The below sums up the Witches agenda for saying this. Do not trust any of these snakes to keep their words. "Mrs Merkel announced the initiative as her party’s support continued to fall in Germany, losing ground to far-right parties popular for their anti-immigration stance"
Quote: Tone wrote in post #105Let's get this party started!
Years ahead of deceiving the sheeple with the Brexit lies of we have to do this and we have to do that. There is no intention of taking us out of the EU. It there was then simple repealing the 1972 act that got is into the EU could be done tomorrow and we would be out. There is no need to use article 50 which was only put in place as a stalling measure..
No doubt you will have noticed that countries outside the EU are queuing up to offer free trade agreements with Britain including Australia.
If as it seems likely, the EU States deliberately set out to make trade negotiations with Britain difficult and disadvantageous in order to discourage other member States from leaving, then Britain should begin to entertain those offers, weigh up the total possible trade with those nations desiring to become trading partners, and point out to the EU that they will lose more than Britain does if it were to use the alternative to submitting Article 50, the official way to withdraw, and instead unilaterally withdraw, by simply repealing the 1972 European Communities Act in the British Parliament, their right as an independent nation, which was foisted off on a deceived British public led to believe they were only joining a common market, by the traitorous Edward Heath.
By now it has become apparent that the EU is far more than that, that Britain has been deceived into surrendering much of its sovereignty, with more loss envisaged as an ever closer union evolves, even if Britain were to remain as a semi detached outsider with ‘special privileges’. When such a deception has taken place there is no compunction to avoid reneging on EU treaty commitments, for they were made upon false information provided. The EU cannot prevent Britain from choosing that option.
Once the EU recognizes that their hold over Britain is diminished by those alternative trading arrangements, their self interest would bring about a more acceptable departure, though prophecy reveals that there will remain no love lost between the coming fascist Europe and an independent United Kingdom.
Quote: Tone wrote in post #105Let's get this party started!
Years ahead of deceiving the sheeple with the Brexit lies of we have to do this and we have to do that. There is no intention of taking us out of the EU. It there was then simple repealing the 1972 act that got is into the EU could be done tomorrow and we would be out. There is no need to use article 50 which was only put in place as a stalling measure..
No doubt you will have noticed that countries outside the EU are queuing up to offer free trade agreements with Britain including Australia.
If as it seems likely, the EU States deliberately set out to make trade negotiations with Britain difficult and disadvantageous in order to discourage other member States from leaving, then Britain should begin to entertain those offers, weigh up the total possible trade with those nations desiring to become trading partners, and point out to the EU that they will lose more than Britain does if it were to use the alternative to submitting Article 50, the official way to withdraw, and instead unilaterally withdraw, by simply repealing the 1972 European Communities Act in the British Parliament, their right as an independent nation, which was foisted off on a deceived British public led to believe they were only joining a common market, by the traitorous Edward Heath.
By now it has become apparent that the EU is far more than that, that Britain has been deceived into surrendering much of its sovereignty, with more loss envisaged as an ever closer union evolves, even if Britain were to remain as a semi detached outsider with ‘special privileges’. When such a deception has taken place there is no compunction to avoid reneging on EU treaty commitments, for they were made upon false information provided. The EU cannot prevent Britain from choosing that option.
Once the EU recognizes that their hold over Britain is diminished by those alternative trading arrangements, their self interest would bring about a more acceptable departure, though prophecy reveals that there will remain no love lost between the coming fascist Europe and an independent United Kingdom.
I am saying that the government only has to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which they could do tomorrow, instead of "triggering "Fartical" 51. Which they will not do because they have no intention of letting Britain leave the EU. Set of lying treasonous Cnuts and joining the EU was an act of treason.
Around a year ago, David Cameron, then Prime Minister, completed his grand tour of Europe and presented his “new settlement” to the world. That new settlement was a legally binding agreement which defined the “new relationship” between the UK and a “reformed European Union”. Publicly at least, Cameron hoped that this new settlement would persuade the British public to back his campaign to remain within the EU. Britain Is “Special”
The legally binding agreement, published on 22 February 2016, was called “The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union”. “We have secured a new settlement to give the United Kingdom special status in the European Union,” the document reads. “Our special status gives us the best of both worlds. We will be in the parts of Europe that work for us … But we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us.” Fast forward a year, and Theresa May has invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. In her letter to Donald Tusk, she said, “It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership …” In or Out; Out or In
In November 2016 as the world was coming to terms with Britain leaving EU institutions behind, and mostly ignored by the mainstream press, Theresa May’s government opted in to two major EU initiatives. The first implemented Parliament’s decision to opt back in to the so-called Prüm Convention which covers the automatic sharing of DNA samples, fingerprints and vehicle registrations. The second, quietly announced in the House of Lords by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, was the decision to join an EU wide patent system. This was a major change to patent law in the UK. It will require UK courts to give up jurisdiction for patent disputes. But hold on - aren’t we leaving EU institutions? How does this work? Reading through the Article 50 letter to Donald Tusk, listening to Theresa May’s speech to the House of Commons, or her earlier Lancaster House speech, it becomes clear: “We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends,” she said. Let’s look again at David Cameron’s “Best of Both Worlds” agreement: “We will be in the parts of Europe that work for us … But we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us.” Fast forward twelve months and what is absolutely clear is that the new position is that we will be out of the parts of Europe that do not work for us, but we will be in the parts of Europe that do. Free Trade
As David Cameron toured through Europe, his central policy objective was “Free Trade”. Best of Both Worlds again: “Concluding all the trade deals already underway could ultimately be worth in total more than £20 billion a year to UK GDP. These include the UK’s top trade priority: an agreement between the EU and the US (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), which alone could add £10 billion to UK GDP … “At the same time, the UK benefits from the EU’s greater economic leverage, which has allowed it to negotiate advantageous [Free Trade Agreements] with more than 50 other countries. This allows us to take advantage of growth opportunities around the world. Concluding all the trade deals already underway could ultimately be worth in total more than £20 billion a year to UK GDP. “Once these deals are completed around three-quarters of UK exports to non-EU countries would be covered by an EU-negotiated Free Trade Agreements. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) alone could add £10 billion to UK GDP. The EU is already the largest trading partner of 59 countries representing more than half of the world economy, around twice that of the US, which is the largest trading partner of 24 countries.” Fast forward twelve months, and Theresa May wants to build a #GlobalBritain. TTIP and TPP have failed, but as Cameron said, they represented Britain’s “top trade priority”. From the Lancaster House speech: “… we do not seek membership of the Single Market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement … “But it is not just trade with the EU we should be interested in. A Global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union too.” In other words, the EU messed it up and Britain has had to step in. A few huge, high profile, hugely unpopular trade agreements with the EU and the US at the centre, will be replaced with a set of smaller bilateral trade agreements with Britain at the centre. With all the noise of Brexit, no-one will notice that they will have exactly the same issues as the big ones. Law
One area not covered in David Cameron’s Best of Both Worlds agreement was the issue of law. There was no requirement to do so - it was based on the crazy notion that we would be staying in the EU and still subject to EU legislation. Forty years of legislation imposed on the UK by EU treaty, fraudulently and unconstitutionally entered into, should have been abandoned. This is not opinion; it is demonstrable fact. Instead, “Treason” May decided that the way to proceed was to convert the thousands of EU “laws” and rules into UK domestic legislation. This to be done via a single act of parliament: the Great Repeal Bill. Even the name demonstrates the lie, since only one actual Act will be repealed. Discussing the Great Repeal Bill on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union, David Davis, said: “Which is why today I’m publishing the white paper on taking on board all the European laws so on the day we leave we’re in exactly the same position [as the day before we leave]. “This gives certainty and allows [other EU member states] to begin a negotiation from a starting point that nobody else has.” Just think about that for a moment: on the day after Britain has “left” the EU, exactly the same legislation will be in place as the day before. Nothing will have changed. This was not a voluntary decision. The body of EU legislation, the “Acquis Communitaire” demands that once sovereignty is handed over, it can never be repatriated. It still amazes me that no-one from any of the “leave” campaigns or anti-EU political organisations is publicly expressing any concern about the Great Repeal Bill. The Elephant In The Room: Military Union
Any nation not in control of its own defence is not in control of anything. So far, Theresa May has said nothing publicly about Britain’s role in any future EU military structure. This subject is absolutely taboo. Yet the UK Column has demonstrated that not only is Britain fully committed to EU Military Union, it is British policy. Here Theresa May is using the same model as with Free Trade. With little or no public support for military union, a mesh of bilateral agreements has become the stepping stone of choice: Britain with France, Britain with Germany, Germany with the Netherlands and Romania and so on. There can be no Brexit while Britain is committed to military union. Nothing Of The Kind
Theresa May’s policies, and Britain’s relationship with the EU post Brexit are more or less identical to the policies and relationship agreed by David Cameron on the assumption Britain would remain a member of the EU. In other words, in or out, the game remains the same. Brexit, then, has nothing whatever to do with leaving. It is merely a public relations exercise designed to create the media noise behind which all kinds of ills can be hidden.
The British “Brexit” vote, cast June 23, 2016, provided a clear indication of the populist revolt that’s been simmering for several years. But as the European Union (EU) tightens its despotic grip even more on the economic and political destinies of Europe’s peoples, the British exit from the EU could get delayed or even scuttled.
Brexit refers to the national referendum that passed in the United Kingdom (UK) that calls on the country to leave the EU.
A key factor is that the Bilderberg-nurtured EU superstate, which had 28 members at the time of the Brexit vote, is completing long-planned fiscal and banking unions to centralize its powers. Bilderberg is the shadowy group of global elites who gather every year behind locked and guarded doors in five-star resorts to discuss, debate, and ultimately influence the most pressing issues of the day. European Council President Donald Tusk—whose cooperation is indispensable if British voters ever want a real chance at getting out of the EU—recently addressed European Parliament members about a recent EU summit, telling the MEPs: “It is in fact up to London how this will end, with a good deal, no deal, or no Brexit.”
As quoted by the UK’s Guardian newspaper, Tusk rather cryptically added: “We have managed to build and maintain unity . . . but ahead of us is still the toughest stress test. If we fail it, the [Brexit] negotiations will end in our defeat,” speaking in a manner that suggested a sense of rivalry with Britain’s wishes as expressed by Brexit. “We must keep our unity regardless of the direction of the talks.”
On a somewhat more upbeat note, European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker did say: “Those who don’t want a deal, the no-dealers, they do not have friends in the commission. We want a . . . fair deal with Britain. The no-deal is not our working assumption.”
However, EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier told a European newspaper group that the EU wants a deal “but could not exclude the no-deal option.” And other voices see a darker tinge to these developments, suggesting that Brexit could very well be imperiled.
David Ellis, an analyst with Strategic Defence Initiatives, said on the Oct. 24 edition of UK “Column News” online that, due to the EU’s intent to issue a European Monetary Fund plan by June 2018, it appears the EU’s pending banking and fiscal unifications will result in “a single-point control of all money.” That includes doing away with allowing EU member nations to control their internal budgets.
This, he said, will bring with it the EU’s military unification—into which the British armed forces are heavily involved as they’re downsized to where they’re not sufficient for effective national defense, but the right size to be a contributing force to an EU military union. This could effectively keep the UK in the EU.
“Brexit,” Ellis said, “has just been an umbrella” to bring about “a tyranny like we’ve never seen on the continent.” And when the Guardian quotes Tusk as simply saying that he may slow or halt Brexit, that establishment paper “is missing the point,” Ellis continued.
In a separate online column, Ellis, mirroring conversations he has had with this AFP writer, wrote: “The issue of the European Union desperately requiring control of the military and budgets of EU member states is moving very fast now . . . . We feel strongly that it is not being voiced with the correct level of importance as the UK (apparently) prepares for Brexit. He added, “There will be no Brexit unless Britain extricates itself as a matter of urgency from the amalgamation of EU militaries, which will inevitably prompt an EU treasury taking over the member states’ budgets.”
Ellis continued, “In [the UK] Parliament, no party is even mentioning EU military union, popularly but inaccurately referred to as ‘an EU army.’ ”
This military arrangement, he added, “does not replace but rather subsumes the nation states’ militaries and military budgets. In other words, the nominal armies, navies, and air forces of the EU member states . . . will remain in place, but sapped of their ability to operate or purchase independently of EU command.”
In the U.S., speaking to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Oct. 2, Sir Alan Duncan, Britain’s minister of state for Europe and the Americas, sounded the alarm for fellow elites about the populist revolt as expressed through Brexit. However, he shrugged off Brexit’s significance while expounding on his “global Britain” speech topic—suggesting that the British state’s status and operations will largely remain the same as they have been under the EU: free trade, open borders, and so on.
“Brexit was only about Brits expressing how they want their country to work, not to step back from its role in the world,” Duncan opined, while also claiming, “The importance of the UK’s global role was one place where the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ [voters wanting to leave or remain in EU] converged.”
So, besides speaking as if he can somehow assess the attitudes of all voters in greater Britain about the UK’s global role, he’s saying that the Brexit vote, no matter what the ultimate outcome, may not be allowed to change UK policies enough to matter.
“No one in the UK believes that it makes sense to turn inwards.” Duncan presumptuously added. He stressed the melodramatic mantra that even the slightest retreat from worldwide Western hegemony is an intolerable slap in the face to the post-World War II “rules-based international order,” formed in 1944 at Bretton Woods, N.H., at a conference that spawned the World Bank, IMF, and today’s world-trade infrastructure.
The Bretton Woods agreement is the world elite’s modern-era touchstone, largely serving the super-rich while having formed the bedrock of modern transnationalist empires like the EU, the U.S. etc.
Duncan made it clear that while “leaving the EU” may be the wish of a majority of UK voters, at the end of the day, the “global values” undergirding that “rulesbased order” help cement a marriage whose vows are not easily dissolved.
OFF HAND
Print view
Sun Jul 03, 2016 3:09 pm
reply
