(11-03-2016 02:33 PM)britchard Wrote:  I wouldn't worry too much. It is still highly likely that Brexit will occur. My first doubt is this ruling being upheld- I have no idea what power the Supreme Court has, but it could obviously overturn the High Court ruling. My second doubt would be that unless there is a full scale rebellion, May will be able to convince a large majority of Conservative MP's to vote for Brexit, and then in addition there will be Labour MP's who either supported Brexit originally or hold seats in areas that were massively pro-leave and don't want to lose their seat.

Failure to comply with popular vote may very well mean that Farage will be back in the near future, and he will get a whole lot more votes.

Mainstream media in the US put the court decision on their front pages like it was some kind of huge victory against tyranny. The hostility by the media elite towards Brexit is really over-the-top.

(11-04-2016 08:28 AM)Wreckingball Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 02:33 PM)britchard Wrote:  I wouldn't worry too much. It is still highly likely that Brexit will occur. My first doubt is this ruling being upheld- I have no idea what power the Supreme Court has, but it could obviously overturn the High Court ruling. My second doubt would be that unless there is a full scale rebellion, May will be able to convince a large majority of Conservative MP's to vote for Brexit, and then in addition there will be Labour MP's who either supported Brexit originally or hold seats in areas that were massively pro-leave and don't want to lose their seat.

Failure to comply with popular vote may very well mean that Farage will be back in the near future, and he will get a whole lot more votes.

Luckily, it is unlikely to happen. I think May has enough of a grip on the Tory party to get the chief whip to get all MP's to vote to trigger article 50- or at the very least vote in line with how their constituency voted.

Also, as much as I dislike Corbyn, he isn't part of the elite, and he is reasonably principled. He has said the Labour Party will help to enact the will of the British people, he just wants it go though Parliament so MP's can have more of a say.

http://moneyweek.com/dont-trigger-articl...ust-leave/

This is an interesting article which supports my own view on the legalities of article 50. My reaction on reading the provision was that only notification was necessary, and that the negotiation process was only a guideline provision. I can't find much other than this to support that view.

Article 50 actually says:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Video of a radio interview, in which a newly elected MP skillfully defends the logic of a second EU referendum in the UK :





She convinced me.

Brexit obstruction from the UK's EU ambassador. Further evidence of why we need a clear out at the Foreign Office.

HOW long??? Theresa May urges Brussels to agree a 'smooth' Brexit after Britain's EU ambassador warns a deal on leaving Europe could take a DECADE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...sters.html

When our PM has to ask Brussels for answers on the UK then she is not fit for office, nor is our parliament worth anything in its current form and has been superseded by external forces.

This is what happens when you have bureaucrats in office. A businessman could be hammer out a deal to a workable initial conclusion inside a year. Things only take a decade if you're immensely fucking incompetent.

(12-15-2016 11:33 AM)IronShark Wrote:  Brexit obstruction from the UK's EU ambassador. Further evidence of why we need a clear out at the Foreign Office.

HOW long??? Theresa May urges Brussels to agree a 'smooth' Brexit after Britain's EU ambassador warns a deal on leaving Europe could take a DECADE

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...sters.html

I had a feeling this could happen.

Officially the UK would "be leaving" the EU, but in practice they just delay and delay until it never happens.

I think Dominic Raab said it best. The civil servants within the Foreign Office are extremely pro-EU. This is just their passive aggressive way of dragging their feet. Article 50 is still going to be executed by March.

If any of our American friends haven't seen it, I recommend watching "Yes Minister" for a hilarious take on British politics and the role of civil servants.

(12-15-2016 01:24 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  This is what happens when you have bureaucrats in office. A businessman could be hammer out a deal to a workable initial conclusion inside a year. Things only take a decade if you're immensely fucking incompetent.

Calling it now. When many smart people in the and EU see Trump helping the US out of its hole there will be a movement to the US.

I watch the body language of British politicians and all they do is snipe or pat each other on the back. Our PM is being thrown around like a god damn rag doll by Europe and all she can say is "ohhh well if the EU says we can have a deal!"

FUCK. THAT. BULLSHIT!

We are our own country, we have our own currency, banks, and government. Who are they to tell us what to do? The language of business is English. Even the Welsh, Irish and Scotts use English and they hate our guts.

The reason Britain fell by the wayside and people laughed at us, then went onto hate the US for being big and ballsy is because the US stood up for itself, we didn't.

Can you imagine the ghost of British politics, Tony Blair, returning to the scene if we had our very own Trump? He would get massacred with mere words and wouldn't dare show his face.

Instead we have a woman who is pretending to be a leader when she was neither elected or wanted. She is marginalised and ignored - a terrible fate for the UK during this important time.

I can just imagine any of the King Henry's allowing the French or Spaniards to waddle up to his castle and demand he drop the drawbridge and give payment to people he neither understands nor gives a rats arse about.

Off with their heads!

In a new effort to drum up funds for the fight for Brexit, Nigel Farage has turned to busting out mad rhymes and dropping sick beats.

Today, a good friend sent me the following link, to Nigel Farage speaking at the European Council Summit. I love this guy and the way he hammers his points home; I hope he is a frequent visitor to the White House in the years to come.





At the end, Farage gets into it with that hapless sad sack Martin Schulz, current President of the European Parliament (and possible contender to be the next Chancellor of Germany). That's the very same Schulz that Silvio Berlusconi hilariously mocked in the same place back in 2003. File this one under "Great Moments in European Parliament History" --

New interview with Nigel Farage:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_f...7666673845

Cheers

https://www.facebook.com/leaveeuofficial...932422113/

WATCH | Nigel Farage on Good Morning Britain: "It's been over six months since we voted to leave, and what have they done? Nothing.
I'm concerned that we have a government that isn't really committed to carrying out the will of the people."

(12-15-2016 08:44 PM)Bushido Wrote:  If any of our American friends haven't seen it, I recommend watching "Yes Minister" for a hilarious take on British politics and the role of civil servants.

Thank you very much for this recommendation.

Brexit will make UK more globalist, Theresa May tells Davos

Quote:British prime minister calls Brexit a ‘unique opportunity’ to embrace internationalism

British prime minister Theresa May moved to position Britain as a leading advocate of free trade and globalisation on Thursday, describing Brexit as a “unique opportunity” for Britain to embrace internationalism.

In a keynote speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Ms May said Britain’s decision to leave the European Union meant it would become “a confident country in control of its own destiny again”.

“The UK . . . will step up to a new leadership role as the strongest advocate for business, markets and free trade,” she told a packed congress hall in the Swiss town.

She said the vote to leave the EU was a vote to “restore our parliamentary sovereignty and national self-determination.”

Noting that Britain had always been “profoundly internationalist,” she continued: “We are proud of our European heritage, but [are] a country that has always looked beyond Europe to the wider world . . . We are by instinct a great global trading nation that seeks to trade with countries not just in Europe but beyond Europe too.”

After Brexit, Britain would become “even more globalist in action and in spirit,” she said.

In a speech that focused at length at both the benefits and responsibilities of free trade, Ms May said “free trade, partnership and globalisation” had been forces for good.

“Free trade . . . is the basis of our prosperity,” she added. “But outside this hall, those forces for good which we take for granted are being called into question. Forces that have had such a positive impact, lifting millions out of poverty, broken down barriers and raised living standards, are now being undermined.”

She said there was a “sense among the public that mainstream political and business leaders have failed to comprehend their legitimate concerns”.

Citing the threat from the far left and far right across Europe she said it was important to recognise that living in a “more global and individualistic world” could leave some people feeling locked out and left behind.

“I am determined to make sure that centre-ground mainstream politics can respond to the concerns people have today. I am determined to stand up for free trade and globalisation but also to show that these forces can work for everyone.”

Ensuring businesses pay their fair share of taxes and setting clear rules for business was crucial for a fairer society, she said.

Ms May said that while “some of our European partners feel we’ve turned our back on them,” Britain’s decision to leave the EU was “no rejection of our friends in Europe”.

She welcomed the fact that preliminary discussions were under way between Britain and several countries on new trade deals, including Australia, while China and the Gulf states had also expressed interest.

Ms May’s trip to Davos comes two days after a landmark speech in which she confirmed Britain would leave the single market once it withdrew from the EU. The prime minister was due to meet senior figures from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley on the fringes of the World Economic Forum yesterday.

But many senior banking executives have expressed concern at signs of a “hard Brexit” coming from London, with a number of banks confirming at Davos that they planned to move staff out of London as a result of the British referendum. JP Morgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon said this week“it looks like there will be more job movement than we hoped for,” while HSBC also announced plans to move jobs from London to Paris.

Also in attendance at Davos were British chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond and international trade secretary Liam Fox.

London mayor Sadiq Khan also travelled to the Swiss town in a bid to drum up business for London. Speaking to CNBC he said leaving the single market “would be bad for London”. “I accept the case that the British public have voted to leave the European Union, to leave the structures of the legal institutions. What the British people haven’t done is to vote to make us poorer,” he said.

If only somebody had the balls of Maggie Thatcher:



There hasn't been a true patriot as UK PM since John Major, and he was a weak PM.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown were pro-EU. David Cameron talked a lot and did nothing. Theresa May is very weak.

^ As poor as Gordon Brown was in many ways, he did save us from the Euro. Thank God. Blair was balls deep on it but Brown blocked him. So he deserves some credit for that.

This is bollocks, they are playing with fire.

Quote:Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The judgement means Theresa May cannot begin talks with the EU until MPs and peers give their backing - although this is expected to happen in time for the government's 31 March deadline.

But the court ruled the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies did not need a say.

Brexit Secretary David Davis will make a statement to MPs at 12:30 GMT.


During the Supreme Court hearing, campaigners argued that denying the UK Parliament a vote was undemocratic and a breach of long-standing constitutional principles.

They said that triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - getting formal exit negotiations with the EU under way - would mean overturning existing UK law, so MPs and peers should decide.

This is a moderate setback. The Old Media in the US is crowing about it this morning, hoping that UK's parliament will now torpedo Brexit. I think it will still happen, but it will take longer.

Since the British are sadly quite cucked and poorly armed, I don't expect that there will be any serious consequences for this treachery.

However, I thought that Brexit would lose the referendum and they proved me wrong so let's wait and see.

It seems to me that Parliament will just never vote on it, negotiate around the periphery with the EU, and let the time-limit expire. Then say "oops, but at least we got 'concessions' from the EU".

That will have consequences of course, but not nearly the consequences of voting against the Referendum results and overtly overriding them.

I know I sound cynical, but it seems globalists never really lose.