No Defeat, Whole Surrender

An article in The Spectator – the magazine for Britain’s centre-right political classes – contains a telling passage:

[T]here is no one to lead Britain through a no-deal Brexit and not enough MPs to support it. This is what Brexiteers have to accept.

Apparently British citizens just have to accept the fact their rulers are hopeless incompetents without an ounce of leadership skills among the whole lot of them. There is no other option, it seems. They are in the same position as Abraham Lincoln who said after the Battle of Antietam:

“There is no one to lead the Union armies to a decisive victory over the Confederates. This is what Americans have to accept.”

Actually no, he didn’t say that. Instead he fired the hapless George McClellan and (eventually) appointed the rather more capable Ulysses S. Grant.

The British people delivered a mandate to its rulers to negotiate, organise, and execute an orderly departure from the European Union in a manner which would maximise the long-term benefits for the country. What that precisely means is open to dispute, but the results of negotiations are rarely known in advance; a large part of the skill is being able to recalculate as positions shift. What is not open for dispute is the fact the British political leadership has utterly failed to deliver their mandate. It’s difficult to think of a single part of the process they’ve managed to get right; it’s just been one bungled catastrophe after another. The best they’ve come up with is an embarrassment of an agreement more akin to those signed by nations defeated in war, with the other option of simply exiting on 29th March being forced on them by virtue of their own incompetence. Even if you think No Deal is a good thing, it’s an indicator of how useless our politicians are that this is the most likely outcome. It’s like meeting for peace talks which drag on until everyone’s dead. Nobody’s going to get a Nobel Prize for that.

A term I sometimes hear to describe the current political philosophy, particularly in Europe, is “managed decline”. Our current crop of leaders have no interest in doing anything worthwhile beyond that which will elevate their personal status, power, and privilege. They are wholly uninterested in the future of the country beyond the next month, and treat the whole thing as a game where everyone’s on the same side except the general population who doesn’t even get to play. They have no standards, no self-confidence, no vision, and no ambition beyond that of a teenager singing into her hairbrush in her mother’s high heels. When Sadiq Khan glibly stated that Islamic terror attacks were just part and parcel of living in a big city, he should have been driven from office and into obscurity. He wasn’t, because for too many people this craven, pathetic, mediocrity is what they’ve come to expect from their leaders. That The Spectator is now endorsing this mindset speaks volumes. I’m beginning to think even “managed decline” is overly generous.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

40 thoughts on “No Defeat, Whole Surrender

  1. Yup. You got it.

    And on Brexit they failed from the outset because of a fundamental failure to frame the challenge correctly in their minds.

    Their worldview is / was: ‘These are people we need to be friendly with and appease at every turn because I cannot contemplate the UK not being deeply integrated with the EU structures. My view is more important than what was voted for’.

    I think a much more realistic framing would be: ‘These people are a bunch of utter c***s who will perfectly happily destroy a country if doing so protects their cherished ‘ever closer’ dream. We should work energetically to deliver a WTO outcome with side contracts and also work energetically to see if we can negotiate something more conducive to freer trade than that in parallel – but be genuiely ready to move to a managed WTO outcome’.

  2. You don’t get it Tim.

    The Fish Faced Cow is a remain and EU agent. She IS useless but nobody is that useless. That is what she is trying to put forward rather than the brazen treason of her and creatures like Greive.

  3. I think May must be masochistic. Repeatedly going back to the EU and being humiliated time after time after time isn’t the behaviour of anyone with a milligram of self respect and dignity. Or pride in their country.

    OK, she is a remainer and committed to the EU (perhaps she should be committed to a lunatic asylum) but if she is working to sabotage the referendum result, then at least she should have said to the EU negotiators “Here’s the deal. We spin things out and pretend that we are constructively working towards an agreed exit but I’ll reverse the decision too late to do anything about it. Just pretend that you are not trying to bankrupt Britain and pretend that you are negotiating in good faith”. Instead she has repeatedly been mocked and humiliated and still goes back for more.

