BREXIT Discussion, v4.0: The Back-Pedaling

Nigel Farage was never your traditional politician. If he gave a damn about his political career, he wouldn't have been in the EU parliament verbally humiliating all of the big shots on a regular basis. His only intention was to crush the EU, and now that's been done in Britain. The leave campaign was never going to allow him to be involved with any of the post-Brexit proceedings, so there is nothing more that he can accomplish in British politics. Most likely he's going to focus on being an advisor for anti-Eu parties in other EU states.



I don't know that much about him, but you have to respect his achievement. He believed in something and went for it. All part of Democracy you need people from all sites.
Also history might not look at him and Boris favorably.
 
Google guardian article
''Is there a secret plan for eu army''
Thatl see u right

So that article does acknowledge the desire for one, but says it isn't realistic at least in the short-mid term, and rather leans towards central cooperation and pooling of resources. There have been calls for an EU army but the question is how much control would Brussels have over it would the EU member states continue to maintain their own.

There is still the matter of following the trajectory though. Where might the trajectory take EU member states over the mid to long term. Where does it end?

I'll have to find the original documents that the reports were originally based on, and see what they say specifically.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that much about him, but you have to respect his achievement. He believed in something and went for it. All part of Democracy you need people from all sites.
Also history might not look at him and Boris favorably.

Unlike Boris Johnson, I reckon Nigel Farage will be looked at a bit of a folk hero in some circles, once all is said and done. Essentially, he was one man who vehemently disagreed with a political decision in Europe that was made over 20 years ago, and he worked hard, stubborn like a bull, to overturn that decision.

He's a great example of how even a single individual can utilize our Western democracy in order to accomplish whatever he feels that needs to be accomplished. I'm not saying that he did it all without any allies or back-up, but for the most part the establishment was totally against him. He didn't meet too many favourable interviewers or crowds whenever he was allowed to speak up.

If this was a totalitarian system like the USSR, a man like Nigel Farage would've either been hanged, or he would've had to resort to violent rebellion in order to achieve his goals.

It is possible that if the EU develops in the manner that Farage believes it will, such a feat will not be possible by the next decade or so. State sovereignity is what allowed a referendum to take place, once that's taken away, the only option to get out of the EU deal is by resorting to violence and staging a rebellion.
 
To be fair to KnightTemplar, he has a point. Seemingly, his life couldn't get any worse than it is now. So why not vote to change the status quo? The current state of affairs clearly hasn't worked out for him from an educational, economic nor social standpoint.

He's actually a very good example of the low socio-economic demographic who, along with the elderly, helped Leave win. As someone eluded to earlier, you had voters from Wales, living in an EU-funded regeneration area, asking 'What's the EU ever done for me?'

The reason that government by referendum isn't an accepted method is that large swathes of every population are utter fuckwits.

Amen to that.

If it was up to me those uneducated mofo's wouldnt have any voting rights at all. They are simply to dumb and easy to persuade with one liners. On top of that most of them have all the time in the world to vote;)

And yet you still lost to people you consider your intellectual and social inferiors. How humiliating for you. I imagine you must feel much like the Nazis did after they got their shit pushed in by the Russian untermenschen;)
 
Google guardian article
''Is there a secret plan for eu army''
Thatl see u right

Here is the original document the reports were based on

http://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument

The way I read it is a sales pitch for an EU army and intelligence services (And also talks about centralized planning for migrations/refugees and economics). I don't see in there that it would remove the right for member states to have their own military, but under such a framework they would likely wither over time, and an EU army and intelligence apparatus I would think would require some jurisdiction to work inside the member states.
 
So that article does acknowledge the desire for one, but says it isn't realistic at least in the short-mid term, and rather leans towards central cooperation and pooling of resources. There have been calls for an EU army but the question is how much control would Brussels have over it would the EU member states continue to maintain their own.

There is still the matter of following the trajectory though. Where might the trajectory take EU member states over the mid to long term. Where does it end?

I'll have to find the original documents that the reports were originally based on, and see what they say specifically.

For the EU to survive it needs more power and less bureaucracy. Most of its problems are the result of not listening (a power issue) or not having the means to enforce things.
 
Nigel Farage Says He’ll Step Down as Head of U.K. Independence Party
By STEPHEN CASTLE
JULY 4, 2016

Nigel Farage, the leader of the right-wing U.K. Independence Party, in London on Monday. He said he had achieved his central ambition of getting Britain to leave the European Union, and was leaving his party in a “pretty good place.”


