A bit like the UK, where there is disdain for Etonian types that network their way in to positions of power. Im sure there are some nice people from Eton. Funnily enough there is a chateau in the village where I live, owned by a Parisian family. The locals tell me they only turn up to influence local politics. The property is empty most of the year, with huge hedgerows over hanging other folks property and cutting out light. they will not spend money on the up keep of their boundary. Not the most popular! Getting back to the Brexit thing though, in principle the EU can work, in principle UK Government should work...the common spoiler through all though is privileged few in positions of power. They have no real link to ordinary folk. Aloof, uncaring and self serving establishment. I have discussed many times with Mrs Jbiker the need for modern revolution and she makes a very good point; after revolution the void is often filled with something/someone the same or worse...one of the reasons for my remain view and thinking that change from within would yeild better results. Other than thinking we have an ok deal and arrangement I am also more concerned about giving more power to the Tory party or god forbid Corbyn and cronies. Then getting back to the French, one big revolution later, we have the Gilet Jaune. Kicking back against their Government and the elite. In a different way. And I would argue more affective. They already have results and concessions from Macron. 2 years after Brexit the UK has achieved nothing but division. Ever heard of divide and conquer? Just saying..
The best one I've heard about Parisians in the South of France is that apparently each new intake of Gendarmes who originate from the Paris area are relocated to le Sud in the Summer to cope with all the Parisians who head south on August 1st ! I'm used to revolution in my house. And it doesn't require a Gilet for me to offer concessions. The head-choppers always win here. Joking aside, the recent behaviour of the Police/CRS has been very disturbing. Lots of unnecessary violence and many serious injuries to the Protesters. Not a good look. Rumours that a 'D' notice has been issued to UK broadcasters in the past few weeks. It would explain the lack of coverage in the UK. Not convinced that the EU in its current format will survive more than 20 years. If we manage to leave and prosper, of which there is every chance we will, it will just encourage the others to follow. The EU in its present form is pre-configured to just expand and interfere in everything. I don't see that being a hugely popular or successful ambition going forward. Time will tell.
maybe. I see issues with it. Thing is our Government and media has always used them as an excuse. I still see our bad governance as the main issues and now a missed opportunity for the UK to be 1 of 3 main European players for world influence (with Germany, France..cough.). Seems we would rather work against than with. IMO we should have worked better with it from within, with stronger lobbyists for the benefit of the UK. It probably would have made sense to have UK representatives who were not yes men , golden pension opportunists (Kinnock et al) or anti EU types help bent on destroying (and collection pension, Farage). Neither of them making a constructive contribution that could help shape things for the benefit of the UK. Really hope the UK is as strong both financially and as resilient as some think. Puzzled at what the hell May'tard and the rest of the 'tards are up to.
Nothing I can disagree with there JB. Unfortunately, the UK will never have the same bargaining power in the EU as France and Germany for one simple reason. They do not, and never have, seen the UK as 100% committed to the Project. This goes right back to de Gaulle's vetoes on our membership in the 60's. The last two PM's who were ideologically committed to the Project were Heath and Blair. The others : Major was probably the most EU friendly but the others were lukewarm at best, hostile at worst. That's why second raters like Mr & Mrs Kinnock, Ashton, Mandelson, Patten, Farage etc end up in Brussels on the most magnificent gravy train in history. If we joined the €, went into Schengen and adopted full integration, then maybe we would be a player in the EU. Trouble is, the general population wouldn't accept it. It would appear de Gaulle was right all along. As for May and the others, don't go there !
First referendum was both illegally held,(see below) and asked a question that couldn't be answered,i.e,do you want to remain members,(of a club that you are not members of). Second referendum was unnecessary,(see first referendum),but at least it was democratic and a clear result was the outcome.("What could possibly be undemocratic about that?") A third referendum would also be asking a question that cannot be answered,for the reasons described below I'd especially like you to take note of the paragraph highlighted in blue. But anyway,have a read of some history: Sovereignty Sovereignty must - by definition - be absolute and unqualified. It is like the concept unique - it cannot be limited. Either a country is sovereign or it is not. Either a monarch is sovereign or not. The title, rank and style King is recognition of the physical embodiment of the nations sovereignty. It bears no compromise. In the context of todays issues, we can either have The Queen as the constitutional head of a sovereign country, or we can have a president of the European Union. But, by definition - and despite John Majors claim after Maastricht that The Queen was henceforth a citizen of Europe - we cannot have both. The 37th of the 39 Articles of Religion passed during the reign of Elizabeth I, which still have legal force, and which can be seen in any book of common prayer, says: "The Queen's Majesty ... is not, and ought not to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction". Clause four of The Act of Succession confirmed the power of the sovereign, the role of parliament, the common law rights and liberties of the people, and the relationship between them. It said: IV. And whereas the Laws of England and the Birthright of the People thereof and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the Throne of this Realm ought to <in the sense of must, throughout> administer the Government of the same according to the said Laws and all their Officers and Ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do therefore humbly pray That all the Laws and Statutes of this Realm for securing the established Religion and Rights and Liberties of the People thereof and all other Laws and Statutes of the same now in Force may be ratified and confirmed. And the same are by His Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons and by Authority of the same ratified and confirmed accordingly." The