    I’m sure that there are quite a few professional Dominatrixes around London that could give her the humiliation and belittling she seems to need without doing it in the full glare of the press and the world. She’s an odd one, right enough.

    But Britain is an Oligarchy, not a democracy. That went by the board around 1920.

  4. “A term I sometimes hear to describe the current political philosophy, particularly in Europe, is “managed decline”. Our current crop of leaders have no interest in doing anything worthwhile beyond that which will elevate their personal status, power, and privilege. ”

    You know when else we had that? With the Conservatives back in the 1970s, thinking Britain was basically going to be a big nothing. Then Thatcher came along and refused to accept that. Who is in charge of the Conservatives now? Those same One Nation Macmillanites that did fuck all to improve the country have been in charge since Cameron.

    If they don’t get a Thatcher soon (and they won’t, they’ll vote for Boris) they’ll be finished.

  5. “managed decline” is not a recent coinage

    This was the consensus view post war period when the British Empire was in retreat. The fact was that the position of Britain versus the rest of Europe was that of being gradually overtaken by each one in turn. This was supposedly inevitable and so the best we could hope for was the make the best of it. That view seemed to end when Thatcher came to power and the economy boomed.

    I suspect that given Thatchers outsider status – nobody since has been remotely as radical – that the status quo reasserted itself, particularly in the Conservative Party.

  6. This is what I’ve been banging on about to all the people who say ‘Where was the Brexitteers Plan?????’ Of course Brexitteers had plans, ask any of the main Leave figures and they’ll give you a plan. There was just zero chance of any of them being put into law by Parliament. Its not as is the leaders of the Leave campaign were placed in full control of the negotiations and told ‘Parliament will pass whatever you decide’ is it?

    What we have here is the equivalent of Party A winning the election by a clear majority, but all the Party B MPs staying in Parliament and saying ‘We’ll implement your manifesto for you!’ Guess how well that would go.

    The problem is that the UK governmental system does not allow for the people to make a decision that a majority of MPs don’t like personally. Thats the flaw in the Parliamentary system – the 650 have the power to thwart the wishes of the 45m who elect them, even if those 45m were all aligned against them. If they can ensure than no party in the HoC represents a certain viewpoint that viewpoint has no-one to represent it in power, which is what has happened with the desire to leave the EU. Its consistently been over 50% in polls, and was over 50% in a hard vote to Leave, yet not one political party had an MP in Parliament who would espouse that view as a consequence of his or her manifesto (bar UKIPs one MP who was a Tory who jumped ship, Farage never managed to get elected, and look at what the Tories did to prevent that, openly floating electoral law). A majority of the country had been purposely disenfranchised by the political system.

  7. “The British people delivered a mandate to its rulers to negotiate, organise, and execute an orderly departure from the European Union in a manner which would maximise the long-term benefits for the country. What that precisely means is open to dispute, but the results of negotiations are rarely known in advance; a large part of the skill is being able to recalculate as positions shift. What is not open for dispute is the fact the British political leadership has utterly failed to deliver their mandate. It’s difficult to think of a single part of the process they’ve managed to get right; it’s just been one bungled catastrophe after another.”

    This is as good a summary as you will find anywhere in current journalism. Opinion divides, of course, on whether the bungled catastrophe was skillfully engineered, or was the result of genuine bungling. Conspiracy or cock-up. I usually favour the latter view, on the grounds that May has been spectacularly mediocre at everything else she has done. Her list of failures at the Home Office is very telling.

    My brother, who is a retired Civil Servant, is completely amazed at how badly the Civil Service have performed. Either the departments did not do the necessary contingency planning (“What happens if we have no deal?…What happens with this deal?…With that deal?…) in the three years they have had to prepare, or there was simply no coordination at the top level. This would mean that – no matter how hard and intelligently Civil Servants in particular departments worked – they would fail because the actions of other departments would throw thousands of other variables into an impossibly complex situation. They have, I think, been paralysed by lack of leadership.

    I hope I live long enough to read an informed insiders view of all this, once it is published. Pity is, it will probably have to get published overseas because by then we are likely to be in deep shit.