LONDON — Nigel Farage, the man credited by many with pressing the British government into holding a referendum on the European Union, announced on Monday that he was standing down as leader of the populist, right-wing U.K. Independence Party.

Mr. Farage, 52, said that he had “done my bit,” achieved his central ambition and left his party in a “pretty good place” in the wake of Britain’s vote on June 23 to quit the 28-nation bloc.

“I have never been, and I have never wanted to be, a career politician,” he said. “My aim of being in politics was to get Britain out of the European Union.”

Monday was not the first time Mr. Farage said he would quit the party leadership: He made a similar promise after the 2015 general election — when he failed to win a seat in the British Parliament — only to change his mind.

As a member of the U.K. Independence Party, Mr. Farage has campaigned for more than 15 years to leave the European Union, increasingly highlighting the issue of immigration.

His success alarmed lawmakers of the Conservative Party of Prime Minister David Cameron, who, under pressure,promised in 2013 to call an in-or-out referendum. After the Conservatives’ surprising victory in last year’s general election, Mr. Cameron was compelled to make good on that promise.

Mr. Farage remains a member of the European Parliament, to which he was first elected in 1999. Last Tuesday, after the referendum, Mr. Farage taunted fellow lawmakers in Brussels.

“When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me,” he said to jeers and groans. “Well, you’re not laughing now.”

His colleagues in the European Parliament were not sorry to see him go. “#NigelFarage is the latest coward to abandon the chaos he is responsible for,” Manfred Weber, a German member of the European Parliament who has denounced Mr. Farage as a demagogue, wrote on Twitter. “This shows that he has no credibility at all.”


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/world/europe/nigel-farage-ukip-brexit.html?_r=0&referer=.































 
Last edited:
Pro-Brexit Britons claim their own Independence Day
By Ryan Browne, CNN
Mon July 4, 2016

160628142653-brexit-leave-protest-exlarge-169.jpg

Two-hundred-and-forty years after American colonists upset at the dictates of Parliament turned over the established political order, a new group of political upstarts has spurned the rule of the European Union. This time it's a group of Brits themselves looking to the United States for inspiration.

"If we vote to 'Leave,' and take back control, we believe that this Thursday could be our country's Independence Day!" former London Mayor, Boris Johnson, a leader of the British movement to leave the European Union, told an audience of thousands at Wembley Stadium in the days leading up to the June 23 referendum on "Brexit."

Nigel Farage, a member of the UK Independence Party and prominent advocate of the Leave camp, told CNN's Nima Elbagir the day after the vote, "There's now 183 countries around the world that have independence days. What we did yesterday was become 184th."

Many pundits have labeled the UK's vote opting out of the EU as a sign of increasing isolationism, linking it to similar sentiments expressed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his "America First" policy.

But there is at least one country that the leaders of the Brexit campaign seem to favor closer ties to: the United States. Those leaders are among the Conservative Party members vying to replace Prime Minister David Cameron, who resigned after losing the Brexit vote, and politicians further to the right who have claimed the spotlight after the successful Leave campaign.

"We are the closest allies in the world," Farage said, referring to the U.S.-UK relationship. He added that it will "actually get stronger" in the wake of the vote.

After President Barack Obama visited the UK in April to advocate for Britain's continued EU membership, Johnson penned an op-ed in British tabloid The Sun saying that Brexit would enable Britain to "be even better and more valuable allies of the United States."

He also made a point to link Brexit ambitions to U.S. sensibilities, writing "The Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU, for themselves or for their neighbors in their own hemisphere. Why should they think it right for us?"

Johnson was born in New York City and held dual citizenship until 2015 -- when he gave up his U.S. passport in a desire to save money on taxes, an interest shared by many of his former countrymen. The coiner of the phrase "Special Relationship," Winston Churchill, similarly possessed American roots, with his mother having been born in New York as well.

Johnson, a Conservative Party member, shocked the political establishment this week by announcing that he would not be running for prime minister, but the candidates who have thrown their hats in the ring share his transatlantic enthusiasm.

"You take a look at the remaining contenders for the Tory (Conservative Party) leadership, they have various ideological tilts, but they are internationalist, outward-looking, pro-NATO and pro-the US-UK special relationship," Ted Bromund of the Washington-based Heritage Foundation told CNN.

Theresa May, currently the British Home Secretary and favored candidate for prime minster, despite having advocated staying the EU, said in April, "Our security and intelligence agencies have the closest working relationship of any two countries in the world -- and I know that it would certainly survive Britain leaving the EU."

