurs intérêts communs et d’agir conjointement dans tous les cas où ce sera possible.
[...]
Les deux États s’engagent à renforcer encore la coopération entre leurs forces armées en vue d’instaurer une culture commune et d’opérer des déploiements conjoints. Ils intensifient l’élaboration de programmes de défense communs et leur élargissement à des partenaires. Ce faisant, ils entendent favoriser la compétitivité et la consolidation de la base industrielle et technologique de défense européenne. Ils sont en faveur de la coopération la plus étroite possible entre leurs industries de défense, sur la base de leur confiance mutuelle. Les deux États élaboreront une approche commune en matière d’exportation d’armements en ce qui concerne les projets conjoints.

As I have warned here before, the ruling elites of France want to lead an european empire, whether the other europeans want it or not, targeting Africa. And to do that they want to consolidate control over foreign and military policy, and force the other countries of Europe economically and politically chained to the EU to follow them. The one partner in crime they need for this is Germany, and they've just signed a treaty to do it.
This is nearly as clear in its intent to wage war as and american "manifest destiny" and the implicit genocide of the natives there, or Hitler's writings in the 1920s about the future of Germany and its need for a new war. The implicit recourse to military might in the pursuit of future expansion of influence is now more hidden, but the references are already there, the tools necessary are explicitly provided for. As just as then, people ignore the aggressive preparations now and will act surprised a few decades later when it turns out that europeans have genocided some more millions of africans in the process. For the sake of "saving them from themselves", "liberating them" or whatever.

Dans le domaine de la sécurité intérieure, les gouvernements des deux États renforcent encore leur coopération bilatérale en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme et la criminalité organisée, ainsi que leur coopération dans le domaine judiciaire et en matière de renseignement et de police. Ils mettent en œuvre des mesures communes de formation et de déploiement et créent une unité commune en vue d’opérations de stabilisation dans des pays tiers.
Les deux États s’engagent à établir un partenariat de plus en plus étroit entre l’Europe et l’Afrique en renforçant leur coopération en matière de développement du secteur privé, d’intégration régionale, d’enseignement et de formation professionnelle, d’égalité des sexes et d’autonomisation des femmes, dans le but d’améliorer les perspectives socio-économiques, la viabilité, la bonne gouvernance ainsi que la prévention des conflits, la résolution des crises, notamment dans le cadre du maintien de la paix, et la gestion des situations d’après-conflit.

Maintaining the peace, yeah right. About a decade before the partition of Africa in Berlin, the european powers had a conference in Brussels where they agreed to embargo weapons and ammunition sales to africans, for the sake of "maintaining the peace between africans", and "fighting slavery".
History repeats itself as farce. The ministries of war are now ministries of defense, but wars of aggression keep being waged, and I can point to Libya as an example.
French foreign policy has been about retaining , and now enlarging, its empire in Africa, formally made independent but in reality controlled by France. See the role of the CFA Franc in many of its former colonies, France's military interventions and intelligence operations there, etc. They know they can't expand it alone, they want to drag the other EU countries into it.

And the other EU countries are supposed to be kept out of any position of power within the EU, that is to be controlled bilaterally by France and Germany through their bilateral creation of a legal and economic hegemonic space within the EU. The role of the other countries will be to provide fodder and "depth" for the imperial expansion.

Les deux États approfondissent l’intégration de leurs économies afin d’instituer une zone économique franco-allemande dotée de règles communes. Le Conseil économique et financier franco-allemand favorise l’harmonisation bilatérale de leurs législations, notamment dans le domaine du droit des affaires, et coordonne de façon régulière les politiques économiques entre la République française et la République fédérale d’Allemagne afin de favoriser la convergence entre les deux États et d’améliorer la compétitivité de leurs économies.
Les deux États instituent un « Conseil franco-allemand d’experts économiques » composé de dix experts indépendants afin de présenter aux deux gouvernements des recommandations sur leur action économique.