  8. The Fish Faced Cow is a remain and EU agent.

    Yes, that’s a given. Most of the entire political class are for Remain, for precisely the reasons I set out.

  9. “The British people delivered a mandate to its rulers to negotiate, organise, and execute an orderly departure from the European Union in a manner which would maximise the long-term benefits for the country.”

    The thing is though – we didn’t. The question that was answered was “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union”. Therefore the only mandate that was delivered was that we leave the European Union. Although a reasonable assumption, to suggest that it should be organised, orderly or to have long-term benefit is only an assumption, and it is to retrospectively give too much credit to the political class.

    Hopefully one silver lining to come from this shitshow is to have future politicians who believe in something, and who are willing to lead and stand up for it, not just follow the flow.

  10. Although a reasonable assumption, to suggest that it should be organised, orderly or to have long-term benefit is only an assumption, and it is to retrospectively give too much credit to the political class.

    If this needed to be spelled out, it explains much about our political classes.

  11. I wonder how people with Stockholm Syndrome – who are shown an open door – actually act. Do they make excuses for their captors and try and do all sorts of mental gymnastics to stay in the cell?

  12. “The British people delivered a mandate to its rulers to negotiate, organise, and execute an orderly departure from the European Union in a manner which would maximise the long-term benefits for the country”

    They did no such thing. They were asked whether they wanted to leave or not, the resulting benefits and disbenefits were not on the ballot slip, nor was there any realistic appraisal of how difficult this would be. That many Leave campaigners sold the delusion of a land of magic rainbows and unicorns (euphemised by the same people post-event as merely an ‘aspiration’) does not mean the other people they expected to make it come true had an actual mandate for achieving it.

    The Leave objective was to rip up decades of diplomatic agreements and tightly bound trade and economic integration which the UK was fully a part of creating and replace it at short notice with something else, the actual details of which would be worked out by people who probably thought it was a batshit idea. At the same time as imposing various red line on the process hamstringing the UK’s own room for manoeuvre. Whilst completely ignoring the interests of the other side, who actually have greater power in the negotiation.

    The whole ‘go WTO’ nonsense is symptomatic of this magical thinking, it completely ignores the evidence provided by modern trade theory. Instead we get “yah books sucks to Remoaners, look, small country X does 50 pence worth of trade with small country Y every year on WTO terms and it works for them, and Patrick Minford says it’s ok and he’s an economics professor even if the trade specialists think he’s senile, and Liam Fox says mercantilism is on it’s way back, and we can all trust him can’t we?”.

  13. hey were asked whether they wanted to leave or not, the resulting benefits and disbenefits were not on the ballot slip, nor was there any realistic appraisal of how difficult this would be.

    This is indicative of the precise problem I’m talking about. Some people when given a task say “Okay, let’s see how I can best carry this out.” Others complain they’ve been handed the task in the first place, start querying whether it actually ought to be done, and moan about how difficult it all is. Our political classes used to be made up of the former, now it’s the latter. The time to determine the worthiness of the task was before the referendum, not after it.

  14. They were asked whether they wanted to leave or not, the resulting benefits and disbenefits were not on the ballot slip, nor was there any realistic appraisal of how difficult this would be

    The Remain campaign never sold the benefits of retaining EU membership. Probably because, in their heart of hearts, they know they are none. Instead we were regaled with stories of famine, pestilence, WW3, a great recession, dogs marrying cats etc.

    What we have ended up with is a deal trying to appease the referendum losers being negotiated by those who always wanted to remain. It’s like putting Freddy Kreuger in charge of a home for teenage runaways.

  15. Sam Vara,

    “My brother, who is a retired Civil Servant, is completely amazed at how badly the Civil Service have performed.”

    I’ve become convinced that “the Civil Service” are, like “the consultants”, whipping boys for government failure.

    I’ve no idea what this Olly Robbins is like, but is anyone seriously saying that the Prime Minister of this country couldn’t look at Robbins’ work and see it was shite and tell Robbins to fuck off home and watch Netflix and get someone else to do the job if she wasn’t happy?

