We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day “The idea that it is not possible to leave the EU seems to be the most dangerous affront to democracy. They are saying not only that it was wrong for the public to vote to leave, but also that it cannot be done and therefore the democratic vote was meaningless.”
– Richard Tombs, historian, University of Cambridge.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Personally, I keep recalling the treaty of Versailles and the stable in the back narrative. This is at best twenty years of domestic cold war before much worse ructions….
Stab in the back, not stable….
Apols
The EU ruling clique and their lickspittles do not recognise sovereignty, only subservience to their absolute rule.
@John B
What do any of us expect? This is the whole point of the EU – to rise above and thwart the passions of the peoples of Europe. That’s its entire raison d’etre.
Yet like the USSR, when it is nothing but rust and dust we will wonder how it ever came to exist in the first place.
That is the destiny of the EU, not as some towering behemoth, but a tottering house of cards waiting for a good hard shove. I hope and pray that the final consequences of BRExit will bring it tumbling down like Sauron’s Barad-dûr.
UK can leave the E. U. without any problem to-morrow.
The fact is you have to comply to all the rules if you want to export goods or services to the E.U. ( phytosanitary rules, rules of safety for medecine, and so one) . Probably, 100.000 sheets of paper of rules. L'”acquis communautaire”.
If you don’t comply, you can’t export. Are these rules mostly silly ? Sure. But they exist. You can’t force the E.U. to ignore them .
If so, you don’t have frictionless trade, but bottlenecks at the border and in any case custom checks .
It is not difficult to understand. It is what the E.U. has said from day one ..
For the rest, any future House of Commons can walk away and declare void any treaty or agreement. What is needed is a spine from your MPs
But everybody knows that in UK as in EU or in US they don’t have any backbone.
And you will be square one again. What about the customs checks, at the border or on the spot inside the enterprise ?
Remember Phil. It cuts both ways…
We import far more from the EU than we export. Whose problem is it if French food is rotting on the docks at Calais?
…plus the last time I checked, the Netherlands has one or two rather large ports along with a much healthier attitude…
Only the one “o” in Dr Tombs’ surname.
It is very heartening to have such a distinguished historian speak up on the side of Brexit. His wife Isabelle happens to be French, so I hope (probably in vain) that he can avoid the cliched attacks that he is a “little Englander” and other such nonsense.
Equally disturbing is the claim by some of the more fanatical Remainers that we need to stay in the EU to ensure that we have foreign oversight of our laws on employment, food safety, environmental standards etc.
This displays a contempt for the ability of the UK people to decide these things for themselves via their own democratic processes, and reveals the elitist disdain many Remainers have for the people of their own country, and their tendency to idealise people from other countries.
This almost amounts to racism, the stereotyping of a group of people as inferior, less able than others to conduct their own affairs in a satisfactory way and in need of external supervision.
Yes, and Tombs is in fact a professor of French history.
It cuts both ways…
Actually, bizarrely, some of the same products are imported _and_ exported, for example most livestock products, for some reason we trade pork to _and_ from several EU countries. I’d image some bonkers regulation is at play as to the reason why, but the net result of not exporting and reducing imports (considering the same jurisdiction) must be a cost saving to the consumer?
I know that we ship out live pigs to France and import bacon from Denmark. Not sure why we don’t make our own bacon from them, but presumably there is profit being made, otherwise we wouldn’t do it.
It cuts both ways
The EU leaders don’t care at all if you have a disastrous Brexit
What they want is power.
Suppose that Brexit is a success. It means that their adversaries, Rassemblement National, AFD are seen to be winning. They can’t allow that. They must show to everybody that the price for leaving is very high. They are going to be sure that it will happen in any case.
Either you have Brexit in name only , the actual deal or a Hard Brexit, and short term, it will be a disaster. Perfect for the next European elections.
Behaving the way they have done might retain that power in the short term (which is what EU leaders such as Jean-Claude Drunker might want), but in the end all roads lead to failure for the EU based upon its current desire for a Federal Europe.
Enough states who are part of the EU want no part of that (they are just there for the money and the trade like Hungary), once the money falls away and trade can be obtained through other, easier routes, they will leave.
The desires of European politicians and bureaucrats for a Federal Europe aren’t worth a hill of beans. There is neither a European demos, nor a European army to defend it.
So, sure, in the short term the UK will feel pain from BRExit. Anyone who doesn’t understand this doesn’t understand the concept of risk/reward.
Project Fear has failed to work, but in so doing it has pushed the bar for what can be determined as “a successful BRExit” through the floor. So expect the Pound to lower against the Euro and a recession, but not much else.
Post-BRExit, it will take a while for trade with US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to open back up again, but given reciprocal free trade agreements, I can’t see that being a problem and the losers with be the EU nations who attempt to fuck with us just because we don’t want to be part of their club any more (looking at you Macron)
In short, screwing over the Brits would only ever give short term satisfaction. In the long term the EU would only be screwing itself, which I expect it to do.
https://brexitcentral.com/despite-brexit-government-covertly-signed-us-eus-defence-agenda/
They seem to be taking a crack at an EU army. Sadly.
Can’t exactly see a mismatched bunch of French, German and Spanish Euro soldiers climbing up the ladders from the trenches into no-mans-land and dashing through the fog shouting “For the EU!“. Can you?
Just because you label something an EU army doesn’t mean they’ll actually fight for it. Sure, like Nazi regiments made up of chancers and ne’er-do-wells from occupied countries during WW2, you will get some who will fill the ranks, but fighting is another matter entirely.
At best they will be troops from the armies of EU countries co-opted into nominal EU regiments, so more like UN peacekeepers with different helmets and shoulder markings.
At worst, they will be essentially mercenaries with EU armbands, 21st Century Black-and-Tans.
Philippe HERMKENS (November 26, 2018 at 3:32 pm), the EU trades with the US, Canada, Australia and, of course, Etcetera. As do we at the moment, and also with the EU – which suggests knowledge of and ability to manage these rules. Must the UK not be checking all inbound goods from without the EU for compliance even as I type this? (Or, at least, managing to generate the paperwork as if?) Why would reversing direction be innately a problem? Like many, I am old enough to recall living in a UK that did exactly this.
(Put another way), the EUrocrats will have to do something ‘over and above’ to mess us around after March. I predict that unless the UK gives them loads of help (not quite an empty ‘unless’, admittedly), Drunker et al will not be much more effective at that than at much else they do.
Resident of Brussels no doubt?
Sure you can, to most of the rest of the world. Just not to the EU countries as a borderless transaction.
If I, in the USA, export product to you (medicines, foods, etc.), that product is going to have to go through your already-existing systems of inspection and regulation. So, you’re already set up to handle products coming in from an EU that you are no longer part of.
You have the systems in place now. The only difference is that you will now be the ones setting the rules that the systems are meant to enforce. You will be able to import products from all over the world that have previously been denied to you because Germany or France disapproved of their purchase.
What about the customs checks, at the border or on the spot inside the enterprise ?
This is a completely false comparison. Checks at the border, eg on imports from the US or from Japan, are checks on the goods themselves. “Checks” on the spot inside the enterprise, cover far more than the goods themselves, they involve regulating the whole production process economy-wide, including a whole raft of regulations on social policy, including employment regulation.
And checks on the border cover checks on only those goods imported into the EU. Which is a small fraction – less than 15% – of UK production. Such EU border checks are completely irrelevant to the 85% of UK production tha is exported otherwise than to the EU, or is consumed in the UK. Whereas checks “on the spot” ie regulations imposed on the whole UK economy cover 100% of UK production.
It’s back to the divide between the Establishment and the ordinary citizen. Here’s a passage from Joseph Tainter’s ‘The Collapse of Complex Societies’:
“Sociopolitical organizations constantly encounter problems that require increased investment merely to preserve the status quo. This investment comes in such forms as increasing size of bureaucracies, increasing specialization of bureaucracies, cumulative organizational solutions, increasing costs of legitimizing activities, and increasing costs of internal control and external defense. All of these must be borne by levying greater costs on the support population, often to no increased advantage. As the number and costliness of organizational investments increases, the proportion of a society’s budget available for investment in future economic growth must decline. Thus, while initial investment by a society in growing complexity may be a rational solution to perceived needs, that happy state of affairs cannot last (…) Ever greater increments of investment yield ever smaller increments of return.”
There’s a clear parallel here with the constant drive towards ‘More Europe!’ on the part of the European nomenklatura. Incidentally, it’s important to note that the ‘collapse’ of Tainter’s title does not necessarily mean a regression to the kind of violence and lawlessness depicted in apocalyptic movies such as the ‘Mad Max’ series – rather, it refers to a reversion to less complex socio-political structures. This may well not be viewed as a disaster by anyone except those at the top:
“What may be a catastrophe to administrators (and later observers) need not be to the bulk of the population. It may only be among those members of a society who have neither the opportunity nor the ability to produce primary food resources that the collapse of administrative hierarchies is a clear disaster. Among those less specialized, severing the ties that link local groups to a regional entity is often attractive. Collapse then is not intrinsically a catastrophe. It is a rational, economizing process that may well benefit much of the population.”
Tainter, while writing about ancient history, here offers a tenable explanation for the differing reactions of elite classes and the ordinary population to Brexit. Or, channelling Franz Oppenheimer, the differing reactions of those who live by the ‘political means’ and those who live by the ‘economic means’ stems from the latter trying to land a blow on the state-cloaked predation of the former, and the former moving heaven and earth to try to keep their racket going. Or, to put it in ‘Hunger Games’ terms: the Katniss Everdeens of the Districts are in revolt against the Plutarch Heavensbees of the Capitol.
England (and later the UK) was a sovereign entity for hundreds of years before the EU existed. Why anybody thinks Brexit will be some sort of disaster for the UK is beyond me. Is it a disaster for the US or China or Russia to be outside the EU?
I’ve no doubt it will be a disaster for the EU. But why should that be a concern for the UK?
As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong here) we have a spectacular trade deficit with the EU but it’s not too far out of balance with the rest of the world.
It hardly takes the brains of Alexandra ocasio-cortex to figure out why.
Something like 70 or 80 billion of trade is essentially up for grabs when we leave their customs union. Which is why they are so desperate to keep us in it.
How can British trade not rebalance given this, and what sort of trade deal could they possibly offer that would maintain the current advantage they have?
Project fear makes perfect sense from their point of view. It’s actually difficult to see tactically or strategically what else they can do.
I am struggling, I really am, to see any downside long or medium term for us. Short term disruption seems inevitable but how much of that there is basically is up to them. And why, as implied by the British vichyites, this disruption will be one way, I can’t understand that either.
When it is all rust and dust (which might be sooner than everybody expects) people will wonder how they got suckered in, us most of all I would think.
Itellyounothing
November 26, 2018 at 12:29 pm
Stab in the back, not stable….
Apols
Relieved to see the correction.
I spent half an hour trying to figure out what you meant.
These guys are too subtle for me thought I.
Something like 70 or 80 billion of trade is essentially up for grabs when we leave their customs union. Which is why they are so desperate to keep us in it.
Nailed it.
Niall pedant Kilmartin wishes to point out that you should have said ‘the Seneca Cranes of the Capitol’ or ‘the Caspar Fleckermans of the Capitol’. Plutarch Heavensbee is a an ally of the rebellion (in very deep-cover at first; indeed, one can read it that only the possibility opened up by Katniss moves him from hidden distaste to actual action). He is also, nevertheless, very much a product of the ways of thought of his Capitol class. The films tone this down somewhat, but in the books, the Capitolish way in which Plutarch views the rebellion he has nevertheless decided to join, and Katniss’ awareness of this, is one of the strengths of the characterisations.
(Except for that trivium, good comment!)
Which is why we were offered no trade deal, nor will be while we’re in any transition period. Leaving is an essential preliminary to negotiating any deal.
All this is over and above our being one of the few major net contributors to the EU budget. (Am I wrong in thinking we have always been the second largest net contributor after Germany?) I approved VoteLeave’s use of the gross figure when talking about ‘taking back control’, because if someone takes money from you, keeps more than half, and spends less than half of it on things that they think are good for you, then you are not in control of the gross. However when it comes to how the EU feels about our leaving, the fact that we are a net contributor is relevant. They’d be much less unhappy at no longer having the perks and privileges of spending less-than-half in the UK if it were instead more-than-all.
A no-deal Brexit will be short term, I repeat , short term necessarily a disaster.
Why ? Because you haven’t any borders between Members states with the Single Market.
And if you have borders, you will have delays in France, in Belgium, in the Netherlands or no exports at all because you haven’t the necessary functional customs facilities, …
It is not difficult to understand that Exports from Uk to EU are thus going to collapse.
Long term, if you have a labour government with Jeremy CORBYN as Prime Minister, the UK population will eat grass .
If you have a classical liberal government, you will have the best economy in the world ..
By the way, I am a Belgian citzen living in Brussels and specialised in EU law. I am also a big Ludwig von Mises’s fan and an Ayn Rand admirer.
Hello John Galt
A no-deal Brexit will be short term, I repeat , short term necessarily a disaster.
Why ? Because you haven’t any borders between Members states with the Single Market.
And if you have borders, you will have delays in France, in Belgium, in the Netherlands, …
It is not difficult to understand that Exports from Uk to EU are going to collapse.
Long term, if you have a labour government with Jeremy CORBYN as Prime Minister, the UK population will eat grass .
If you have a classical liberal government, you will have the best economy in the world ..
@Philippe HERMKENS:
Look, I understand that as a Belgian living in Brussels you’re somewhat indebted to the institutions of the EU, which is why you collaborate with them and you would rather not see the whole gravy train collapse as what would you do then?
Disaster? Non. At best there will be short term disruption and additional cost. There will be a brief recession while those who cannot adjust to the new circumstances fall by the wayside and are replaced by those who CAN adapt to the new circumstance.
Long term, for the UK at least, the outlook is only positive, since we are uncoupling ourselves from a regulatory dead weight, namely the EU.
You speak of “Delays in France”? But what would those delays be? Deliveries of French goods to the UK? Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. Looks like some more French companies are going to go bust.
Just because you have your defeatist lips around the EU tit don’t imagine that is true for all (or even most) of your fellow EU citizens. Those willy residents of the Netherlands are keen to make sure the goods keep flowing and any bureaucratic red tape is kept to a minimum.
If that means that freight movement shifts from Calais to Amsterdam or Rotterdam then all the better as far as they are concerned.
If you’re thinking the French will start blockading ports or seizing British goods en route from Calais then they will simply go elsewhere to avoid such impostures. Instead of sending lorries over, simply send containers, then there isn’t even an obvious sign that the NL trucks moving the containers across Europe even carry UK goods.
If I were you M. HERMKENS, I would be concentrating on making the most of my current business and extracting as much revenue from the EU officials while you still can. I don’t think they or their institutions will be around much longer…
Unlike John Galt (November 27, 2018 at 12:48 pm), I do not see it as necessarily incompatible that Philippe HERMKENS (November 27, 2018 at 12:27 pm) should support “classical liberal government”, be “a big Ludwig von Mises’s fan and an Ayn Rand admirer”, etc., while genuinely believing the “short term” effects of Brexit will be noticeably bad for more than just his (assumed) business. On the web, people may be not who they say, but it is also possible to differ in economic and administrative estimates of what Philippe stresses is his view of the short term.
My own critique would focus rather on Philippe’s failure to engage with e.g. my points in Niall Kilmartin (November 26, 2018 at 7:45 pm). The machinery for the UK to handle trade between EU and non-EU already exists, and if the UK government is not well prepared just to turn it around in late March then it is indeed giving the EUrocrats some help in magnifying the transitional difficulties. I see nothing in Philippe’s comments that engage these and other points. If he is able, from his “specialise in EU law” knowledge to provide such a comment, I will certainly read it. But goods and people from the US are arriving in the UK and in Europe as we speak. I assume this will continue at the end of March.
There will indeed be a rebalancing of trade over possibly a short time, with some dislocations noted by Project Fear and some new investments and contracts won noted by Leave’s supporters.
That may end up being a rather poor career move, given that knowledge of EU law will become a bit irrelevant when it has collapsed into nothing but rust and dust, as did the USSR, League of Nations and other failed attempts at international hegemony.
Nations survive and thrive because they have a demos, not because they have a rule book.
😆
A hard brexit may not be a complete disaster in the short term, if for example they apply to the WTO for an exemption from the rules that would otherwise require them to deal with each other as third countries, and make various side deals with respect to aviation. It would have helped of course, if Theresa May had not burned through an immense amount of goodwill, and also had not set EU expectations of the WA so high.
The road from here should be:
1. reject WA
2. ‘no deal deal’ brexit
3. erect smart/invisible hard border with RoI to neutralise this issue (may require some commitment to the single market, at least with respect to agricultural goods)
4. renegotiate with EU from scratch
morsjon
It would have helped of course, if Theresa May had not burned through an immense amount of goodwill, and also had not set EU expectations of the WA so high.
What are you talking about? There was never an ounce of good will. The goal for the EU negotiators from day one has been to punish Britain as much as possible. This is a political settlement not an economic one. The negotiators are operating in the political space — where they consider Brexit an attack on all that is good and proper, and more importantly an attack on their power. They goal has never been a fair and equitable deal with Britain, regardless of the trade imbalance. The goal has always been, from day one to crush Britain and punish the foolish citizens of that deluded nation for the insult and threat of Brexit. And this, even if it is economically disadvantageous to the people of the EU.
Bottom line is the current situation is not because Mrs. May did a bad job negotiating with the EU. It was that she was negotiating with the wrong people. Brexit negotiations should have been with everyone EXCEPT the EU.
Moreover, if you are negotiating with someone and declare there is no BATNA, then you might as well chop of your goolies and hand them over. From day one, anyone who knows the slightest thing about negotiation, especially negotiation with a hostile partner, knows that your first goal should be to get a viable BATNA so that you have some leverage in the negotiation.
And there were so many available. The US has the most pro Britain friendly president in fifty years, and he was in the middle of renegotiation a bunch of trade deals that Britain could easily have gotten into, plus the commonwealth would have been an excellent source. The bottom line is that Britain has a trade deficit with the EU. What country wouldn’t want a piece of that?
But what do you expect when you put someone in charge of Brexit who is passionately opposed to the whole idea in the first place?
1. Short term means short term, for instance, until the 31st of december 2019. Customs officials in France or in Belgium or in the Netherlands will not cooperate for a smooth export of goods from UK to EU. They will ask for files, certificates which are costly and wil not be given for a so-called lack of manpower or suitable warehouses for food.
Again, you can think rightly that they are mostly stupid rules, but they are still rules which will be applied.
So for a lot of businesses short term, you will have a huge disruption. It will be a disaster. Again, short term in case of a no-deal brexit.
2. For the future of the EU, it is very bleak indeed. A collapse of the Euro is to be foreseen.
3. Are you really against the 4 freedoms, of capital, of goods, of services and people inside the E.U. ?
Any rational person must be against the internal market with these complete harmonisation of rules. OK. But are you against the fact that a good legally produced in a Member state can be sold in all the other Member sates ? From a classical liberal point of view, certainly not.
4. I am 64 years old. So my professional career is behind me.
5. I doubt that the lack of economic freedom for a business person is higher here in Brussels than in California, New-York or Scotland when you will be outside the EU.
6. What will be the situation of UK after a 5 years Corbyn government ?
And we all know how rigorously “EU law” is applied in “Europe” don’t we.
Is it “the EU” that polices the borders or the authorities of the individual nations?
All it will take is one country to let stuff through (because they don’t see why their economy should suffer because for the imperial fantasies of Brusseld) and they’ll be at each other’s throats like rats in a dustbin (or rather certain countries will try to bully others)
Or is that just wishful thinking on my part.
“3. Are you really against the 4 freedoms, of capital, of goods, of services and people inside the E.U. ? Any rational person must be against the internal market with these complete harmonisation of rules. OK. But are you against the fact that a good legally produced in a Member state can be sold in all the other Member sates ? From a classical liberal point of view, certainly not.”
Personally, no. We want free trade with the European Union AND with the rest of the world. The problems are all caused by the EU wanting to erect barriers to keep out the competition and block free trade. In particular, by which side of that barrier Ireland and Northern Ireland are situated. Either you cut Norther Ireland off from Britain (which the Northern Irish won’t tolerate), or you put the barrier across the middle of Ireland (which the Southern Irish won’t tolerate), or you take Ireland out of the customs union, the same way they’re outside Schengen (which the EU and possibly the Irish government won’t tolerate), or Britain stays in the customs union. Or you dismantle the customs union and just have global free trade.
My top choice of course would be to dismantle the EU, but that’s for them to vote on. Next best, for Ireland to come out too, but again I expect they’d want to vote on it, and things would get very hairy if they voted to stay in. Excluding those two options, it’s obvious why the currently proposed arrangement was the only one politically feasible.
You could say “stuff them” and let the Irish sort out for themselves what they want to do, but you could easily end up with a civil war on your borders again if they don’t do what you want. Very risky. Basically, the only good option we’re leaving them is to shut down the EU – so it’s hardly any surprise if they’re a tad hostile about that.
I love Brexit. I want the UK out of the EU.
The problem with achieving this through a vote was elucidated by Joseph de Maistre:
“6. What will be the situation of UK after a 5 years Corbyn government ?” – Philippe HERMKENS – November 27, 2018 at 3:34 pm
See the final chapters of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ for all the gory details … but also consider that this may unfortunately be the only way to cure the ‘woke’ young millennial generation of their infatuation with all things leftist and politically-correct.
As Francisco put it in his ‘meaning of money’ speech earlier in the novel, they may have to learn it “on their own hides” – and after that, with the failure of Corbynism painfully evident to even the most amoeba-brained Owen Jones fan, “the road is cleared” for the UK to do a phoenix-rising-from-the-ashes act and become a real ‘Galt’s Gulch.’
I really hope so. But it is obviously already so evident now in UK or in EU or in US that socialism doens’t work and that capitalism is the solution.
Just to clarify the Corbyn element, at the moment we can end up with:
(a) No Deal and No May
(b) No Deal and May
(c) Bad Deal and May
(d) Bad Deal and Corbyn
There is no “No Deal and Corbyn” option in this, Corbyn has decidedly sat on the fence about a deal, bad or otherwise, he has rejected “no deal”, and if he ever waivers from this path then he’ll be rapidly deselected by his own rabid europhile cohorts, and he knows this.
Whatever happens, there is no compromise between a “No Deal” and a “Corbyn Government”, the two are exclusive, the only option involving Corbyn is the worse of all outcomes together.
Phillippe Hermknens.
I have no great objection to you imposing regulations on imports from the United Kingdom – although if you do that we may well impose regulations (of our own) on exports from the European Union. It would be such a shame if something bad were to happen to that 90 Billion Pound trade surplus that the European Union has with the United Kingdom.
The objection is to European Union regulations being the law INSIDE the United Kingdom – the thousands of pages of such law. That is not acceptable Sir. And to PRAISE THE EUROPEAN UNION (not what you were expecting me to do – but what I am going to do), the European Union did offer the United Kingdom a “Canada Plus” agreement – which would have applied E.U. regulations to exports from the United Kingdom but NOT to our domestic affairs (or our trade with third parties).
It is not that the European Union did not offer this – it is Mrs Theresa May (presently Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) who TURNED IT DOWN. As David Davis has pointed out. So you are not my enemy Mr Hermkens (at least not today) – it is Mrs May who is the enemy of the British people are our independence from the European Union (with her vile plan to keep us under the rule of the European Union – independence in name only) . I am quite prepared for Mrs May to leave this country and go to her beloved European Union – with total safe conduct. I have no desire to harm a hair on the head of the lady – I just wish her to go in peace.
It is good to know that at least one Cambridge Professor still believes that the British people should be respected, that a vote should not be treated as a “problem” to be “solved” (the attitude of Mrs May and the Civil Service). This is better than I would have predicted.
Just as Theresa should have been prepared to choose no deal and been confident about it, to get a good deal from the EU, so the British Electorate must be prepared to vote in Corbyn to force the British remainer establishment to give us Independence from the EU. Otherwise, Theresa’s kitten heels will leave their prints on our faces.
so the British Electorate must be prepared to vote in Corbyn to force the British remainer establishment to give us Independence from the EU
Corbyn _is_ the “British remainer establishment”.
What evidence is there that Corbyn is committed to a full exit as per the referendum promise? He has persistently avoided the question with the vague “best deal for the British people response”, his main support is from a pro-EU Remain contingent, and he would quite happily ditch his so-called principals to get a taste of power, if that means promising a second referendum (as what his supporters want) in the next election manifesto, then that is what we will get.
Hoping that Corbyn will lead us out of the EU is a pipedream, it is not going to happen, you’ll get fudged non-Brexit deal and a proto-communist government as a bonus.
As I have already pointed out – Mrs May was offered a “Canada plus” free trade agreement – E.U. regulations on exports to people in it, but NOT E.U. regulations on our internal affairs. It was Mrs May who TURNED THIS DOWN – because Mrs May WANTS E.U. regulations to be the law of this land (inside this land).
As for Mr Corbyn – again what is sometimes not understood is that his position is really the same as that of Mrs May, he supports the regulations (past, present and future) of the European Union. A “debate” or a “choice” between Mrs May and Mr Corbyn is totally meaningless.
The Prime Minister’s Question Time stuff (and the mainstream media stuff) is all sound and fury signifying nothing. The “choice” between Mrs May and Mr Corbyn is not a real choice.
Tory MPs appear to be at least a little fearful of the public pressing the Corbyn Nuclear option or the PM would already have run her deal through……
The UK establishment has lost a golden opportunity. I have no doubt that Trump, if asked, would join joint negotiations with Britain against the EU for a new free trade deal that applies to all parties. Let’s see them try and make punitive conditions when the US markets are on the table too.
Mr Black, go for it!