Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 8 of 51     «   Prev   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   Next   »
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #106 
There is a process for electing the leader of the Conservative Party, who will be the new Prime Minister, and it takes time. Whoever it is will be responsible for handling the exit negotiations, and it is only reasonable that he or she should be the one to decide when that process begins. So far so good, but the uncertainty this otherwise sensible decision has created should not be prolonged, certainly not all the way to October. With the agreement of all the likely leadership candidates, I believe it would be better for the 'triggering' to happen straight away. Whether that is what will happen, who knows? Certainly not me.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #107 
It took 7 days to select a new Tory leader in 2003.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #108 
I see three categories of people:
1) Europhiles who have unshakeable belief in the EU project and all it entails
2) Euro-realists who may have accepted the EU and believed in the benefits of membership, but have never had their heart in it or could change their mind easily
3) Eurosceptics, who need no introduction

It is not going to take much to make 2) into 3). I respect DutchMonarchist otherwise, but he does seem to want to find fault with what many of us have said about the EU and the Remain crowd. I know there are good people in the Remain crowd, we haven't doubted that. But too many are typical whiny SJWs who think they know better than the rest of us. They obviously don't believe in Britain and have no love for its culture, values, institutions and history, so therefore have no respect for British values.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 856
Reply with quote  #109 
DavidV, I don't disagree with what you say about the EU just for the sake of disagreement if that's what you imply there. I disagree with pretty much everyhing you say about the EU because I, well, disagree with it. 

Looking through the eight pages of this thread I see many posts where you simply speak about 'the remain camp' with negative qualifications. To me that did make it seem like you doubted there were many good people in the remain camp. Good to hear that's not the case. I still don't get why the words of some remain voters on twitter (out of all places) would say anything about the remain camp in general.

Plenty of links posted here and on other threads simply lead to information about the EU that is not true or misleading. I will continue to point that out, as I do believe in discussions based on facts, perhaps at the risk of nitpicking (not like the remain camp was innocent of distorting facts, of course).
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #110 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/janet-albrechtsen/in-a-world-of-strife-we-must-look-learn-vote-with-care/news-story/60df447b4419373ab8979b0f34142b87

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janet Albrechtsen
In the final days of a long election campaign, we should celebrate the messy, vexed, complicated, glorious business of our democracy. To be sure, we have our own problems. But they are piddling compared to the political, economic and cultural ructions shaking the US, Europe and, most recently, the United Kingdom.

If we want to avoid the same strife, we should look and learn from this most recent political earthquake, and vote with care on Saturday.

As tempting as it is to buttonhole the Brexit vote into a single cause, there were myriad reasons why 17.4 million people decided Britain should leave the European Union. Many voters rejected outright an EU that morphed from a common market under the Treaty of Rome in 1957 into a supranational political behemoth that has treated the voters of nation states with disdain. Many cast their votes in particular against the EU’s dreadful mishandling of immigration, a crisis caused by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s foolhardy decision last year to welcome more than a million asylum- seekers from the Middle East.

Others saw the EU as the hapless driver, rather than the reformer, of Europe’s deeply flawed social democratic project: big ticket welfare, higher taxes, multiculturalism run so rife that cultural relativism replaced moral judgments. Just as the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the fall of communism, the monumental Brexit vote represents the removal of sizeable bricks from Europe’s conceited supranational castle in Brussels.

The common thread of the Brexit vote is profound disillusionment with elites who will say anything to get power and to keep it. The Eurocrats’ rule of thumb: tell voters to trust us because we know better, but don’t trust the voters. The June 23 vote confirms the growing political divide about how politics should be practised, who should participate and for whom political structures exist.

It was, after all, Jean Claude Juncker, now President of the European Commission, who in July 2007 described the effect on Britain of the Lisbon Treaty signed in December that year: “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”

Juncker isn’t an outlier. The entire EU project has been built on a edifice of tricking voters, treating them as too stupid to know what’s good for them and, when votes don’t go the way of the European project, to seek 1another vote until the lumpen proletariats get it right.

Happily, voters aren’t stupid. British voters rejected the EU con job and punished Britain’s Remain camp, led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Remain pitched Brexit Armageddon, insulting the intelligence of the people, claiming criminals, killers and paedophiles would be the winners of Brexit, that holidays and phone bills would cost more, the economy would tank, and worse.

For a nation that over hundreds of years fought off invaders, ruled large swaths of the world, took power away from its monarchs and delivered parliamentary ­sovereignty, the suggestion that Britain uncuffed from Eurocrats in Brussels cannot prosper is, frankly, a slur against Britain’s history and its future.

Disbelief in the Remain camp at the Brexit vote turned into the same toxic brew of elite snootiness and cluelessness that led to the Brexit result. First, malign the voters as stupid, old and racist and, second, demand a new vote. The BBC led the way analysing the Brexit vote as Little Englanders hankering for lost customs and heritage. Not a mention of people reclaiming democracy and sovereignty. Overcome with scorn, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour has been desperate to depict the result as a vote for UKIP’s Nigel Farage. Never mind that Farage won only 12.7 per cent of the vote at the last British election, yet 52 per cent of voters said no to the EU.

Amanpour is the new Pauline Kael. Kael, The New Yorker’s film critic, famously commented after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972: “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theatre I can feel them.”

Befuddlement overcame many at our ABC, with News Radio’s Paul Quinn suggesting that many who voted to leave the EU didn’t know what they were voting for or didn’t think it would happen. News Radio’s Sandy Aloisi seemed certain it had repercussions for peace in Ireland and was keen to explore Bregret, the sense that many now regret their vote.

Again, no analysis or intellectual curiosity about Brits wanting to bolster their democracy.

The reaction from Remainders shows that, far from being cosmopolitans of the world, these post-democrats suffer from their own provincialism. The delicious smell of people seeking grassroots freedom, parliamentary sovereignty and national identity are so foreign to them, the post-democrats can’t figure it out. They grabbed hold of their usual explanatory tools, deriding voters for daring to ignore the so-called experts, the Prime Minister, the Bank of England boss, MI5, corporate titans, economists and even pop stars and soccer players. The day after, Peter Sutherland, special UN representative on international migration tweeted this: “The younger generation in UK has been sacrificed all because of distortion of facts & consequences. Somehow this result must be overturned.”

Against this backdrop of acute disillusionment, Australia is fortunate. Under Bob Hawke and John Howard, our government understood how to run the economy, delivering unprecedented growth, rising wages and higher living standards. Turning Hansonism fire into fizz, Howard understood that successful immigration depends on a government controlling who comes to the country and having respectful conversations with voters rather than reaching condescending conclusions about those who raise questions about immigration.

Wanting something new, rather than raising baseball bats, voters chose Kevin Rudd who soon squandered our budget surplus, opened the borders to appease empty chants of compassion from his own party and ushered in seven years of internal Labor dysfunction.

The same issues that have shielded Australia from the deep political disconnect in other parts of the Western world are the same issues Labor cannot be trusted on: the economy and immigration. Bill Shorten is embracing the same flawed social democratic model falling apart in Europe: the deadening cost of increased spending, a $16.5 billion budget blowout, higher taxes and a Johnny-come-lately promise about understanding immigration. Scandalous Medicare lies add insult to injury.

Disheartened by both sides, voters contemplating a vote for minor parties or independents ought to measure their disillusionment against events in other countries. Will feeling good on Saturday by registering a protest vote genuinely alleviate their disillusionment or lead to greater long-term disgust at politics when a messy, motley Senate entrenches further paralysis in Canberra?

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #111 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi/britains-exit-from-european-union-flags-big-changes-across-the-globe/news-story/3d26fa817349ab6a9ed5888eb93f07ce

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Panahi
WATCHING the unhinged and unrestrained hysteria of the Left has been a delightful side benefit of the Brexit poll.
 
While the conservatives who campaigned for Great Britain to remain in the European Union have largely accepted the result with a measure of grace, elements of the Left have reacted with a level of hyperbole that is remarkable even by their shrill standards.
 
There are even demands for a new poll from the Brexit losers who seem to think democracy is only a valid exercise if their side wins. But a referendum is not a game of rock, paper, scissors that can be extended to a best of three if you don’t like the result.
 
The EU referendum showed that voters won’t be swayed by slurs, sneers and scaremongering. The tactic of characterising Leave voters as a pack of unthinking xenophobes backfired spectacularly.
 
Voters could smell the desperation and dishonesty of the Remainers. Indeed, the result showed that the shameful strategy of vilifying the majority of Brits who voted to leave the irreparably broken EU drove many undecided voters into the Leave camp, which was trailing by 20 points at the start of the campaign.
 
Locally, the reaction has been just as demented, as members of the media led by overpaid and under-worked ABC troglodytes prophesy global doom and calamity and condemn Brits as ignorant racists.
 
It’s quite extraordinary that the same people who are desperate for Australia to break away from Britain to become a republic are aghast that Brits want to break away from Belgium and reaffirm their sovereignty.
 
