Brexit 2019: the Good, Bad and could-turn-Ugly options
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Yeah, and passed out in the road is way over on the right side of that comparison.
I've seen a few close people to me succumb to substances and the "way out" was far from clear for each of them. Alcoholism is a complex epidemic, up there with cancer.
LIE-beral madness is enough to drive us all to drink!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Consider:
Here is an article illustrating how badly LIE-berals are willing to BEND THE TRUTH in their efforts to paint us all as “racists” and “white supremacists” and “Islamphobes”! With some comments of my own in brackets):
Ontario's 'racialized law' debate is based on bad research.
The study based its conclusions on the responses of 3,237 self-selected lawyers and paralegals. The other 40,000 chose not to participate.
(In other words- our LIE-beral overlords - always obsessed with irrational thoughts of “white privilege” heard from a bunch of defense lawyers who make a NICE LIVING telling LIE-beral hug a thug judges that their criminal clients should be excused all of their vile crimes because of their “sad childhood” experiences! And LIE-berals seriously expect us to humbly accept the verdict of these BIGOTS!!!!)
By Marni Soupcoff, National Post.
Published: February 28, 2019. 7:04 PM EST
Filed under: Comment
Lawyers. Is there any other profession with such an exaggerated sense of its own value and significance? Whenever I hear something new about the statement of principles that the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) is imposing on all legal professionals in the province — mandating lawyers and paralegals to draft a statement about how much they personally value inclusivity, diversity and equality — I think of a joke I once read. Question: What’s the difference between a lawyer and God? Answer: God doesn’t think he’s a lawyer.
OK, the joke is not — technically — phrased in a logical way, but it’s still funny because, like the LSO, the legal profession does seem to think of itself as being able to do and understand all things. And the reason I felt compelled to mention that the joke is technically misstated, even though this is unimportant to my overall point, is because I’m trained as a lawyer.
(The legal profession is sadly fractured just like our politicians- into warring groups!!! The lawyer vetting the purchase of your house cannot be compared to the legal SWINE HIDING in a courthouse bathroom in order to delay a trial until some other day- when prosecution witnesses are NOT AVAILABLE to contradict the web of lies and excuses spun by a defendant!!)
(This defense lawyer deceitful manipulation of our legal system - designed only to minimize honest testimony against criminals and thus reduce their responsibility for criminal behaviour is responsible for much of the stalling and delaying of our courts!)
(An accused who does not have legal council cannot be tried till his lawyer appears and so unscrupulous lawyers routinely HIDE themselves in hope judges will grow exasperated and do a plea deal in order to end the legal CHARADE and clear the over loaded docket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(From personal experience I can state that in such deals- done after the judge despairs of getting both defense lawyers and witnesses into court at the same time- will produce ABSURD TRAVESTIES of justice such that car thieves caught red- handed hammering on automobile steering column while trying to hot wire the car will DENY ever having been in the car and will claim all is mistaken identity! There is NO NONSENSE EXCUSE that is beyond the shame of defense lawyers and their clients!!!!)
(Such a thief will even claim the car owner attacked HIM with a knife as he passed by on the sidewalk- and with NO WITNESS available to contradict the B. S. The judge will be more lenient with what appear to be LESSER CRIMES! It is all part of the LIE-beral vote buying service!!!!!!!!!!)
The legal profession does seem to think of itself as being able to do and understand all things
Of course, the reality is that lawyers are flawed human beings, the latest evidence coming in an expert report prepared by Prof. Rod Clifton for the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) in its constitutional challenge of the LSO statement of principles, which CCF considers forced speech.
(Well yes! LIE-berals ENJOY FORCING us to say things! For instance- Professor Jordan Peterson has become famous for refusing to be FORCED to use obscure pronouns such as “ZHE” that are preferred by a very small minority of transgender persons! The controversy over ZHE is so absurd it reminds me of the introduction made by the club manager in the old movie “Kinky Boots”!)