The stage is being set for future crimes against humanity. And the only way to prevent it happening is to stop the French from having their empire in the form of the EU to play with. Perhaps the germans are only playing at going along, their goals are economic hegemony and influence in central Europe, they haven't cared much about Africa. But I fear they'll be sold on the idea. The other european countries should get as far away from such a franco-german alliance as possible. Such an alliance, if things keep going this way, cannot be resisted within the EU, its institutions are already captured, built for this purpose. It mush be resisted by allying in mutual defense for neutrality outside it. Denying resources for this imperial adventure.

Brexit is bot a blessing and a danger in this context. A blessing because it takes away from the european imperial project the potential cooperation of the UK. A danger because it removes the one country other than Germany that could fight french influence within the EU effectively. Before brexit the faction within France that held imperial dreams was balanced by the realists who knew that France couldn't just lead such a project and should just maintain its current influence in the (neo)colonies. Now? I'm taking this treaty as a signal of who has the upper hand on policy making there: they are going for expansion.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Very well. Then we have cleared out that point.
<snip>

These words of yours are all a gallant attempt to trying to defend the indefensible.
I repeat: I have never had the opportunity of voting for one of our beloved Presidents. (Or as we do in the UK, for their party, knowing that if that party won, they would be president). Or, of course, the opportunity to vote for some alternative person.

The most important aspect of this that you completely failed to address was: Juncker does not have any real voters to answer to. Not like May, Merkel, Macron etc.

Juncker and Tusk know little or nothing about this country; know even less about its people; and care even less than that.

All the rest of your defence and waddaboutary is just hot air about a subject that is at the heart of what is wrong about the EU.
This is one of the main reasons it is right that we leave.

The fact that these two positions have been filled by two obnoxious, nasty, rude men has just been a godsend to the Brexit cause.

 

[Kyriakos]

^merkel and co answer to an electorate. Not seeing how that makes them good for you. Merkel and her clicque did far more to ruin countries than juncker could- though i am always surprised how few seem to recall that practically austerity was signalled by a statement of juncker (not yet having his current office). He is another member of a cabal, but to claim the issue is how he was chosen is rather bizarre.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Good ‘ol Corby has been at it again (well this from 2010)

https://talkradio.co.uk/news/exclus...e-defeated-explosive-rally-speech-19021129836
“They, the world’s bankers, International Monetary Fund, European Union, they are utterly united in what they want. Utterly united in deflation, suppressing the economy, and creating unemployment. Utterly united in that.”

“We will not be silenced by these people. We will win through. We will defeat them”


Some good news about Brexit for us all, Remainers or Brexiteers:

Big business is reluctant to admit it, but Brexit will deliver for the poor by pushing up their wages
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/11/brexit-already-delivering-poor-pushing-wages/

Spoiler :

One of the ‘mic drop’ moments of the EU referendum campaign was when Lord Rose, then the leader of the Remain campaign, spoke to the Treasury select committee and conceded that if there are fewer workers available then businesses will be prepared to pay higher wages, “If you are short of labour, the price of labour will go up, so yes, but that is not necessarily a good thing.” he said.

The cat had been let out of the bag. In simple terms, if the number of low-skilled workers arriving into the country dropped, then relative scarcity in the labour market would, as sure as night follows day, result in wages increasing. This is, of course, not good for big business and for the parties that big business supports. The lower the wages for the staff, the bigger the profits for their shareholders.
Lord Rose was subsequently locked into a box, and like Schrodinger's cat, as we couldn’t see him, we were unable to tell whether he was alive or dead during the remainder of the campaign.

But he had merely confirmed what we on the Leave side of the argument had been saying, voting Leave, and therefore taking control of our migration policy, would result in a rise in wages particularly for those at the base of the economic pile. These claims have been confirmed by no less than the former boss of Lidl in the UK, Ronny Gottschlich, in an interview on Monday morning.
Gottschlich who had been the UK head of the discount retailer for six years leading up to and covering the period of the referendum has been entirely blunt in his assessment,

“The grocery retail sector in large parts of Britain is depending on (a) foreign workforce, and if this workforce isn’t there any more… this would ultimately lead to higher wages”.
He goes on to accept that free movement of people has kept wages lower for workers in the UK, specifically in the Northern counties. Interestingly, he pointed out that labour in the UK, because of the influx from the continent, had meant that relative labour costs in the UK were lower than in France or in Germany.
This comes after a series of reports from various bodies suggesting that wages are rising faster than inflation with the most recent Office for National Statistics figures giving us a 2.1pc inflation increase while wage increases are rising at 3.3pc when bonuses have been removed from the statistics. This is the highest rate since the 2008 financial crisis and the best news for hard-pressed families for years.

 

[metatron]

Merkel and her clicque did far more to ruin countries than juncker could-

Yeah, in the olden days Greece produced olive oil, sun burn, tax evasion for shipping companies, and cartoonish levels of nepotistic institutional dysfunction to the point where the literal mob running the country would have offered a positive contrast in terms of diligence and efficiency of public officials.
Greece improted - in turn - cars from Djermany and electronics from Asia.
And everything else.
Except sun burn and olive oil, that is.

In the olden days Greece went into bankruptcy or hyperinflation or coup d'etat roundabout every 15 years as a direct result of all that.

Now this time...

Greece produced olive oil, sun burn, and cartoonish levels of nepotistic institutional dysfunction to the point where the literal mob running the country would have offered a positive contrast in terms of diligence and efficiency of public officials.
(The tax evasion for shipping companies having been outsourced to Cyprus.)
And Greece imported - in turn - cars from Djermany and electronics from Asia.

And about 15 years after the first stabs at convergence the whole thing went poof.
Big poof!
Kanye with a pilot's license poof!

What a surprise.

But yeah, i keep forgetting how it was all ze evil Djerman's fault.

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed, it also produces minerals, including those needed for steel and rare earths. The commercial fleet isnt small either. And you shouldnt speak of being bankrupt; awesome deuchland has been that twice as many times as greece, since 1871 at that, so deuch #1.

 

[Yeekim]

I repeat: I have never had the opportunity of voting for one of our beloved Presidents. (Or as we do in the UK, for their party, knowing that if that party won, they would be president).Or, of course, the opportunity to vote for some alternative person.

You are, quite simply, wrong.
Juncker became President of the Commission as a candidate of EPP, a party that won 2014 European elections.

The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, provides that the European Parliament shall endorse or veto the appointment of the president of the European Commission on the basis of a proposal made by the European Council, taking into account the European elections (article 17, paragraph 7 of the Treaty on European Union). This provision applied for the first time for the 2014 elections.

Based on these new provisions, the following European political parties designated candidates for Commission president ahead of the 2014 election: the Party of European Socialists (PES),[25][26][27] the European People's Party (EPP),[28] the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE party),[29] the European Green Party (EGP),[30] the Party of European Left (EL)[31] and the European Democratic Party.[32]

Also, as a cherry on top:

The group of European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), the bloc of anti-federalist centre-right members of the European Parliament created by the British Conservatives and ally parties in 2009, announced today (20 February) that it will not put forward a candidate for president of the European Commission.

The other political groups in the Parliament have decided to put forward headline candidates for the presidency of the European Union's executive branch ahead of May's European elections.

The idea is that giving voters the chance to select a candidate for the most powerful position in the EU institutions will drive up voter turnout and increase the EU's democratic legitimacy.

Speaking at a press conference announcing the decision, the group's secretary-general, Dan Hannan, said that participating in the process would be to legitimise a federalist vision of a European super-state. “There is no evidence of popular demand for having more pan-European elected positions,” he said.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014022...february/ecr-nobody-for-president-/79786.aspx

 

[Kyriakos]

@Yeekim there is, of course, the old english jingoism and anti-european sentiment, there since forever. On the other hand, and given how close the vote in their ref was, i think you agree that the result was decided not just by usual english jingoism but also the effects austerity had in tarnishing both image and essense of the eu. Namely, it isnt like you would have this britain voting to leave before 2008.