Act of Supremacy 1559 went even further. It included the words: “all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilegewithin this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.” The Act of Supremacy is now largely repealed, but its central intentions live on through the use of almost identical words 129 years later, when The Declaration of Rights of 1688 was written. This, too, is a settlement treaty, and not an Act of Parliament. It too, therefore, cannot be repealed by parliament. The Convention Parliament which drew up the Declaration was called when the Bishop of Salisbury invoked clause 61 of Magna Carta, and demanded the attendance of 25 barons to address his grievances - evidence that clause 61 has teeth, and that there is a precedent for such action today. The Declaration was engrossed in parliament and enrolled among the rolls of chancery. It has never been listed, however, within the chronological tables of Acts of Parliament - a fact which might be significant. The Bill of Rights, December 1689, incorporated all the essential clauses of the Declaration of the previous February, and may be argued to form an entrenchment of the Declaration, severely limiting parliaments ability to make changes. Indeed, it could be held to be doubly entrenched. Clause 13 lays specific responsibilities upon members of parliament to protect the best interests of the people who elected them: “And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.” The Bill of Rights includes an unequivocal and entrenching statement from the Declaration of the previous year. Its intention was: “for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this Kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.” The Bill of Rights included the Oath of Allegiance to the crown which was required by Magna Carta to be taken by all crown servants including members of the judiciary. Specifically they were required not to take into consequence or example anything to the detriment of the subject’s liberties". Similar words are still used today as crown servants swear or affirm that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law and that they will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Secondand will do right to all manner of people, after the laws and usages of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Members of the armed forces swear equally unequivocal oaths of attestation which commit them to protect her from all enemies and to uphold her in her person, dignity and crown. None of these oaths mention parliament, which clearly indicates that parliament cannot interfere with the relationships or duties established by them. Which brings us to one of the pivotal issues of our case - the direct, indisputable and irreconcilable conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counsellors who subsequently swear oaths on appointment as European Union commissioners. Privy counsellors swear: “I will to my uttermost bear faith and allegiance unto the Queens Majesty; and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, and authorities granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise, against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states and potentates. And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me God.” EU commissioners swear: “To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties.” It is impossible to comprehend how privy counsellors who subsequently become European Union commissioners live with the contradictions inherent in these conflicting promises. By definition, one oath or the other must be broken. But the legal consequences of such breaches has - to the best of our knowledge - never been put to the test in a court of law or anywhere else, despite Lord Dennings confirmation that anyone swearing an oath of loyalty to the EU should immediately resign from any public office which was held on an oath of allegiance to the crown. “A man cannot serve two sovereigns.”
Best quote I heard on Jezza was something like 'Jeremy in a leave supporter in the north and a remain supporter in the south' Brew made, reading through Lightnings post.
That's an interesting post Lightning, reminds me of 'O' level History classes about 38 years ago Sort of begs the question. If there was an EU army, and the UK was part of it, who on earth would you pledge allegiance to ? Queen and Country or Tintin and Hercule Poirot ? Complicated.
Typical sensationalist twaddle! Check out how the BBC covers the fact that the UK is outperforming most of the EU: Italy dips into recession; UK out-performs EU; BBC ignores figures Something is missing from the BBC’s report on the Italian economy slipping into recession. In the final quarter of 2018, the Italian economy shrank by 0.2%. That followed a 0.1% decline in the third quarter. The BBC tells us: Growth in the euro area remained at 0.2% in the final quarter of 2018, the same as the previous quarter and in line with analysts’ expectations. Bad news, then. Time to leave the EU. But hold on because the BBC has more news: The figures, issued by the Eurostat agency, showed that in the 28-nation EU as a whole, fourth-quarter growth was 0.3%. That figure includes the UK – which is leaving the EU. But the BBC doesn’t mention the UK’s economy anywhere in its report. It only says: In contrast to Italy, some other eurozone economies expanded more than expected, with France and Spain posting growth rates of 0.3% and 0.7% quarter-on-quarter respectively. In the third quarter of 2018, the UK economy grew by 0.6%. The next quarter looks to have produced a rise of 0.4%. Why doesn’t the BBC think this important to mention? Might it have something to do with Brexit, and how Remain-supporting MPs told us a vote for Leave was a vote for a deep recession? George Osborne told us every household would be £4,300 worse off.
Couldn’t resist especially as it so near the truth Even the German engineers I work with admit that only Germany benefit from the eu and they can see the pattern
Exhibit A - Dm rate when joining the € ... from day 1 it was rigged in their favour. It created a ready made export market for their industries. https://www.forbes.com/sites/milton...man-swindle-built-into-the-euro/#7bc6833d27da Should be able to read this without a sub.
I feel the German reaction reaction makes sense given the second largest contributor is leaving. Given how many times the U.K. blocked closer ties to stop the eu being more in charge than the 28 countries of the eu, you would have thought, apart from the cashola, if anything Germany and France would be happy as larry to let go one of the biggest blockades to the united states of europe?
Not really. You simply pledge to defend the citizens of a country, or in this case a collection of countries. It's really not that difficult if you stop living in the past...