British MP Boris Johnson campaigned for a Leave vote.
Of course, immigration was a key Brexit issue — Europe’s porous borders have seen significant change in many parts of England flooded with illegal immigrants — but it was far from the only issue.
 
Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan applauded the British for reacting with “calm, common sense and courage” when threatened with Armageddon.
 
“Virtually every week, a letter would appear in one of the broadsheets signed by a collection of hoary-headed grandees: industrialists one week, green activists the next, actors the next,” he wrote.
 
“The message was always the same: ‘Little people! We’re terribly important, and we’re ordering you to vote Remain!’ It wasn’t Project Fear so much as Project Sneer.
 
“Yes, Leavers are patriotic. Yes, we believe in Britain. But we’re not anti-Europe. We just want to be able to run our own affairs.”
 
If the reaction of the Australian Left to the EU referendum is any guide, then we should brace ourselves for toys flying out of cots after Saturday’s federal poll.
 
But what is more interesting than the Brexit result in isolation is the global trend of voters rejecting the establishment.
 
The winds of political change are blowing a gale from the UK to the US, to places like the Philippines and even right here in Australia.
 
If a figure like Donald Trump can launch a serious challenge for the US presidency, then you know voters have grown weary of the status quo and will look far and wide for an alternative — any alternative.
 
Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination despite a brutal campaign both from mainstream media outlets and the spooked GOP establishment desperate to purge this outsider from conservative ranks.
 
The attacks against Trump are often thinly veiled abuse of his supporters, who are portrayed as dimwitted hillbillies instead of ordinary Americans who feel deeply disenchanted with a political system they see as corrupted by powerful interest groups and lobbyists.
 
Those horror-struck by the US billionaire’s antics should have a look at what’s transpired in the Philippines in recent months, where president-elect Rodrigo Duterte makes Trump look like a safe-as-houses choirboy.
 
The rejection of the condescending ruling class is an international phenomenon, and Australia is not immune.
 
Yesterday you could almost hear the collective yawn across the country as the Coalition officially launched its campaign and Labor held a second campaign launch.
 
The electorate is disengaged, and one wonders what the voter turnout would be on Saturday if compulsory voting didn’t force citizens to take part in the democratic process.
 
Take a deeper look at the polls and it’s evident that there is a heightened level of disillusionment with the major parties, including the Greens.
 
According to a Newspoll conducted earlier this month, a record number of voters plan to support a micro-party or an independent.
 
Close to one in six voters plan to cast their ballot for a candidate who does not represent Labor, Coalition, or Greens parties.
 
Meanwhile we have the astonishing situation of the Regressive Left, both here and overseas, railing against a new enemy: democracy.
 
These folks, who have made an art form of treating the masses with barely concealed disdain, seriously argue that referendums and plebiscites are undesirable, that ordinary voters can’t be trusted to debate and determine issues such as same-sex marriage.
 
Brexit showed just how out of touch much of the political and media class are from the public they are supposed to serve.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #112 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchMonarchist
DavidV, I don't disagree with what you say about the EU just for the sake of disagreement if that's what you imply there. I disagree with pretty much everyhing you say about the EU because I, well, disagree with it. 

Looking through the eight pages of this thread I see many posts where you simply speak about 'the remain camp' with negative qualifications. To me that did make it seem like you doubted there were many good people in the remain camp. Good to hear that's not the case. I still don't get why the words of some remain voters on twitter (out of all places) would say anything about the remain camp in general.

Plenty of links posted here and on other threads simply lead to information about the EU that is not true or misleading. I will continue to point that out, as I do believe in discussions based on facts, perhaps at the risk of nitpicking (not like the remain camp was innocent of distorting facts, of course).
The real problem with the referendum campaign was so little time was spend on the important facts about the EU. I think it is correct to say that it is not fair to judge all remainers from a few bad apples. The right is constantly judged in this way, whilst left-liberal indiscretions are overlooked. But we should rise above it, rather than be dragged down into the gutter, not least because the left's control of the opinion-setting media makes it a lot easier for them to do it successfully.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #113 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/brexit-vote-2016-trump-movement-spark-new-brand-of-snobbery/news-story/789820f94780b0b43cdf72f5d3cbf267

Quote:
Originally Posted by William McGurn (Wall Street Journal)
Post-Brexit, the blind are leading the bigoted.
 
The blind are the legions of politicos, celebrities, pollsters and opinion leaders certain Britain would vote to remain inside the European Union. Notwithstanding their utter shock that the results went the other way, they are now equally certain they know the reason: The bigoted British people.
 
On air, in print and across social media, the Remain camp continues to slur all who disagree. It seems not to have occurred to them that their preference for slander over argument may have backfired.
 
Nor do any seem to have access to a thesaurus. Not only do they all offer the same tired explanation, they all invoke the same word: xenophobia.
 
At such moments it’s always illuminating to step back and take in the reaction of the New York Times. It does not disappoint. A search of “Brexit” and “xenophobia” on the Times online turns up nearly a dozen stories since the vote.
 
In fairness, the Times is hardly an outlier here and is not even among the most ridiculous. The Independent didn’t even wait for the vote. The day before it carried a headline declaring that “xenophobia is the new normal.”
 
Over at CNN, meanwhile, Christiane Amanpour reported as the voting took place that “a lot of the Leave movements are led by the hard-right, very, very xenophobic, anti-immigrant, very populist, nationalist, white identity politics.”
 
On Monday, the Guardian offered up a twofer pegged to a vow from soon-to-be-ex-Prime Minister David Cameron vowing he will not tolerate intolerance. “Cameron condemns post-Brexit xenophobic and racist abuse” ran the headline, over a story that later quoted the Muslim mayor of London as saying it’s crucial not to “demonise” those who voted for Brexit as “xenophobic or racist.”
 
Perhaps in recognition of the contradiction, a later version deleted the mayor’s call not to demonise the anti-Brexit voters or call them xenophobic.
 
Finally, in the sign that the word has probably lost its punch, Joe Biden reached for it in a speech in Ireland on Friday in which the vice president reproached “reactionary politicians and demagogues peddling xenophobia, nationalism, and isolationism.” It’s “un-American,” Mr. Biden said, meaning xenophobia rather than the British vote, which of course by definition would be un-American.
 
It’s a fascinating exercise, and it continues unabated. As this column is being written it appears that every newsman in Britain has been assigned to go out and record every anti-Muslim insult, every call for some foreigner to go back whence he came, every hate crime in which, for example, a customer in a restaurant demands he be served by a British waiter instead of a European one.
 
But xenophobia works both ways. Without gainsaying that some pro-Brexit voters may have been motivated by an ugly jingoism, what does it say about the tolerant class that so much of its argument is based on the proposition that most British voters are unregenerate troglodytes who had no legitimate reason to vote as they did?
 
Xenophobia, of course, comes from the Greek for “stranger” and “fear.” The idea here is that the British — in particular, the older, more rural and working-class voters — rejected an enlightened arrangement with Europe because they are either too stupid or too blinded by their own ignorance and prejudice to understand how good a deal this is for them.
 
A question: How does this view of the majority of the British people — as a form of alien life with disgusting beliefs unfit for polite society — differ in substance from the view a bigoted British bricklayer might have toward the immigrants living in his midst?
 
Another question: How different is this portrait of the British as xenophobes from the picture of working-class Pennsylvanians presented by Barack Obama back when he was first running for president?
 
Speaking to his wealthy California patrons at a fundraiser in uber-chic Marin County, the president in 2008 characterised them as folks who “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” What could be more xenophobic?
 
Right now, most of the reporting on the American parallels to Brexit has focused on Donald Trump. It’s a fair comparison, especially given how the presumptive Republican nominee’s calls to rewrite U.S. trade agreements, reassess U.S. foreign alliances and revise U.S. immigration policies echo some of the arguments advanced by the anti-EU side in Britain.
 
But it’s not the only Trump parallel. Another is the undisguised snobbery toward ordinary voters the anti-Brexit and anti-Trump sides have in common. In Britain at least, the people appear to have picked up on it, and this helped push Brexit over the top. Maybe there’s a warning there for the anti-Trump crowd about the price of condescension in a society where the people are still sovereign.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,934
Reply with quote  #114 
Nicola Sturgeon has been in Brussels to test the waters over a separate deal for Scotland. As expected, she found them chilly, deep and entirely unwelcoming, being effectively told 'Forget it' by both the French president and Spanish acting prime minister, and getting scarcely more encouragement from anyone else. Her response? 'I have been heartened today that I have found a willingness to listen.' I believe that's known as whistling in the dark. It would have been nice if instead of incessant shrill whining the Scottish first minister had responded to the situation with an affirmation that we're all in this together and efforts to help rather than hinder and harm the Union as a whole. A silly daydream, I know, but hey, it's no more unrealistic than the serial delusions the SNP offer up as policy.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #115 
Well we all knew that would happen. Spain and other countries have no interest in secessionism, and as Ruth Dudley Edwards says it's not going to happen:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/ruth-dudley-edwards/the-vote-to-leave-europe-does-not-pave-the-way-for-a-united-ireland-no-matter-what-gerry-adams-may-argue-34834918.html

Liam Fox has the right idea, namely that Britain (and by extension the Commonwealth) needs to reassert itself in a post-EU world. For me, that would be throwing off the shackles of PC and self-loathing and reasserting a role as the beacon of civilisation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/29/liam-fox-britain-is-a-land-of-opportunity-in-a-world-of-opportun/
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,237
Reply with quote  #116 
Well surprise surprise... it turns out that after leading the Brexit effort, Boris Johnson has no appetite for the Prime Minister's job.  With Britain increasingly facing a restive population in London and Northern Ireland unhappy with the results of Brexit referendum, a treasonous separatist agenda in Scotland on one side, xenophobic attacks by extremist "Leaver" elements on the other, and economic and monatery instability overall with banks and other companies such as vodaphone looking to relocate to the continent, one can see why he'd hesitate.  

The pro-Remain Home Secretary Theresa May seems favored to win the job, but the pro-Leave Justice Secretary Michael Grove who initially was expected to back Mr. Johnson will challenge her, as will the pro-Leave ex-Defense Secretary Liam Fox and the Pro-Remain Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb among others.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/europe/uk-conservative-pm-candidates/index.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36677028

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #117 


Here, the excellent Jacob Rees-Mogg outlines the difference between ACCESS to a market and living under its regulatory regime. Just one of many reasons why he's one of the best Conservative MPs.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #118 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
Well surprise surprise... it turns out that after leading the Brexit effort, Boris Johnson has no appetite for the Prime Minister's job.  With Britain increasingly facing a restive population in London and Northern Ireland unhappy with the results of Brexit referendum, a treasonous separatist agenda in Scotland on one side, xenophobic attacks by extremist "Leaver" elements on the other, and economic and monatery instability overall with banks and other companies such as vodaphone looking to relocate to the continent, one can see why he'd hesitate.  

The pro-Remain Home Secretary Theresa May seems favored to win the job, but the pro-Leave Justice Secretary Michael Grove who initially was expected to back Mr. Johnson will challenge her, as will the pro-Leave ex-Defense Secretary Liam Fox and the Pro-Remain Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb among others.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/europe/uk-conservative-pm-candidates/index.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36677028 The increase in attacks doesn't exist, not statistically. The statistics show that there has been an increase of calls to the police hate crime hotline since the referendum, but only going from around 50 in the same time period to 85. Statistically, it is meaningless to work off a single sample or time period like this. Besides, the police do not proceed with most calls to the hotline, which is saying something in modern Britain. It is a common left-liberal tactic to try to create a scare about violent and hate filled rightwingers. Leftwing violence and intimidation is ignored, like the angry rent-a-mob Alexander Johnson faced upon leaving his house after the referendum.

Johnson may not be running because he thinks he doesn't have the numbers. The Tory party is dominated by remainers probably unhappy with him, and Gove seems to want to made his own leadership bid. Apparently, he hasn't cultivated a large group of MPs that are attached to him, like Osbourne did, for example.

I have gone from worried to alarmed. I think it quite likely we won't leave the EU at this point. I'm not a fan of Gove, but he is much better than the Blairite May. It is important a leaver becomes Prime Minister.

DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,991
Reply with quote  #119 
http://news.sky.com/story/1719792/turkey-and-eu-begin-brussels-accession-talks

What "deeper problems"? One is that Turkey is not part of European civilisation while countries that lie to the north-east of it like Armenia and Georgia are much closer to our civilisation in any case. Two is that nobody likes a bellicose neo-imperialist wannabe whether it is in Ankara, Moscow or Beijing.

Meanwhile, the EU superstate plan is causing a backlash:
http://thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-superstate-plan%E2%80%99-causes-alarm

Restless noises from Hungary, maybe a revolt of the Visegrad nations?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/685056/Hungary-minister-Janos-Lazar-out-of-EU
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,142
Reply with quote  #120 
Here's a few other links that might cheer down-hearted Brexiters.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/three-great-myths-of-the-sulking-remainers/

Liddle points out what should be obvious - hate (much overused as a noun these days) exists just as much amongst those who like to spray all who disagree with them with terms like bigot or racist as amongst leavers. He also points out that lies and untruths were as much a part of the remain campaign as the leave one. I remember Mr. Slippery himself coming up with some obvious untruths.; for example, when he drew a similarity between our membership of the UN or NATO with that of the EU.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/brexit-reasons-to-be-cheerful/

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.