    (Many of the screwed up IT projects in government are delivered by companies that manage to deliver in the private sector)

  16. …tell Robbins to fuck off home and watch Netflix and get someone else to do the job if she wasn’t happy?

    She was happy – that’s sort of the point. She installed him in the Brexit dept. The minister (Davies then) kicked off so she moved Robbins to the cabinet office and he carried on from there. It was set up so it looked as though Brexiteers were in charge whilst remainers ran the show. The mask slipped.

    That said, I agree that it’s slightly unfair to lay lack of preparation at the Civil Service’s door – if for now other reason than there’s been a fair amount of preparation but it doesn’t suit the dominant narrative for it to make the news.

    There was a good article in the Spectator to the effect that there are many areas where 90% of people voted remain and they have no idea why people didn’t. Guess where the great and the good live…

  17. ‘Some people when given a task say “Okay, let’s see how I can best carry this out.”’

    Yes, but the starting point has to be realistic, if the expectations are set by magical thinking then the people tasked to deliver it are always likely to demotivated. If one of your former bosses asked you to build the world’s best oil rig out of bits of broken bicycle parts would you get to work MacGyver style and cobble together something knowing it’s a steaming pile of shit, or would you just say ‘this is nuts’?

    If the starting point was different, your criticism would be more valid. If instead Leave acknowledged years of disruption to the economy, years of political paralysis as bandwidth is sucked from BAU to reconstruction of agreements and regulations UK negotiated and accepted as part of the EU, in the hope of better global trade long-term offsetting being poorer short-term. Bearing in mind we’ll go from being rule makers inside the EU bloc to rule takers from the EU and importantly from US (who will want regulatory standards lowered to meet its corporatist model). This would have been fair.

    Instead Leave sold idea of quick and easy wins, keeping key benefits of the EU but ditching the costs, all the obvious problems were ‘Project Fear’. And ultimately there was never any realistic plan for delivering this, that was someone else’s job. To be clear ‘going WTO’ is equivalent to saying deliberately crashing your car is a good thing to do if you’ve got an airbag. Any attempt to trade off and keep some benefits of EU is a ‘betrayal’ of the fantasy. And that’s all before we look too deeply at how the commercial activities of Hard Brexit backers/ERG types diverge from the views they espouse in public.

  18. There’s something I’ve learned over the years. Dealing with all sorts of people. And pretty successfully I’d guess. Certainly as far as I’m concerned. Everybody but everybody – there may be some altruists out there but they’re rare enough to discount – is primarily driven by looking after their own personal interests. Other aspects will, in everything, take second place. Always but always view things through this filter.
    With the entire Brexit debacle, it explains much.

  19. MJW–Absolute remainiac bullshit of which the last two years have provided a bellyful.

    I would almost welcome a civil war as a chance to settle with the scummy middle class proggie turds that afflict this nation

  20. I’m sorry, but this is tosh.
    The Withdrawal Agreement, putting the backstop to one side, is fine. Not perfect, but good enough.
    After 2020, when we exit transition, we can have all the trade deals we can negotiate.
    We’ll have left the EU.
    No more rule taking on financial services, where we are still one of the 2 world centres
    No more ECJ
    Serious regulatory reform
    Including to VAT (which is now on Govt agenda)
    No need to put up tariff barriers.
    In fact, we can scrap them, as Govt plans to in case of no deal
    No more £11bn a year subsidy to Brussels
    No more free immigration to EU citizens. Choice is up to the UK.

    Of course, we can always stuff things up. UK Governments are pretty hopeless.
    Fortunately, so are most of the EU Governments. Would you really prefer Macron, or Markel, or whoever is the Prime Minister of Denmark, or Belgium, or Spain, etc as Prime Minister?

    The thing about the backstop is that the EU are terrified that the UK will go free trade (which we will) and undercut the rest of Europe.

