As EU Leaders Realise They’ve Overrplayed Their Hand And Start To Panic, This Should be Read By Remainers

How can we have forgotten the huge debt we owe you?

by Alexander von Schoenburg

EDITOR AT LARGE OF BILD — GERMANY’S BIGGEST SELLING PAPER

AS MARCH 29 looms ever closer, here in Germany, rabid, anti-British sentiment is part of the daily discourse.

The chattering classes — politicians and pundits alike — are urging our Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to harden her line towards the United Kingdom after suggestions that she was prepared to throw Theresa May a lifeline. Indeed, last week, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Merkel’s successor-in-waiting, led calls for Britain to scrap Brexit completely.

Germans are far from alone in this attitude. In the wake of the momentous Commons defeat for your Prime Minister’s Brexit strategy, the European Commission twisted the thumbscrews still further.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, suggested it was time for the UK to abandon its ‘red lines’ over ending freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Yet these issues have been unshakable stipulations for the British since the beginning of talks. To casually propose dumping them in this way was insulting to your country.

Regret

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, was, regrettably, similarly dismissive when he said that Brexit was a British problem and one it would have to solve on its own.

Such blinkered and sour responses are, in my view, wrong-headed. They ignore the great debt that Germany, and the whole Continent, owes our friends across the Channel.

However much we in Europe regret your decision to leave our Community, we must always remember that, throughout your history, independence and sovereignty have been paramount. Germany, in particular, should tread lightly when it comes to dealing with your proud nation.

It was Great Britain that first stood up to Hitler in 1939. And it was Britain that opened its doors to the thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing certain death during the Holocaust.

Put simply, there would be no free Europe without you and the bloody sacrifice you made to rescue the Continent. This plain fact has not always been a popular one, of course. The truth is that there has been a long tradition of policies aimed at excluding the British Isles from Europe, most notably those of French president, Charles De Gaulle.

After the war, inspired by dreams of the medieval empire that stretched across the Continent under Charlemagne, De Gaulle poured his energy into setting up the European Economic Community — the forerunner of the EU.

But when Britain inquired about membership in the early Sixties, his answer was an emphatic ‘Non!’

Thanks to De Gaulle’s opposition, it took more than a decade for the UK to be accepted. And the driving force for unity, for welcoming British membership with open arms, was the German chancellor of the Sixties, Konrad Adenauer.

For that, ultimately, we can thank the Queen.

As has happened so often during more than six decades on the throne, Elizabeth II’s diplomatic skills and remarkable personality swung the course of world politics.

In 1965, she and Prince Philip made a whirlwind tour through Germany, captivating my country. There were endless days of balls and sightseeing, and a boat trip on the Rhine.

Adenauer was swept off his feet. Though he was, like De Gaulle, a staunch Catholic who had initially shared the Frenchman’s grand vision, he quickly came to realise that Europe needed Britain precisely because we are all so different.

Europe has never been a bland, homogenous entity — a United States of Euroland. On the contrary, it is a thrilling patchwork made up of vibrantly different nations with all kinds of funny quirks.

We needed Britain 80 years ago and we need you now.

And because we should honour the result of your referendum, we must be happy to take you on your own terms. If that means a form of semi membership with full sovereignty, so be it.

There has been much talk of the problem of the Irish ‘backstop’ — but for Europe, Britain is the real backstop. Without you, power in Europe will tend to gravitate ever more to the centre which will ultimately risk implosion.

European politics today seems to be full of De Gaulle’s, shaking their fists at Britain as you try to leave the EU.

What is needed is another statesman such as Adenauer — a man or woman to stand up to the bureaucratic machine of Brussels, who will take on the Barniers, the Junkers and the Tusks. We need someone who can remind us of our bounden duty and enable the UK to leave without punishing it.

A real statesman would rekindle Adenauer’s historic vision of the EU, as a federation of states and not some kind of bloated super-state — a confederation, that does not neglect the historic peculiarities of its members.

None of this is impossible.

Stable

Even the staunchest Brexiteers, such as Boris Johnson, realise the value of keeping one foot in the strong economic zone that the Continent represents.

If only European leaders would take a step back and acquiesce to London on this smallest of adjustments over the Irish backstop, it would take the wind out of the hard-line Brexiteers’ sails and enable a stable cross-Channel relationship for the future.

In many ways the problem is one of historical ignorance.

What we Germans and especially EU bureaucrats don’t appreciate is the delicate political situation in Northern Ireland, and the sensitivities involved on both sides. We know little of the tragic legacy of ‘The Troubles’, the deaths of so many, including British soldiers, and the hard-won peace after 30 years.

More people in the British Isles were killed by the IRA than by ISIS and Al-Qaeda combined. That statistic ought to make all of us in Europe rethink our position on the question of the Irish backstop.

We have to be more flexible, more forgiving.

Instead of torturing the world’s oldest democracy with unacceptable demands, our Chancellor Frau Merkel and the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker should unite in calling for new talks, renegotiating face to face if need be.

Theresa May has been gravely weakened but it is unconscionable for European leaders to use this as a stick to beat her with.

Style

They should remember the great German strategist Otto von Bismarck who, in the 19th century, insisted that one should always win but never humiliate one’s opponents. The best victory is the magnanimous one.

Another adage worth recalling: now is that of the German philosopher Theodor Adorno who remarked that while the British epitomise style, the Germans represent substance. Style and substance … there’s much truth in that metaphor.

Seen from that perspective, it’s imperative that Brexit is achieved with a degree of aplomb and decorum. At this crucial moment, Europe must concede enough to let the UK leave with head held high — and do it in style.

If, instead, our leaders continue to treat the British people with contempt, we will wreck those great ties between our countries that have been painstakingly created over many generations.

Our societies have always thrived on mutual respect and admiration. We are brothers and sisters… and this family squabble has gone too far.

It is time for Chancellor Merkel to show other European leaders the way and for them all to start treating your country as it deserves — with our respect and gratitude.

 

Most Absurd Brexit Claim Ever: “30-Year Recession, Worse Than 1930s

Ian R Thorpe

Writing in that repository of all left wing and globalist idiocies The Guardian, writer Amelia Hill makes the nonsensical assertion UK cannot simply trade on WTO terms after no-deal Brexit, offering only the opinions of left wing and globalist ‘experts’ in support of her case. Here’s a sample:

The UK will be unable to have frictionless, tariff-free trade under World Trade Organization rules for up to seven years in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to two leading European Union law specialists.

The ensuing chaos could double food prices and plunge Britain into a recession that could last up to 30 years, claim the lawyers who acted for Gina Miller in the historic case that forced the government to seek parliament’s approval to leave the EU. Anneli Howard, a specialist in EU and competition law at Monckton Chambers and a member of the bar’s Brexit working group, believes this isn’t true, Hill claims

“No deal means leaving with nothing, Sir Ivan Rogers former UK Premanent Representative to the the European Institute said in a lecture that the anticipated recession will be worse than the 1930s, let alone 2008. It is impossible to say how long it would go on for. Some economists say 10 years, others say the effects could be felt for 20 or even 30 yearseven ardent Brexiteers agree it could be decades.”

Nobody involved with The Daily Stirrer has seen or heard any Brexiteers hysterical predictions of a thirty years recession, but Remainers are not known for their honesty or level headedness. However Hill was not done with the anti – Brexit hyperbole.

The government cannot simply cut and paste the 120,000 EU statutes into UK law and then make changes to them gradually, she said. “The UK will need to set up new enforcement bodies and transfer new powers to regulators to create our own domestic regimes,” she said.

She’s talking through her posterior orifice again. Those laws are alread in British law and can be undone gradually. That has already been clarified by constitutional lawyers.

Effects Felt for 30 Years

Hill made five references to Anneli Howard, whose CV describes her as a leading junior lawyer in telecommunications law, in the article but the alleged expert’s professional status as a junior lawyer hardly qualifies her opinion as authoritative.

Hill’s moans about a 1930s recession and claims even ardent Brexiters agree it could be decades, in the same paragraph. Again she does not name these Brexiteers. In an linked-to article by The Guardian, titled: Two, 50 or 100 years: when do leavers think Brexit will pay off? writer Emine Saner employs that old trick of a very misleading headline.

This is what Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Brexiteer alluded to actually said: We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time.” That is quite accurate. Benefits accrue every year.

Former Brexit Secretary David Davis said There is no reason why many of these cannot be achieved within two years.”

Hill managed to take an already purposely-overhyped headline title and turn it into a complete fabricated lie, fake news that links recessions to a 30-year wait for the full benefits to be known.

After 16 paragraphs of total scaremongering and attempted scattering of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, Hill mentions the counter-claims.

Economists for Free Trade, a group with links to Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davis, claims there is “nothing to fear” from leaving the EU without reaching an agreement.

David Collins, a professor of international economic law at City University of London, said: “The UK can trade quite easily on an uncertified schedule.”

However, Collins conceded that an uncertified schedule “might be an indication of that complaining member’s intention to initiate a dispute against the member,” and that “the WTO dispute settlement process can take several years to resolve”.

Thus two correctly cited experts say no problem. Two law experts, not economic experts makes the opposing claim.

Collins, an international economics professor, is certainly correct, but notice the slant of the article and the title.

The idea of a 30-year recession wins first prize for the most stupid statement ever about Brexit, and that is saying quite a lot.

Hill deserves an award herself (for bad journalism of fake news maybe,) for producing an absurd article full of politically biased nonsense, without even properly referencing who one her alleged “experts” is.

The Guardian frequently presents fake news articles with left-wing progressive and anti – Brexit slants. Hill and Saner provide today’s examples.

As for that predicted 30-year recession:

Short-term, the EU will get hit much harder than the UK. Germany will get hit the hardest. At that point the EU, if it survives, will be ready for serious trade agreement negotiations with the UK.

The EU bubble is doomed to burst in 2019, financial analyst warns

While Project Fear doom mongers among the British establishment / media cabal continue, against all evidence, that the British economy has collapsed catastrophically since the Brexit referendum result was announced in 2016, in reality it the the European union that is on the verge of collapse, Brexit or no Brexit.

As this blog has reported, France is on the brink of social and economic collapse as Emmanuel Marcon’s government demonstrates it is clueless in the face of “Yellow vest” protests against elitist policies that favour the rich and big business. The protests are now so widespread they are hitting the country’s economy while social unrest is growing every day.

In Germany, Hausfrau – Voksfuhrer Merkelo clings to power by her fingernails. Italy’s Eurosceptic double act, Matteo Salvini and Luigi di Maio are determined to be a thorn in the side of Brussels bureaucracy on every issue. The Visegrad group, let by Poland and Hungary are at loggerheads with the EU over Brussel’s efforts to impose mass immigration on them and Spain is being torn apart by regional independence movements.

Meanwhile the massive influx of unskilled migrants the ‘open doors’ immigration policy imposed by Brussels has placed an unsustainable financial burden on member states. It is any wonder financial analysts are predicting the great globalist federalisation project is about to collapse ignominiously.

from RT:

The European Union is about to implode this year, investor Mitch Feierstein has predicted in a New Year episode of the Keiser Report. He also reveals which country will become the next Greece – and the answer may surprise you.

This year will be harsh for Europe not only due to Brexit, because other member states besides the UK could also bring the bloc down, according to Feierstein. Nationwide protests in France are only the first sign of looming wider unrest, the analyst told RT’s Max Keiser.

“You are gonna see global unrest. I think you’ll it as a feature in Italy when the EU tries to bully them,” the British-American investor noted, citing infective “draconian austerity measures.”

However, not only Italy but also France could follow the fate of debt-ridden Greece, Feierstein warned, noting the low approval rating of President Emmanuel Macron, skyrocketing unemployment, and huge wealth inequality in the country.

“Italy has got four trillion in loans they said there are not going repay… France has got a similar situation but they’ve got civil unrest with the population burning down Paris. So one of them will leave,” he predicted.