(The club was the hangout of a wild array of alternative genders so the host would come on stage and offer this greeting to his audience: “good evening ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and those of you who have yet to make up your minds”!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(Such is the LIE-beral legal insanity regarding genders and free speech! Clinical Psychologist and senior U of T professor Peterson has identified over 85 different and very obscure gender pronouns that an average person simply cannot use properly as trans gender people desire- without first doing a whole lot of digging into personal sexual practices and preferences! Yet LIE-berals have made ILLEGAL not to use these obscure pronouns when required!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(LIE-berals have been so callous of our free speech that we can now be jailed for pointing to a student in a LARGE LECTURE HALL with hundreds of students- too many to recall all the names - and saying “you in the red shirt’ WITHOUT using the pronoun “ZHE” in the address to the student!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
As a lawyer, I will disclose here that I am a former executive director of the CCF, so infer any bias you care to. As a writer, I will at last get to the point: Dr. Clifton found that the foundational research on which the LSO based the mandatory statement of principles is extremely flawed.
That is a significant piece of news because without its finding that there is systemic racism in the legal profession in Ontario, the LSO would not have instituted the compelled speech requirement.
(It is LIE-berals seeking votes and criminals looking for ways to avoid prosecution and special interest groups seeking govt funding for selfish pet projects who are all convinced we are “systemic racists”! The LIE-beral”evidence is CLEARLY FLAWED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
So, what do I mean that research on which LSO relied is extremely flawed? Dr. Clifton — a sociologist who has taught social research methodology courses for almost 40 years — offers around 20 pages detailing the serious problems. You can read his full report on the CCF website.
The condensed, column-length version is that there are four main deficiencies in the study — which was designed and conducted by Strategic Communications Inc. at the request of the LSO’s Working Group on Challenges Faced by Racialized Licensees and the LSO’s Equity Initiative Department.
(In other words the people sponsoring the research EXPECTED to find racism and are prepared to USE DISTORTED AND FAKE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
There are four main deficiencies in the study
It turns out the first fault marring the research is the sort of error one learns about in Research Methodology 101: confirmation bias. Focus group participants, survey respondents, and key “informants” - people whose answers were used to reach the study’s ultimate conclusions -were presented with questions that made repeated statements about the effects of racialization on the success of lawyers and paralegals.
Being exposed to these statements so many times made the study participants more likely to confirm the statements. The repetitive construction of the questions unduly shaped the responses.
The repetitive construction of the questions unduly shaped the responses
(And of course IF systemic racism was operating then clearly there WOULD be influence on peoples careers! But DOES systemic racism exist in Canada? The available evidence is CLEARLY tainted by LIE-beral BIAS!! LIE-berals WANT TO FIND RACISM for their own selfish reasons- and so they FOUND what they sought by DISHONEST RESEARCH METHODS!!!!!!!!)
That’s likely of lesser concern than the second problem, which is that in all these surveys and conversations and focus groups, it’s entirely possible that no one knew what they were talking about. Or at the very least, no one trying to interpret the results can be sure of what the respondents were talking about. The term “racialized” is new, confusing and imprecise, and not even the authors of the study could decide what it meant, telling survey respondents that the term “is either or both an imposed or chosen self-identity” - respondent’s choice!
That means that it’s not even possible to know what the study was measuring. In effect, any lawyer or paralegal of any colour or origin could be accurately classified as “racialized” … and also as “non-racialized”; it just depends how that lawyer or paralegal feels.
(IN a society that condemns “white privilege” am I NOT RACIALIZED since LIE-berals think I have “UNDESERVED privileges”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
(And by simply “inviting” volunteers to participate- it seems logical that those who spoke up would be the radical ones with a biased axe to grind!!!!!!!!!!!)
But there is a special place in research methodology hell for the third issue with the report: the sample was not representative of the population about which conclusions were made. To have obtained meaningful results about Ontario lawyers and paralegals, it would have been necessary to hear from some sort of random sample of these people. Instead, the study based its survey conclusions on the responses of 3,237 self-selected lawyers and paralegals. The rest of the over 40,000 chose not to participate.
(One has to wonder if some lawyers refused to be involved for fear of being censured by LIE-beral hug a thug judges! In the midst of a LIE-beral witch hunt- those who hold strong anti LIE-beral opinions are at risk!!!!!!!!!!!!)