    They’re right

    We will

  21. If one of your former bosses asked you to build the world’s best oil rig out of bits of broken bicycle parts would you get to work MacGyver style and cobble together something knowing it’s a steaming pile of shit, or would you just say ‘this is nuts’?

    I would and I did. But I would instead point to a method of doing it properly, and if given the task I’d make sure it was a good as can be under the normal constraints. Leaving the EU is not impossible: the entire point of my post is to lament that so many Brits seem to think it is, so there was no point in even trying.

  22. The Withdrawal Agreement, putting the backstop to one side, is fine.

    Putting the backstop aside? If only we could: that the government has been bullied by the Irish – the Irish, FFS! – into accepting such an appalling clause is the biggest indicator this shower should have been nowhere near the negotiations. The fact they’re over in Brussels now begging to get it removed is pathetic: it should never have been considered in the first place, let alone accepted.

  23. Catastrophe or not, it is 100% a result of the sovereign political process, which I suppose the mandate was all about. Can’t see how anyone reasonable can be dissatisfied. The claim was the UK would be ruled from London, not that it would be ruled competently 🙂

  24. “Leaving the EU is not impossible”
    No it’s not, it’s just going to take lots of time and effort and require various tradeoffs, and the loss of certain current advantages in the hope of getting others in the long-term. The problem is the unrealistic expectations that were set to sell the deal, and the hysterical screams of ‘Betrayal’ at serious attempts to manage the damage caused.

  25. No it’s not, it’s just going to take lots of time and effort and require various tradeoffs, and the loss of certain current advantages in the hope of getting others in the long-term.

    Sure, but our politicians are incapable of doing this. That’s my point.

    The problem is the unrealistic expectations that were set to sell the deal, and the hysterical screams of ‘Betrayal’ at serious attempts to manage the damage caused.

    Sure, but I’m surprised at your unwillingness to lay this at the feet of the political classes.

  26. “it’s just going to take lots of time and effort and require various tradeoffs, and the loss of certain current advantages in the hope of getting others in the long-term.”

    Weird then that its so difficult to leave something that we had lost no sovereignty by being in…………….the very fact that it is difficult shows how much power we had already ceded by default to the EU.

  27. Tolkein–May loyalist are you? Go look up the Lawyers review of what evil cockrot the WA BRINO is WITHOUT the backstop.. I am trying to find the thing myself but haven’t yet. Someone else may be a better searcher.

    Anyway they aren’t giving up the backstop. And if the ERG fold over some bullshit form-of-words from that treacherous cunt Cox then its bye bye to the entire Tory Party.

  28. @ Sam Vara:

    My brother, who is a retired Civil Servant, is completely amazed at how badly the Civil Service have performed. Either the departments did not do the necessary contingency planning (“What happens if we have no deal?…What happens with this deal?…With that deal?…) in the three years they have had to prepare, or there was simply no coordination at the top level. This would mean that – no matter how hard and intelligently Civil Servants in particular departments worked – they would fail because the actions of other departments would throw thousands of other variables into an impossibly complex situation. They have, I think, been paralysed by lack of leadership.

    I read that David Cameron forbade the civil service from doing contingency planning for a Yes vote, on the grounds that it might look defeatist. Though given the unreliability of our media nowadays, I wouldn’t put too much confidence in the story’s truth.

    @ MJW:

    They did no such thing. They were asked whether they wanted to leave or not, the resulting benefits and disbenefits were not on the ballot slip, nor was there any realistic appraisal of how difficult this would be. That many Leave campaigners sold the delusion of a land of magic rainbows and unicorns (euphemised by the same people post-event as merely an ‘aspiration’) does not mean the other people they expected to make it come true had an actual mandate for achieving it.

    Neither I nor any of the other Leavers I know expected everything to be perfect after Brexit, so as far as I can tell this seems to be a Remainer straw man. And really, if the government of the world’s fifth-largest economy is unable to negotiate any trade deals on its own, I think the blame for that rests squarely with the government, not with those who voted to leave the EU.