Both countries have been breaking EU budget rules. After just one year of compliance in 2018, Paris announced that its budget deficit for 2019 is set to be 0.2 percent higher than the three percent threshold that the bloc’s rules allow. Brussels agreed to tolerate the breach as it had been doing so for almost a decade before Macron’s presidency.

RELATED POSTS:
Europe Unglues

Immigration omnibus

As Brussels Moved A Million Migrants Into The EU,Google Europe Moved $23 Billion To Bermuda Tax Haven In 2017
12 European States Revolt Against Merkel, Macron Plan To Reform Europe.
German Interior Minister Demands Tougher Asylum Laws After ‘Orgy of Violence’ Mob Attack

It’s Over For Macron – French Farmers Spray Pig Shit In Paris
Where Did All The Money Go? (poem)

Is The UK Foolish To Leave The EU

This question, worded slightly differently, comes up innumerable times in comment or Q & A threads on websites. Here’s a near pefect answer from a fellow warrior for liberty and opponent of Euronaziism, Barney Lane:

Is Brexit a foolish idea? Brexit means Britain is in the EU but is now leaving it. Which part is foolish, the being in part or the leaving part?

Discussion on this subject would be considerably more productive if more people understood some of the basics surrounding it, such as what the EU is and how it works[1], and how trade works both within and outside of the EU.[2] [3] My objective is to think and write about the EU and Brexit from my own perspective, based on experience, facts and reasoned analysis. Now, people have differing views on the success of this endeavour. For example, I’ve been regularly accused on Quora (particularly by one individual) of being paid by BrexitCentral and one interlocutor recently suggested my account might be a parody. Clearly one man’s foolishness is another man’s wisdom.

Sadly, many of the discussions surrounding Brexit have been a hive of misinformation. Even more sadly, those perpetrating the misinformation have included people elected and ought to respect. Prior to the 2016 referendum, Anna Soubry, MP for Broxtowe, said on Any Questions, UK exports to the EU would “fall to almost absolutely zero”, in the event of Britain’s departure from the EU. Furthermore, prior to the referendum, the Treasury warned us that:

“a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000” [4]

George Osborne, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared the report “ serious and sober assessment of the economic facts”.

Now, if you really believed those things and there’s no reason to doubt that previously uncommitted people might have been somewhat influenced by them, it’s hardly surprising that “Brexit is a foolish idea” has been doing the rounds. One might hope that with time, some of these more barmy ideas might have started to lose their sting. But sadly, the misinformation campaign about what life outside the EU might imply, has stepped up a gear.

To make an informed assessment, you really need some kind of idea of what the EU is and what it aspires to be. The EU’s founding father and first president of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, Jean Monnet, said in his first address to the new assembly, that the delegates there present were “taking part in the first government of Europe”.

The debate at the time was around inter-governmentalism versus supranationalism. The former refers to coordination between sovereign states, while the latter is a higher authority that sits above the state. Following various meetings with governmental heads, a statement was issued to the press about what the new Community would set out to achieve. It included the following text:

The withdrawal of a state which has committed itself to the Community should be possible only if all the others agree to such withdrawal and to the conditions in which it takes place. The rule in itself sums up the fundamental transformation which the French proposal seeks to achieve. Over and above coal and steel, it is laying the foundations of a European federation. In a federation, no State can secede by its own unilateral decision. Similarly, there can be no Community except among nations which commit themselves to it with no limit and no looking back.

Clearly, Monnet was committed to the supranational route. Britain on the other hand, was profoundly sceptical and distanced itself from the negotiations.

Incidentally, Monnet’s statement “The withdrawal of a state which has committed itself to the Community should be possible only if all the others agree to such withdrawal and to the conditions in which it takes place”, has an eerie echo in the text of Article 50, the formal mechanism by which a member leaves the EU.

In response, the British government sent the following note to the French government:

It remains the view of His Majesty’s Government that to subscribe to the terms of the draft communiqué would involve entering into an advance commitment to pool iron and steel resources and to set up an authority, with certain supreme powers, before there had been a full opportunity of considering how these important and far-reaching proposals would work in practice. His Majesty’s government are most anxious that these proposals should be discussed and pursued but they feel unable to associate themselves with a communiqué, which appears to take decisions prior to, rather than as a result of, intergovernmental discussions

This was precisely the response Monnet had expected. On the basis of Britain’s past record and commitment to intergovernmentalism, he had anticipated that they would oppose the supranational element which was the very core of his plan. He thus deliberately engineered Britain’s exclusion by making joining the talks conditional on accepting the supranational principle as non-negotiable.

On the basis that it never accepted the principle of supranationalism, as opposed to intergovernmentalism, Britain was excluded from the talks.

There was one dissenter at the time, who believed we were indeed foolish not to have joined the talks. One Ted Heath, who said that by standing aside “we may be taking a very great risk with our economy in the coming years — a very great risk indeed”.

Heath’s words are a clue to what was on his mind in the early 1970s. It was all about the economy. By that time, the organisation we joined had (via the Treaty of Rome) become the European Economic Community. It had proceeded profoundly beyond its initial scope, but its commitment to federalism and supranationalism remained at the very heart of it.

Heath clearly believed that joining the EEC was an economic necessity. He was so convinced of this that his government sought to hide the Community’s commitment to federalism, supranationalism and “ever closer union”. This was uncovered in 2003 under the “30 year rule”, in the form of a secret official document FCO 30/1048 [5], which explained that joining the EEC did indeed compromise sovereignty (except on the most narrow, technical definition of the word) and to an extent that if known by voters, would so be so profoundly toxic that pursuing membership would be politically suicidal. The government therefore set the agenda for public discussion, focusing only on economic benefits, while keeping the political aspects hidden from view.

Now, much of the above comes from the book “The Great Deception”, by Christopher Booker and Richard North, published in 2005. The authors argued on the basis of their findings that the march towards a federal Europe was part and parcel of the Community’s founding principles and is very much alive today. They also argued that Britain joined the Community on the basis of a deception, (hence the title) and that its eventual departure was inevitable, the only debate being about when and how.

On the basis of the above, I quite agree Brexit is foolish, but the foolish bit was joining in the first place.

But while the politics of the union may be toxic, the economics are great, right? Not so fast. A close read of this, this, this and this suggests there is at least substantial room for doubt.

Ok we shouldn’t have joined but now we have, it’s foolish to leave, isn’t it? I and others have argued for example, here, here, here, here and here, that this isn’t necessarily so. Brexit certainly has costs. No denying that. However, the question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. I’d say the reversal hollowing out of our legal and political institutions, which we never wanted in the first place, is a pretty big one.

Who knows, maybe years to come we’ll be asking why our grandchildren are more proud of Britain and less cynical about its leaders than we used to be.

Footnotes

[1] Barney Lane’s answer to As a person who formerly was against Brexit, what or who convinced you to be in favor of leaving the European Union?

[2] Barney Lane’s answer to Do educated people like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg really believe that the UK can do economically better by leaving of one of the biggest single markets in the world?

[3] Barney Lane’s answer to Where is the physical bottleneck that will supposedly cause delays at Dover post-Brexit? Why would physical inspection of no more than 2% of incoming vehicles (WTO limit) delay the other 98%?

[4] https://assets.publishing.servic…

[5] https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.c…

MORE ON BREXIT, BRITAIN and EUROPE
Brexit: Britain and Europe
Europe Unglues
Adolf hitler: His Part In Europe’s Downfall (free e-book

The Wisdom Of Crowds
Chancellor Merkel comes out of the bunker at last.

‘No-deal’ Brexit ferry company trousers £14 million despite having no ships …

3094162_0f2943c8

Ramsgate Ferry Port – not many ships or lorries around, maybe its only used by ghost companies ( Picture: http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/ )

One of the companies contracted by the government’s Ministry of Brexit Panic to run ferries in the event of a no-deal Brexit does not currently own any ships, has never operated a ferry service or shipping line and is not planning to do so until close to the UK’s scheduled departure date from the European Union, it has emerged.

Concerns have been raised about Seaborne Freight, which despite it’s not being in a position to provide any service was awarded a £13.8m contract to operate freight ferries from Ramsgate to the Belgian port of Ostend if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, after a councillor for the Kent town queried whether it would be possible to set up the new service by the scheduled Brexit date.

There are grounds for looking closely into this company and who benefits from its profits. It would not surprise us if Prime Minister Theresa May and Chancellor Phil (spreadsheet) Hammond are among the main shareholders. Amid all the Project Fear panic about ‘no deal’ nobody is asking why we will need more ships. There will not be any significant increase in cross channel trade after Brexit, in fact the Remainers would like us to believe trade will cease completely.

The seaborne contract is one of three agreements worth a total of £107.7m signed by the government without a tendering process (how dodgy is that?) to help ease “severe congestion” at Dover by securing extra lorry capacity.

Seaborne has published plans to operate freight ferries from Ramsgate from late March, beginning with two ships and increasing to four by the end of the summer. Without any ships this is oing to be quite difficult as some people have noted.

Paul Messenger, a Conservative county councillor for Ramsgate, questioned whether the government had run proper checks on the firm’s financial stability, management experience, and fitness to fulfill the contract, telling the BBC: “It has no ships and no trading history so how can due diligence be done? Why choose a company that never moved a single truck in their entire history and give them £14m? I don’t understand the logic of that.”

Seaborne was established two years ago and has been in negotiations about running freight ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend, but no services are currently running. Narrow berths in the port mean there are few suitable commercial vessels available.

There are two options here. Either the whole thing is a typical civil service fuck up or somebody has trousered £13.8 million of taxpayers money without ever intending to do anything to earn it.

MORE BREXIT:

Whistleblower: UK Prepared for ‘No Deal’ Brexit, Scare Stories ‘Absolutely Untrue’

leave means leave
No deal? Leave means leave (Picture: Breitbart )

We did tell you the Remainers and EU fanboys were scaremongering. Now it’s official – well sort of …

A senior civil servant has lifted the lid on a Remainer conspiracy behind Project Fear , revealing that the country is actually well-prepared for a “No Deal” Brexit and scare stories about Britain “crashing out” into “chaos and doom” are “absolutely untrue”. So it’s time we were rid of that weird looking gobshite Hammond and the little Canuk cunt and the Bank Of England, Carney.

The anonymous official, who has been involved in Britain’s preparations for a Brexit on World Trade Organization (WTO) terms — the so-called “No Deal” scenario — revealed in a Telegraph article that there are “hundreds” of plans in place to ensure that outlandish threats of food, water, and medicine shortages will not be realised, and that “it is purely a political decision not to make this clear to the public and nervous backbench MPs”.

“Project Fear Mark (I think) III… claims that we will all ‘crash out’ over the white cliffs of Dover into the Channel at 11 p.m. on 29 March 2019 and wake up to certain chaos and doom… [I]t is absolutely untrue, as anyone who, like me, has been involved in Brexit work for the past two-and-a-half years in Whitehall will tell you,” he scoffed.

Well this blog has been telling you since 2016 that Remainers were a bunch of neo-con globalist authoritarians who would have trashed our country completely rather than give up the dream of a totalitarian world government – towards which a federal Europe was a vital step.

EU Refuses to Block Eurozone Integration to Reach Agreement With UK
Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann said at the E?U summit on British membership terms that the European Union wants to reach an agreement with the United Kingdom, but it is not prepared to compromise the banking union (financial integration) or the further integration of monetary union (UK being forced to abandon the pound join the Euro?) to achieve this goal.

Cameron’s EU Deal Worthless. It Can Be Vetoed In European Parliament?
Opinion polls show Britain is evenly divided on the question of whether to leave or remain in the EU, though it has been suggested up to 10 million other voters, many of them women, have yet to make a decision. How they cast their vote will shape the future of the world’s fifth largest economy and the EU itself. But what is really at stake is more important than economics …

Obama’s intervention in UK politics triggers angry backlash
Angry Britons have launched a petition calling for U.S. President Barack Obama to be prevented from speaking in the UK parliament on Britain’s forthcoming referendum on European Union (EU) membership.