And one of her main opponents in the leadership contest, the pro-Brexit Michael Gove, lauded American entrepreneurial culture and advocated a U.S.-UK trade deal while announcing his bid Friday, calling America "the one of "the most successful start-up nations."

From the British perspective "there is more reason for a closer relationship with the U.S." following Brexit, according to Xenia Wickett, head of the U.S. and the Americas Programme at the London-based think tank Chatham House. "A set of Brexiteers saw the EU as holding Great Britain back and want to be more engaged on the international scene," including with the U.S., she said.

The majority of the Conservatives in Parliament supporting Leave were in this camp, she added.

Pro-Leave politicians like Farage have celebrated NATO military alliance, which the U.S. is a member of, while simultaneously slamming the EU. "We're going to stay as a key pillar of NATO," Farage said.

But Wickett cautioned that the U.S. might not reciprocate this new enthusiasm for closer ties, as the U.S. would seek more robust partnerships with France, Germany and Poland in an effort to maintain influence in the larger EU bloc.

Brexit makes the UK "notably less useful to America," she said. "In a decade or so it will no longer be accurate to call the U.S.-UK relationship special."

But Bromund, who specializes in U.S.-UK relations at Heritage, struck a more optimistic tone.

"Brexit creates an opportunity. The U.S. and UK have to choose to take advantage of it," he said.

He noted that Americans would eventually look to strike a trade deal with the world's fifth-biggest economy, even though the U.S. has until now been focused on an agreement with the EU, something Obama noted in his April visit to London.

But according to Bromund, "There's a lot of enthusiasm, certainly among U.S. Republicans, for a U.S.-UK trade deal."

Regardless of what happens on the political front, Wickett added that the countries' "common Anglo-Saxon value system" would keep the people of the two nations close.

It remains to be seen if any joint independence day celebrations will be in the offering.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/politics/brexit-independence-day/
 
For the EU to survive it needs more power and less bureaucracy. Most of its problems are the result of not listening (a power issue) or not having the means to enforce things.

And what would they do with such power? Increase the flow of population replacement and finish the job of wiping out the peoples and cultures of Europe to create the great jumbled up mish mash of people that could never stand against them?

From the elites perspective I can certainly see the desire for more totalitarian control. That is just common sense and historical norm for empires. But they can't push too hard without turning people off and buyers remorse will likely increase.
 
And what would they do with such power? Increase the flow of population replacement and finish the job of wiping out the peoples and cultures of Europe to create the great jumbled up mish mash of people that could never stand against them?

From the elites perspective I can certainly see the desire for more totalitarian control. That is just common sense and historical norm for empires. But they can't push too hard without turning people off and buyers remorse will likely increase.

I think they should stop mass immigration and stop promoting the idea of refugee quotas. Doing that would make a lot of people happy and really quell the anti-EU sentiments.
 
I think they should stop mass immigration and stop promoting the idea of refugee quotas. Doing that would make a lot of people happy and really quell the anti-EU sentiments.

Yeah it's strange how that is such an obvious and fundamental way of not annoying people and yet a big part of the EU is the mix-up and replacement strategy. Nationalistic resistance is the natural response to this, so it is obviously factored into the long term strategic planning.

Either they will use this resistance for something, or they will just continue to suppress it and eventually snuff it out under the assumption they can do so without too much trouble. Hard to say.

To me it seems like the EU could be built better, but I'm sure those doing the strategizing are working for people with different agendas and views.
 
Here is the original document the reports were based on

http://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument

The way I read it is a sales pitch for an EU army and intelligence services (And also talks about centralized planning for migrations/refugees and economics). I don't see in there that it would remove the right for member states to have their own military, but under such a framework they would likely wither over time, and an EU army and intelligence apparatus I would think would require some jurisdiction to work inside the member states.

I see it playing out like a corporate takeover. At first they'd send their people to observe, take notes to send back home to Brussels. Then, current leadership would ease the new leadership in, get a lofty package and leave. The workers (soldiers in this case) would stay, but their entire leadership/company culture would be different.
 
And yet you still lost to people you consider your intellectual and social inferiors. How humiliating for you. I imagine you must feel much like the Nazis did after they got their shit pushed in by the Russian untermenschen;)

Again, you miss the point, can't say I'm surprised.

I didn't lose to anyone. I weighed up facts and opinion, analysed the claims of both campaigns and voted for what I considered best for my family.

You thought "My life couldn't get any worse, I hate Bob Geldof and the Remain crowd are whiny bitches" and voted Leave.

It's a microcosm of the inherent problem of rule by referendum.
 
Yeah it's strange how that is such an obvious and fundamental way of not annoying people and yet a big part of the EU is the mix-up and replacement strategy. Nationalistic resistance is the natural response to this, so it is obviously factored into the long term strategic planning.

Either they will use this resistance for something, or they will just continue to suppress it and eventually snuff it out under the assumption they can do so without too much trouble. Hard to say.

To me it seems like the EU could be built better, but I'm sure those doing the strategizing are working for people with different agendas and views.

It amazes me how you only consider a level of international conspiracy that fails to account for national interests.

Of course Germany and Austria want refugee quotas. They have carried the majority of the burden so far. Whether Merkel is at least partially to blame is not the point here - if you are Germany and Austria, you simply do not want to be stuck with all the refugees when there are other countries with the cultural and economic capacity to take some in.

My point thus: you do not need the EU Level to come to this conclusion.
 
Again, you miss the point, can't say I'm surprised.

I didn't lose to anyone. I weighed up facts and opinion, analysed the claims of both campaigns and voted for what I considered best for my family.

You thought "My life couldn't get any worse, I hate Bob Geldof and the Remain crowd are whiny bitches" and voted Leave.

It's a microcosm of the inherent problem of rule by referendum.

I venture to suggest that allowing subhumans like you to breed is far more demonstrative of the inherent problems of democracy than this referendum.:rolleyes:
 
It amazes me how you only consider a level of international conspiracy that fails to account for national interests.

Of course Germany and Austria want refugee quotas. They have carried the majority of the burden so far. Whether Merkel is at least partially to blame is not the point here - if you are Germany and Austria, you simply do not want to be stuck with all the refugees when there are other countries with the cultural and economic capacity to take some in.

My point thus: you do not need the EU Level to come to this conclusion.

I view Merkel as a puppet and national sovereignty is not as significant as most people think, since the power is private and international in scope.

But of course there is still national interest. It just doesn't drive geo-politics as much as it would appear at first glance (or national politics for that matter since it exists under the umbrella of the more powerful globalist politics).

The mass migration waves were largely engineered in the first place, and Germany (along with Sweden and somewhat the UK) was advertised as destinations. The bat signal went up.

So now they have to solve a problem they created deliberately. It wasn't national interests driving Germany to roll out the red carpet. It was globalist politics.
 
Last edited:
I venture to suggest that allowing subhumans like you to breed is far more demonstrative of the inherent problems of democracy than this referendum.:rolleyes:

This speaks volumes with regard to the intellectual capacity of a large part of the leave crowd: eager to dish out insults, very emotional, promoting 'liberty and freedom' but without any plan.

At the same time, all protagonists now duck responsibility. Cameron called the referendum to pacify his party. Smart move. Boris Johnson never really wanted Brexit, he wanted power. Now gone. Nigel Farage wants none of the mess of real world politics. Gone.

At the same time, the Remain camp screwed up big time. People failed to get the message out loud and passionately. Lol@mass demonstrations after the fact. People also failed to vote. I pitied the young British, but only a third went to the polls - these people essentially dug their own grave.

Britain now delaying the procesure is a result of nobody knowing how to get a good deal. They want to pressure the EU into negotiating beforehand to ensure there will be no fuck up. But that is stupid, and it will not go that way. Britain needs to say they want out, and then negotiations will begin. They will be long and painful and lose / lose. There will be no slim and awesome deal for the UK at the end. Why not? Because the EU is not gonna set a precedent. The UK already had the Brit bonus for decades. There will be no getting all perks without paying.
 
Last edited:
It amazes me how you only consider a level of international conspiracy that fails to account for national interests.

Of course Germany and Austria want refugee quotas. They have carried the majority of the burden so far. Whether Merkel is at least partially to blame is not the point here - if you are Germany and Austria, you simply do not want to be stuck with all the refugees when there are other countries with the cultural and economic capacity to take some in.

My point thus: you do not need the EU Level to come to this conclusion.

The burden is entirely self-inflicted. You weren't forced at gun point to take hordes of refugees. And Merkle's guilt is not in doubt. In fact, her arrogance in forcing her views not only on Germany but the rest of the EU is arguably the single biggest reason Brexit won.

Americans please take note: this is what happens when you elect a fat, ugly, stupid, liberal woman to your nation's highest office...:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top