    But on the topic of delusions, what are we to make of the oft-repeated predictions in the run-up to the referendum that a Yes vote would cause total economic collapse? Those don’t seem to have materialised. (And don’t trot out that stuff about “But we haven’t actually left the EU yet”; I read through the government’s anti-Brexit leaflet, and the predictions all referred to the two years after the vote, i.e., between the referendum and the actual leaving.) If Leavers are to be dismissed as a bunch of gullible idiots for (allegedly) believing UKIP promises about NHS funding, why aren’t Remainers to be dismissed for being taken in by government scare-mongering?

  29. I am not a May loyalist at all.
    I’m not even a Tory.
    I voted Remain, but believe we should get on with getting out of the EU.
    I think we’ll do just fine outside the EU.
    The point about the backstop is to protect the EU. Frankly, looking at how technology is going (I’m even running a Blockchain project in the City! At my age!), I’m sure that there’ll be a technological solution if not by beginning of 2021, then not long after.
    I have to say I regard Ireland as a bit of a tethered goat in all this, as they are now realising that the EU are prepared to put up a hard border on 29th March.
    As long as they come up with some legal form of words around the backstop, I think the WA is fine and should be voted through and we can get on with making our future outside the EU.

  30. Leaving the EU is trivial.
    Leaving without considerable economic damage, large scale disruption to cross-border arrangements for trade and travel, and abrogation of the UK’s commitments under the Good Friday Agreement is not. For reasons MJW has summarised rather well. Hence the painful compromise of the WA, which no one has ever explained how it could be bettered within the constraints of the UK’s stated red lines.

    And now the EU has called the UK’s bluff by saying, in effect, “you asked for the UK wide backstop, then said it was intolerable. Fine, it’s gone. The rest is between GB and NI.”

  31. Leaving without considerable economic damage, large scale disruption to cross-border arrangements for trade and travel, and abrogation of the UK’s commitments under the Good Friday Agreement is not. For reasons MJW has summarised rather well.

    Truly, the number of people who think anything difficult must not be attempted is illuminating. It certainly explains why these cretins keep getting elected. And if signing the Good Friday Agreement meant the UK must remain permanently in the EU, the political classes are not only incompetent but treasonous.

  32. if signing the Good Friday Agreement meant the UK must remain permanently in the EU

    It doesn’t – at least as far as I can see. The agreement’s here and whilst I could find lots about cross-border cooperation and a bit about removing security apparatus I couldn’t find anything about customs checks.

    If anyone can please let me know what section. Until then I think someone is bullshitting.

  33. Some random thoughts based on the excellent post and comments:

    The problems started when Cameron and Osborne refused to let the civil service do all the scenario planning before the vote, or even in the run up to Parliament deciding on the referendum. Whilst there is nothing in the GFA that states we can’t have a hard border, the political problems of having one would have been raised earlier, providing more time to find a solution.

    Its the WTO that will insist the the EU puts a border in place, its how Customs Unions work within the WTO rules.

    The WA, excepting the Backstop, is a good thing and it was always envisage that we would have one to allow a managed transition to a new trade agreement, one that doesn’t lock us in to the EU and not being able to negotiate trade agreements that are beneficial to us.

    Remainers are not making the case for the EU and nobody every explains what “ever close union” means. This has been my major concern since the ’80s when all the talk was of us missing the European train. When I asked if anyone had wandered down to the front to see where it was going my question fell on deaf ears. We still don’t know although when we guess at complete European federalism all but an honest few tell us we’re conspiracy theorists.

    WTO terms are a baseline for negotiating trade agreements. It would be better if we didn’t “crash out” on them but they work so at least we have a starting point for future trade agreements. That it is called crashing out is part of Project Fear and only likely to be a problem because of the incompetence of the government to prepare in time.

    My main reason for voting leave was loss of sovereignty. I’ve worked on a project that required State aid clearance from the EU and saw first hand the dead hand of that bureaucracy. Someone said to me that if we stayed on it would thwart Corbyn’s nonsense – that’s the point of leaving idiots, if the British people are daft enough to elect Crobyn they should get his policies, good ‘n’ ‘ard.