The fourth identified problem with the study is the absence of control variables, which makes it impossible to accurately assess cause and effect. Other than that, truly great work, LSO.
(LIE-berals of course SCORN control variables because such stuff makes it HARDER for LIE-berals to justify their SELFISH conclusions!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Britain agrees to hold elections for European Parliament, signaling a Brexit delay
British Prime Minister Theresa May asks for extension of Britain's departure date until June 30 and said she would begin preparations for European Parliament elections, a key E.U. demand if Britain is not to be kicked out of the block April 12.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
The UK has just cursed the European Parliament with the likes of Farage. I bet the Eu is already gnashing its teeth at that news.
It'd be good to see Ukip and/or the Brexit Party (which Farage now leads) triumphing in the UK part of those elections and destrroying the Tories and Labour.
If the EU doesn't want Farage's Brexit Party probably taking the majority of the UK's 73 EU Parliament seats in the coming weeks it knows what it has to do - just make sure the UK leaves the EU by then, even if it's without a deal.
As TV star Aleksandr Orlov the meerkat says:
Every five years, EU countries go to the polls to elect members of the European Parliament (MEPs).
Each country is allocated a set number of seats, roughly depending on the size of its population. The smallest, Malta (population: around half a million), has six members sitting in the European Parliament while the largest, Germany (population: 82 million), has 96.
At the moment there are 751 MEPs in total and the UK has 73.
Candidates can stand as individuals or they can stand as representatives of one of the UK's political parties.
Once elected, they represent different regions of the country, again according to population. The North East of England and Northern Ireland have three MEPs each while the South East has 10. London has 8.
While most UK MEPs are also members of a national party, once in the European Parliament they sit in one of eight political groups which include MEPs from across the EU who share the same political affiliation.
Member states can run elections to the European Parliament according to their own national laws and traditions, but they must stick to some common rules. MEPs must be elected using a system of proportional representation - so, for example, a party which gains a third of the votes wins a third of the seats.
Turnout in the UK for European Parliament elections is low both by EU standards and by the standards of other UK elections.
The last time they were held in 2014, 36% of those eligible to vote did so, compared with 43% in the EU as a whole.
That compares with 66% turnout at the following year's general election.
In 2016, 56% of the electorate voted in the Scottish Parliament elections, 45% in the Welsh Assembly and 54% in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In local elections in England, turnout varies depending largely on what other elections are taking place on the same day, sometimes dipping as low as the European elections turnout and sometimes rising close to the level of general elections.
How much do elections cost?
The last time European elections were held in 2014, the UK spent £109m on them.
The main costs were running the poll itself (securing polling stations and venues to run counts) and mailing out candidate information and polling cards.
The government has said that if the UK does not end up participating in the 2019 elections, it will reimburse local returning officers - the people responsible for running elections - for any expenses already paid.
What happens when the UK leaves?
The EU is planning to reduce the overall number of seats in the parliament from 751 to 705 when the UK leaves.
There will be a reallocation of 27 of the UK's seats to 14 other member states that are currently underrepresented. And the rest will be set aside with the possibility of being allocated to any new member states that join in the future.
The EU has already passed legislation to do this, but it does not take effect until the UK leaves.
The number of seats is capped in law at 751.
The European Commission had advised that as long as the UK made a decision to take part in the European elections by mid-April, this reallocation would be reversed.
But what if the UK elects MEPs and then passes a deal to leave the EU?
In that case, the UK MEPs would not take their seats, leaving vacancies.
The House of Commons Library says that extra MEPs could potentially be elected on "stand-by" in some member states but not take up their seats until the UK leaves the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47826886
Each country is allocated a set number of seats, roughly depending on the size of its population. The smallest, Malta (population: around half a million), has six members sitting in the European Parliament while the largest, Germany (population: 82 million), has 96.
At the moment there are 751 MEPs in total and the UK has 73.
Candidates can stand as individuals or they can stand as representatives of one of the UK's political parties.
Once elected, they represent different regions of the country, again according to population. The North East of England and Northern Ireland have three MEPs each while the South East has 10. London has 8.
While most UK MEPs are also members of a national party, once in the European Parliament they sit in one of eight political groups which include MEPs from across the EU who share the same political affiliation.
Member states can run elections to the European Parliament according to their own national laws and traditions, but they must stick to some common rules. MEPs must be elected using a system of proportional representation - so, for example, a party which gains a third of the votes wins a third of the seats.
Turnout in the UK for European Parliament elections is low both by EU standards and by the standards of other UK elections.
The last time they were held in 2014, 36% of those eligible to vote did so, compared with 43% in the EU as a whole.
That compares with 66% turnout at the following year's general election.
In 2016, 56% of the electorate voted in the Scottish Parliament elections, 45% in the Welsh Assembly and 54% in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In local elections in England, turnout varies depending largely on what other elections are taking place on the same day, sometimes dipping as low as the European elections turnout and sometimes rising close to the level of general elections.
How much do elections cost?
The last time European elections were held in 2014, the UK spent £109m on them.
The main costs were running the poll itself (securing polling stations and venues to run counts) and mailing out candidate information and polling cards.
The government has said that if the UK does not end up participating in the 2019 elections, it will reimburse local returning officers - the people responsible for running elections - for any expenses already paid.
What happens when the UK leaves?
The EU is planning to reduce the overall number of seats in the parliament from 751 to 705 when the UK leaves.
There will be a reallocation of 27 of the UK's seats to 14 other member states that are currently underrepresented. And the rest will be set aside with the possibility of being allocated to any new member states that join in the future.
The EU has already passed legislation to do this, but it does not take effect until the UK leaves.
The number of seats is capped in law at 751.
The European Commission had advised that as long as the UK made a decision to take part in the European elections by mid-April, this reallocation would be reversed.
But what if the UK elects MEPs and then passes a deal to leave the EU?
In that case, the UK MEPs would not take their seats, leaving vacancies.
The House of Commons Library says that extra MEPs could potentially be elected on "stand-by" in some member states but not take up their seats until the UK leaves the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47826886
Last edited:
We already know that the Remainers are a pretty unpleasant lot who don't like democracy. But wanting us to stay in the EU but NOT take part in EU elections is even more weird and sinister.
Remainers, if you don't want us to take part in the EU elections because you are scared we will vote the "wrong" way just make sure we are out of the EU by then:
Coffee House
The reason Remainers are worried about European elections
Charles Moore
The European Parliament
Charles Moore
6 April 2019
The Spectator
If the EU grants us a long extension (and let us pray that M. Macron’s malice towards Britain leads him to prevent this), Remainers are worried. They want the extension, but not the European elections, since there is a real chance that ‘the wrong people’ might win.
Ken Clarke, I gather, is working out a plan to head off this unpleasant potential outbreak of democracy. He seeks to persuade the EU high-ups to concoct a new rule by which countries which have already triggered Article 50 but have not yet left would not be allowed to take part. They will surely oblige.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-reason-remainers-are-worried-about-european-elections/
Remainers, if you don't want us to take part in the EU elections because you are scared we will vote the "wrong" way just make sure we are out of the EU by then:
Coffee House
The reason Remainers are worried about European elections
Charles Moore
The European Parliament
Charles Moore
6 April 2019
The Spectator
If the EU grants us a long extension (and let us pray that M. Macron’s malice towards Britain leads him to prevent this), Remainers are worried. They want the extension, but not the European elections, since there is a real chance that ‘the wrong people’ might win.
Ken Clarke, I gather, is working out a plan to head off this unpleasant potential outbreak of democracy. He seeks to persuade the EU high-ups to concoct a new rule by which countries which have already triggered Article 50 but have not yet left would not be allowed to take part. They will surely oblige.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/the-reason-remainers-are-worried-about-european-elections/
The war on No Deal is a war on democracy
The political elite’s hysterical hatred of No Deal is a cover for their contempt for Brexit itself.
Brendan O'Neill
Editor
4th April 2019
So there goes Brexit. Voted for by 17,410,742 people, voted down by 313 MPs. Backed by the largest number of British voters ever to back anything, seen off by a gaggle of MPs who hate what we voted for. Make no mistake: this is what last night’s slim win for Yvette Cooper’s amendment means. It means the only remaining policy option that resembles Brexit – leaving the EU without a deal – has been legally obliterated. If the House of Lords now gives the nod to the Cooper legislation – and being a hotbed of Brexitphobic elitism, there’s no reason it wouldn’t – and if the EU agrees to a further extension to the Article 50 process – which it might well do – then Brexit as we knew it is finished.
It can feel difficult sometimes to grasp the gravity of the situation we face: the largest democratic vote in the history of this nation is being betrayed before our very eyes. Ignore the crowing Brexit-blocking MPs who say that the victory of the Cooper idea simply means that a ‘catastrophic’ No Deal Brexit will no longer be an option, and that brave MPs who are so much cleverer than us pig-ignorant plebs have saved Britain from the ‘cliff edge’ of ‘crashing out’, etc etc. These Orwellian euphemisms are simply a disguise for what the political elite’s war on No Deal represents – a war on Brexit. When you hear MPs saying ‘We have to prevent No Deal’, what they really mean is: ‘We have to prevent Brexit.’ And preventing Brexit of course means preventing democracy, disenfranchising millions, overturning 100 years of a democratic contract that defined modern Britain. This is the end of an era.
There’s still an ‘if’ to the elite’s final blow against the mass democratic vote to leave the EU. The Cooper rule would force PM Theresa May to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50 beyond the current end date – 12 April – precisely in order to remove No Deal as an option. The ‘if’ is whether the EU agrees to all of this. It is in its interests to do so, though, because the removal of No Deal is not only a historically traitorous blow to Britons’ democratic will – it will also hugely embolden the EU in the ‘negotiations’ over Brexit. Removing one’s ability to walk away from talks instantly weakens one’s own side and boosts the other. The EU now knows – if it didn’t already – that the morally emaciated leaders of the UK will take anything. A bad deal? Hit us with it. We’ll accept. The removal of No Deal is a green light to yet more EU neocolonial bullying of our supposedly sovereign nation.
The potential end of No Deal tells us two very important things. First, that there is a colossal, unbridgeable gap between public opinion and elite opinion. It is hard to think of any other time in recent decades when the disconnect between us and them was as profound as it is right now. Just this week, a YouGov poll found that large numbers of people think that if a Brexit deal is not sorted by 12 April and the EU refuses to extend the deadline, then we should leave with No Deal. Forty-four per cent think we should leave without a deal, vs 42 per cent who think we should remain in the EU. The breakdown by regions is even more striking. Only in London is there a majority for remaining in these circumstances; in the south (outside of London), the Midlands and the north, more are in favour of leaving with No Deal. Especially in the Midlands, where 49 per cent favour No Deal vs 38 per cent favouring Remain. That the political class can talk about No Deal as the maddest, most dangerous thing ever, and plot for its destruction, while vast numbers of citizens are warming to No Deal speaks to a chasm-sized difference in political worldviews. It speaks to two Britains: theirs and ours. It also confirms something all democrats know: the crowd is far wiser and more reasoned than cut-off, easily panicked elites.
And the second thing the war on No Deal / Brexit / democracy confirms is that we are ruled by liars. There is no other way to put it. They’re liars, charlatans, betrayers. These are people who promised to respect the referendum result. Who were returned to parliament on manifestos that said we would leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. Who said they would not block Brexit. Yvette Cooper herself, author of this latest reactionary assault on democracy, put out an election leaflet in which she expressly said she would not block Brexit; now she is at the forefront of blocking Brexit. The true mystery in British politics right now is how MPs are getting away with it. How they can be so brazenly anti-democratic and anti-people and not face serious repercussions. Those repercussions will now have to come at the ballot box. The political class needs to be ousted, with haste, and replaced by people who know what democracy means and who do not look upon the public as uneducated scum whose votes can be overridden at will.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/04/the-war-on-no-deal-is-a-war-on-democracy/
The political elite’s hysterical hatred of No Deal is a cover for their contempt for Brexit itself.
Brendan O'Neill
Editor
4th April 2019
So there goes Brexit. Voted for by 17,410,742 people, voted down by 313 MPs. Backed by the largest number of British voters ever to back anything, seen off by a gaggle of MPs who hate what we voted for. Make no mistake: this is what last night’s slim win for Yvette Cooper’s amendment means. It means the only remaining policy option that resembles Brexit – leaving the EU without a deal – has been legally obliterated. If the House of Lords now gives the nod to the Cooper legislation – and being a hotbed of Brexitphobic elitism, there’s no reason it wouldn’t – and if the EU agrees to a further extension to the Article 50 process – which it might well do – then Brexit as we knew it is finished.
It can feel difficult sometimes to grasp the gravity of the situation we face: the largest democratic vote in the history of this nation is being betrayed before our very eyes. Ignore the crowing Brexit-blocking MPs who say that the victory of the Cooper idea simply means that a ‘catastrophic’ No Deal Brexit will no longer be an option, and that brave MPs who are so much cleverer than us pig-ignorant plebs have saved Britain from the ‘cliff edge’ of ‘crashing out’, etc etc. These Orwellian euphemisms are simply a disguise for what the political elite’s war on No Deal represents – a war on Brexit. When you hear MPs saying ‘We have to prevent No Deal’, what they really mean is: ‘We have to prevent Brexit.’ And preventing Brexit of course means preventing democracy, disenfranchising millions, overturning 100 years of a democratic contract that defined modern Britain. This is the end of an era.
There’s still an ‘if’ to the elite’s final blow against the mass democratic vote to leave the EU. The Cooper rule would force PM Theresa May to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50 beyond the current end date – 12 April – precisely in order to remove No Deal as an option. The ‘if’ is whether the EU agrees to all of this. It is in its interests to do so, though, because the removal of No Deal is not only a historically traitorous blow to Britons’ democratic will – it will also hugely embolden the EU in the ‘negotiations’ over Brexit. Removing one’s ability to walk away from talks instantly weakens one’s own side and boosts the other. The EU now knows – if it didn’t already – that the morally emaciated leaders of the UK will take anything. A bad deal? Hit us with it. We’ll accept. The removal of No Deal is a green light to yet more EU neocolonial bullying of our supposedly sovereign nation.
The potential end of No Deal tells us two very important things. First, that there is a colossal, unbridgeable gap between public opinion and elite opinion. It is hard to think of any other time in recent decades when the disconnect between us and them was as profound as it is right now. Just this week, a YouGov poll found that large numbers of people think that if a Brexit deal is not sorted by 12 April and the EU refuses to extend the deadline, then we should leave with No Deal. Forty-four per cent think we should leave without a deal, vs 42 per cent who think we should remain in the EU. The breakdown by regions is even more striking. Only in London is there a majority for remaining in these circumstances; in the south (outside of London), the Midlands and the north, more are in favour of leaving with No Deal. Especially in the Midlands, where 49 per cent favour No Deal vs 38 per cent favouring Remain. That the political class can talk about No Deal as the maddest, most dangerous thing ever, and plot for its destruction, while vast numbers of citizens are warming to No Deal speaks to a chasm-sized difference in political worldviews. It speaks to two Britains: theirs and ours. It also confirms something all democrats know: the crowd is far wiser and more reasoned than cut-off, easily panicked elites.
And the second thing the war on No Deal / Brexit / democracy confirms is that we are ruled by liars. There is no other way to put it. They’re liars, charlatans, betrayers. These are people who promised to respect the referendum result. Who were returned to parliament on manifestos that said we would leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. Who said they would not block Brexit. Yvette Cooper herself, author of this latest reactionary assault on democracy, put out an election leaflet in which she expressly said she would not block Brexit; now she is at the forefront of blocking Brexit. The true mystery in British politics right now is how MPs are getting away with it. How they can be so brazenly anti-democratic and anti-people and not face serious repercussions. Those repercussions will now have to come at the ballot box. The political class needs to be ousted, with haste, and replaced by people who know what democracy means and who do not look upon the public as uneducated scum whose votes can be overridden at will.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/04/the-war-on-no-deal-is-a-war-on-democracy/
The BIGGEST PROBLEM with Brexit is the one NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I refer to EXCHANGE RATES for currencies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not just a problem for the E.U.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it is also a problem for the entire world in its dealings with dictators like those in China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some Yankee leaders have suggested that China is the greatest currency manipulator on the planet and I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Currency manipulation can kill jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or- as the Chinese know- currency manipulation can CREATE JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Chinese economy is a CLOSED SHOP.....................only LIMITED western access is allowed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
China has created a two tier economy....................one for dealing with the west.........................
so that China can profit nicely...........................................
and a second economy for local consumption that ensures that Chinese peasants CANNOT AFFORD to buy western products and therefore MUST BUY locally made products!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In this age of supposedly Free Trade such economic manipulation is supposed to be illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Before WW2 all economies were on the gold standard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Money consisted of Gold, Silver and Copper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When you ran out of those 3 commodities then YOU STOPPED BUYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But paper money can be printed as necessary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Govt with cooked books CAN keep buying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And LIE-beral govts have been printing money for decades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Govt NO LONGER DARES to make HONEST assessments of the value of its currency for fear of being hit hard by devaluation and economy killing deflation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Britain leaves the E.U. then the LIE-beral bureaucrats face a TERRIBLE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How to HIDE discrepancies in British Pounds Sterling value relative to E. U. coinage??????????????????????????????
Europe is bankrupt and the LIE-berals DO NOT want bankers starting to screw with exchange rates for fear of opening a HUGE CAN of monetary WORMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The world economy is shaky enough already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another consideration ought to be that comparison between Fascist govts of the 1930`s versus democratic countries of that same time period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
China, Russia and Iran are using the same kind of economic model as was used by Adolf Hitler to build up his military much faster than the western powers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hitler resolved a lot of economic problems with autocratic and dictatorial powers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exchange rate disadvantages??????????????
NO PROBLEM- you buy what we Fascists PERMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But you cannot tell citizens of a democracy where they can spend their money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dont have a job?????????????????????
Get in the army - that will keep you out of trouble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hitler used a mixture of command economy and carefully manipulated capitalism to balance his books and bui;ld his armies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People talk of how crippling the war reparations specified by the Treaty of Versailles was on Germany!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But Germany had completely stopped paying reparations by 1933!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Chinese and Iranians, North Korea and Putin are doing the same economic manipulations as Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hitler restricted political opponents just as much as Putin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Being hostile to the Nazis was just as dangerous as being hostile to Islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Throw in assorted wage and price controls and the ability to throw people out of jobs if they make trouble for the party and you have a nice Dictator Play book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The LIE-beral social welfare state is a tottering wreck that is in grave danger of falling over due to the weight of LIE-beral Fake News and deficits and debts................................
or it may be the LIE-beral social welfare state will be PULLED DOWN by Fascist vandals such as civil service union Hogs allied to Putin and Kim and the Iranian radicals and the Chinese Soviets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The latest polls in places like Untied States suggest that a LOT of kids have been so brain washed they think George W. Bush killed more people than either Stalin or Mao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wetsern civilization is under attack and Brexit is only one of the battlefields!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are other battles going on in your local school or college as we speak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That IS CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How can LIE-berals HIDE their machinations with paper money and DEBT if there is regular examination of exchange rates between European traders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How can LIE-berals justify an extreme welfare state dedicated to bribing people so LIE-berals can stay in power in perpetuity??????
If those Brits manage to get along happily without LIE-beral social justice warriors?????????????????????????
WE need to recall that Greece was originally REJECTED as an EU member because of their BIG DEBTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So Greeks paid some debts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And then COOKED THEIR BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As Wynne-bag Ontari-owe LIE-berals tried and failed to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Greeks were then accepted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only to fall into a fiscal hole along with the other PIGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And LIE-berals certainly DO NOT wish to explain to their own citizens just why they CANNOT have a British style recovery of political common sense and logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alright- its time now for Tecumsehbonesforbrains to go off and think dark thoughts about how to insult other people with masturbation remarks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tecumsehbonesforbrains is reduced to making not so cutting remarks about masturbation since he has UTTERLY FAILED to explain his twisted hallucination about how to improve cop training!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!