NATO Rhetoric About Russian Threat is ‘Absurd’

The reasons being given for the latest NATO military buildup in Eastern Europe, the idea that the Russian ‘Russian threat’ to Eastern Europe grows every day is “simply absurd,” according to former US diplomat and Senate policy advisor Jim Jatras. Effectively, Jatras says, the buildup is an attempt by the US to keep Germany and France on board with Washington’s world domination agenda and …

E U To Push TTIP Trade Deal Before Obama Leaves Office

TTIP, the Trans Atlantic Trade And Investment Partnership is being promoted bt the US government and the EU Commission as a free trade deal that will create thousands of jobs and bring economic benefits to partners. It’s critics however claim it is a blatant attempt to shift power from national governments to corporate business.

EU Officials Say Europe Is “Going Down The Drain
Common sense could not slow the charge of politically correct globalist politiciand towards merging the 28 member states of the European Union into a single federal entity, but their attempt to destroy democracy by flooding the continent with illiterate third world peasants has finally awoken the spirits of Europe’s ancient nations.

EU Report Reveals Continent Being Changed By Migration
While political leaders and the mass media constantly preach of the economic benefits and cultural enrichment that sping from mass immigration,EU Report Reveals Continent Being Changed By Migration just a few days ago we reported a study that found the economic benefits are a myth and today a report published by the EUs in house statistical bureau reveals immigrants have an adverse effect socially and culturally.

Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal?

Michael Froman, the US Trade Representative, said America is “not in the market” for trade deals with individual states and would only consider free trade agreements with blocs of nations. “I think it’s absolutely clear that Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part of the EU, being part of a larger economic entity,” Mr Froman told Reuters.

RELATED POSTS
More On Brexit


May Nearing A Brexit Deal Breakthrough?

The UK Parliament is rumoured in some quarters to be nearing a breakthrough in negotiations that will enable an altered version of Prime Minister Theresa May’s sellout deal with the European Union to be accepted by elected representatives. It is thought a proposal by Graham Brady, leader of the Conservative rank and file (back benchers) which would throw out the hated ‘Irish backstop’

 

‘Brexiteers Consider your ETHICS! raves EU President Tusk in scaremongering speech threatening CATASTROPHE

EU chief Donald Tusk has made an astounding and irrational attack on Brexiteers and appeared to question the ethics of Leave voters as he used Brexit to urge politicians to consider what the consequences of their actions would be. If you thought Juncker was EU President BTW, you were right, in the best traditions of a bloated bureaucracy the EU has three presidents.

A Polish guy lecturing us on ethics? I read a lot of history and I remember reading several accounts of how in the 1930s Poland followed Germany’s lead and elected a Nazi government. Can;t see much ethical about that.

Speaking in Dortmund, Germany, Tusk said he wanted to remind leaders it was the centenary of the end of the First World War, when “sleepwalkers in power” with “hopelessly weak imaginations” led Europe to “catastrophe”. The European Council president said he wanted to dedicate the words of sociologist Max Weber to the “authors of Brexit”. He used the example of Brexit to urge politicians to consider what the consequences of their actions would be.

OK, if that’s how he feels, we should tell him Poland can forget about coming crying to us next time germany or Russia feels like giving them a kicking.

He went on to say: “Today we need leaders who understand that their role is not only having techonoctraic skill and the ability to stay in power. We need leaders who can use the potential of emotions to defend our fundamental values.

“When today I hear European politicians who wipe out all the tradition of liberal democracy for whom human rights, minority rights, government within the law, the precedence of the constitution over the will of rulers and free media are empty slogans I loudly say ‘no because I know what these principles mean remembering still what life is like for a man deprived of rights who is at the mercy, or lack of mercy of those in power.

“Europe is the best place on earth and the European Union is the best political invention in our history.”

All of which is rather projectile vomit inducing hypocrisy when we remember what the EU did to little Greece when they asked the EU to remember its ethical obligations, and what it is trying to to to not so litlle Britain and Italy (and fair play to Italy for standing its ground, while the political whore Theresa May tries to sell her country’s values, traditions and sovereignty.)