    I have now hardened my views and my main reason for getting out is that if its so hard now it will be impossible for my putative grandchildren to leave short of a new European war. We have no right to burden them with problem.

  34. As an interested outsider, I’ve been watching this whole “EU” thing from the beginnings of this latest phase, and the question that keeps occurring to me is this: Who the hell voted for this, in the first damn place? And, why?

    Brexit is happening largely because the people that started this part of the EU project never came out and described what they were going to be doing with it, and, to add injury to insult, never put it to a real plebiscite. Which you would think would be necessary, because they were essentially signing sovereign rights for their nations away to impersonal bureaucrats in Brussels. The whole thing has been performed in a fog of confusion, like a stage magician attracting the eye with one hand, while picking your pocket with the other.

    The British public seems to have finally cottoned on to the swindle, and has demanded Brexit in response. The elites earned the problems they have by not being honest, and not seeking legitimate public buy-in. They haven’t done that because if they did, then they’d likely wind up decorating lamp posts.

    This is basically a project of the trans-national elite, and the fact that they have to go about the way they have is truly indicative of why they’re going to have the whole thing blow up in their faces, Balkans writ large across the European continent.

    If you look at Yugoslavia, and analyze the dynamics of their federation, it’s amazing how closely the EU runs along with it. In Yugoslavia, you had the Slovenes, who were the Germans of that federation, constantly mined economically to support the other feckless bastards that couldn’t get their acts together, and when they grew tired of it, what happened? Inevitable dissolution. I’ll leave the other ethno-nation parallels to be worked out as an exercise for the reader, but they are there.

    The EU project will collapse under similar dynamics. The US managed to make something akin to the EU work, but the difference was that the program was spelled out up front, and most of the populace had buy-in. The EU? LOL… I’ve asked quite a few Euro expats and tourists that come through my area (fairly big tourist destination in the Pacific Northwest) what the hell the deal was with the EU, in their opinions, and the really stunning thing to observe is how few of them have clue one what the hell is going on, or who have read the pertinent documents–Which are another issue, entire and unto themselves: Every time I have encountered something like the foundational treaties and agreements for the EU in the past, it’s been as part of a scheme to screw me over. Seriously–Look at the Windows 10 EULA, and compare that obfuscation and BS to the EU equivalents to the US Constitution, and then tell me I’m wrong. That much verbiage to spell out what should be plain and simple, in explication of the “program”? Yeah, someone’s getting cozened, good and hard.

    Brexit is what happens when the rubes start to wise up. The elites might want to consider what the hell has happened, historically, to people in their situation who manage to convince the people they are supposedly “leading” that they’re not operating in good faith, or the interests of their constituents. Lamp posts and ropes are still legal, under the Knife Laws, aren’t they…?

  35. https://www.jta.org/2019/03/04/global/belgian-carnaval-party-features-puppets-of-grinning-jew-with-a-rat-money-bags is a few days old, but I just found it.

    Why on earth would anyone want much to do with these people? Much less be in something as integrated as the EU?

    I’m first generation Canadian out of Germany and stay in touch with my large German family. 12 aunts and uncles and the number of cousins 20 or so cousins. The only difference to their Juden Hasse is that they don’t rant in public and they have added Turken Hasse.

    Europe is a tribal pest hole.

  36. Looking down the road — once separation from the EU has taken place (in whatever form), who is going to be running the UK? It is going to be the same Political Class in Westminster which seems to be largely devoid of vision, leadership and — most importantly — competence.

    The mess of Brexit has simply made it abundantly clear that the UK’s problems begin at home. And it is very difficult to see how that home-grown problem is going to get solved — in or out of the EU.

  37. The mess of Brexit has simply made it abundantly clear that the UK’s problems begin at home. And it is very difficult to see how that home-grown problem is going to get solved — in or out of the EU.

    Indeed, but reform is impossible while in the EU. As others have long said, Brexit is a necessary but not sufficient part of sorting out Britain’s political direction.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *