Author Topic: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay  (Read 95976 times)

Inverted and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,365
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #325 on: June 09, 2017, 09:48:41 »
Looks like a Tory- DUP government.DUP is a fan of Brexit. May should not have called for an election, she had 3 more years before the next election.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #326 on: June 09, 2017, 11:08:32 »
Looks like a Tory- DUP government.DUP is a fan of Brexit. May should not have called for an election, she had 3 more years before the next election.

That was then.  This is now. 

The only thing you can say for sure is it is time to pull your investments in pollsters, pundits and prognosticators.

The gods laugh.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 166,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,890
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #327 on: June 09, 2017, 16:55:19 »
Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #328 on: June 09, 2017, 20:18:28 »
At least they wouldn't be contesting the original text....
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #329 on: June 09, 2017, 21:31:46 »
I'm enjoying the photos of Lord Buckethead running against May in her riding.  And Elmo, too.

Offline cavalryman

    Done with the demented bureaucracy.

  • You can't put a pricetag on patriotism
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 34,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 411
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #330 on: June 09, 2017, 22:04:11 »
Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".

 :cheers:

And yet it still sounds more sensible than the NDP's LEAP manifesto  [:D

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 166,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,890
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #331 on: June 09, 2017, 23:02:08 »
And yet it still sounds more sensible than the NDP's LEAP manifesto  [:D

True that although a bit apple and oranges.  ;D

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 61,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,650
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #332 on: June 10, 2017, 11:13:57 »
Both require faith.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,531
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #333 on: June 10, 2017, 19:35:25 »
Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".
That, and wanting to keep Northern Ireland British. 

With them being the king makers, I wonder how easy this guy's job's going to be?  Especially with a Northern Ireland-Ireland border that's used to being a lot more easy to get through lately than it used to be during The Troubles.  Not to mention that whole flag fracas.

Interesting times, indeed ...
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,670
  • Freespeecher
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #334 on: July 24, 2017, 17:22:56 »
The EU makes the case against itself in trying to discredit the UK's negotiating team. It seems lack of self awareness permeates much of the globalist Political and Bureaucratic classes:

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/eu-authoritarianism-complexity/

Quote
The EU: Authoritarianism Through Complexity
By George Friedman

In recent weeks, EU negotiators have claimed that the British negotiators of Brexit are not sufficiently sophisticated to understand the complex issues being dealt with, and that, in essence, it is frustrating for EU negotiators to deal with unskilled negotiators. I have found that dealing with unskilled negotiators has frequently created opportunities for me, but apparently the EU wants to have a better team to play against.

A great deal of this is, of course, political maneuvering. The EU desperately wants to avoid a British withdrawal from the bloc. By making this charge, it hopes to discredit the British negotiating team and sow distrust between the British public and the negotiators. Implicit in what is being said is that the British team is going to fail to get a good deal for Britain, and that therefore the risks of Brexit for Britain are pyramided. Why the EU wouldn’t keep this fact secret, and negotiate a superb deal for itself, is a mystery, but the posture is almost that the EU wants to save the British from their own stupidity.

It’s not a bad maneuver, but it unravels at a certain point. The British team consists of well-educated and experienced civil servants. In claiming that this team is not up to the task of understanding the complexities of EU processes and regulations, the EU has made the strongest case possible against itself. If these people can’t readily grasp the principles binding Britain to the EU, then how can mere citizens understand them? And if the principles are beyond the grasp of the public, how can the public trust the institutions? We are not dealing here with the complex rules that allow France to violate rules on deficits but on the fundamental principles of the European Union and the rights and obligations – political, economic and moral – of citizens. If the EU operating system is too complex to be grasped by British negotiators, then who can grasp it?

The EU’s answer to this is that the Maastricht treaty, a long and complex document, can best be grasped by experts, particularly by those experts who make their living by being Maastricht treaty experts. These experts and the complex political entities that manage them don’t think they have done a bad job managing the European Union. In spite of the nearly decadelong economic catastrophe in Southern Europe, they are content with their work. In their minds, the fault generally lies with Southern Europe, not the EU; the upheaval in Europe triggered by EU-imposed immigration rules had to do with racist citizens, not the EU’s ineptness; and Brexit had to do with the inability of the British public to understand the benefits of the EU, not the fact that the benefits were unclear and the rules incomprehensible. The institutionalized self-satisfaction of the EU apparatus creates a mindset in which the member publics must live up to the EU’s expectations rather than the other way around.

The EU has become an authoritarian regime insisting that it is the defender of liberal democracy. There are many ways to strip people and governments of their self-determination. The way the EU has chosen is to create institutions whose mode of operation is opaque and whose authority cannot be easily understood. Under those circumstances, the claim to undefined authority exercised in an opaque manner becomes de facto authoritarianism – an authoritarianism built on complexity. It is a complexity so powerful that the British negotiating team is deemed to be unable to grasp the rules.

In essence, the British position seems simple. The U.K. wants to be part of a European free trade zone, modified again like it has been in the past. It wants to determine its own fate rather than be governed by the EU. If there is to be aid to member states, then it will be voted on by the Parliament. In other words, they do not want to disrupt trade. Nor do they want to be governed by a system that doesn’t work very well.

So long as the British negotiating team plays by EU rules, it will lose. The myriad points of darkness that make up the vast complexity of the EU structure cannot be negotiated. In part, they exist so that they cannot be understood. If the British negotiators start with the elegant institutional and moral principles that frame their unwritten constitution, they can present the terms under which they will work with the EU. Not to worry – the Germans won’t stop trading with the British. They can’t stop, and the British will have the upper hand if they employ British aplomb and remember that excluding Britain from the free trade zone is not an option for the EU. From there, it is simple.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #335 on: November 25, 2017, 18:15:59 »
I hear the voice of Humphrey -   


Quote
Secret document FCO 30/1048 kept truth about EU from British for 30 years

A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late.

By LARA DEAUVILLE
PUBLISHED: 16:01, Fri, Nov 24, 2017 | UPDATED: 17:43, Fri, Nov 24, 2017
   
Almost all of the shocking predictions – from the loss of British sovereignty, to monetary union and the over-arching powers of European courts – have come true.

But damningly for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, and all those who kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s, the document, known as FCO30/1048, was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost five decades.

The classified paper, dated April 1971, suggested the Government should keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership means predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening by which time it would be too late to leave.

That last detail was the only thing the disgraceful paper – prepared for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) – got wrong.

This 1971 document shows exactly what the plan was

The unknown author – a senior civil servant – correctly predicted the then European Economic Community (the EEC effectively became the EU in 1993) was headed for economic, monetary and fiscal union, with a common foreign and defence policy, which would constitute the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty since 1066.

He went on to say “Community law” would take precedence over our own courts and that ever more power would pass away from Parliament to the bureaucratic system centred in Brussels.

The author even accurately asserts that the increased role of Brussels in the lives of the British people would lead to a “popular feeling of alienation from Government”.

But shockingly politicians were advised “not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures… to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”.

Prime Minister Edward Heath kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s

They were told to preserve the impression that the British Government was still calling the shots rather than an unelected body of foreign politicians – and that the ruse would last “for this century at least” – by which time Britain would be so completely chained to Brussels it would be impossible to leave.

Document FCO30/1048, which has now been declassified under the 30-year rule, still shocks and angers Brexiteers.

Annabelle Sanderson, a Brexit expert and former advisor to Nigel Farage said: “Despite all the claims from politicians of many parties that the EU was not about becoming a central state this 1971 document shows that is exactly what the plan was.

“Arch Remoaners from Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories need to check this out and ask themselves why they are MPs if they don’t actually want Westminster to be in charge of this country.

“We voted for Brexit what needs to happen is a proper clean break from Brussels so we can once again become a sovereign nation with money being spent in this country on services we need and have Parliament and courts making and ruling on the laws.”

Document FCO30/1048 still shocks and angers Brexiteers

The writer and journalist Christopher Booker, one of the founders of the satirical magazine Private Eye, said: “Here was a civil servant advising that our politicians should connive in concealing what Heath was letting us in for, not least in hiding the extent to which Britain would no longer be a democratic country but one essentially governed by unelected and unaccountable officials.

“One way to create an illusion that this system was still democratic, this anonymous mandarin suggested, would be to give people the chance to vote for new representatives at European, regional and local levels.

“A few years later, we saw the creation of an elected European Parliament – as we see today a craze for introducing elected mayors, as meaningless local figureheads.”

The pro-Europe Sir Edward Heath was leader of the Conservative Party from 1965 to 1975.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #336 on: November 25, 2017, 18:19:00 »
And this -

Quote
'No EU-UK deal? It is not the end of the world', says WTO chief

 Liam Halligan
25 NOVEMBER 2017 • 9:43PM

Roberto Azevedo is not your typical Brazilian. Quietly spoken, and instinctively cautious, the director general of the World Trade Organisation is a career diplomat to his well-manicured fingertips. While a highly effective communicator – fluent in four languages – he belies the national stereotype for flair and flamboyance.

Azevedo, though, is a major figure on the global political stage – by far and away the most important trade diplomat on earth. As such, he’s been taking a keen interest in, and has some interesting thoughts on, the UK’s Article 50 negotiations with the EU.

.... If Britain fails to strike a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU ahead of March 2019, when we’re scheduled to leave, then UK-EU trade reverts to WTO rules. While some claim this would be a disaster, not least parliamentarians determined to frustrate Brexit, Azevedo disagrees.

“About half of the UK’s trade is already on WTO terms – with the US, China and several large emerging nations where the EU doesn’t have trade agreements,” he says. “So it’s not the end of the world if the UK trades under WTO rules with the EU.”

"If you don’t have a fully functioning FTA with the EU, there could be rigidities and costs – but it’s not like trade between the UK and EU is going to stop. There will be an impact, but I suppose it is perfectly manageable"

Acknowledging that an FTA would be best, with WTO rules involving reciprocal UK-EU tariffs, Azevedo still gainsays the gloom-mongers. “If you don’t have a fully functioning FTA with the EU, there could be rigidities and costs – but it’s not like trade between the UK and EU is going to stop. There will be an impact, but I suppose it is perfectly manageable.”

He points out that to maintain current levels of access in nations where the EU has already struck FTAs, the UK will need to negotiate new agreements with such countries after Brexit. But won’t the fact that EU agreements already exist with such countries help the UK to reach such deals? “Trade deals are always complex,” says Azevedo. “But it may be helpful as some of the trade harmonisation is already there – that could act as a shortcut.”

While the EU has cut around 50 FTAs, most are with very small countries. Despite 60 years of trying, Brussels has failed to strike deals with the US, China, Brazil, India and almost all other large economies. Why is this? “Trade deals are difficult but there is an additional complicating factor for the EU, which is agriculture,” says Azevedo. “Once you start negotiating with a big agricultural exporter, they want market access – and, for the EU, that’s a sensitive sector, both politically and economically, a sector that makes itself heard.”

After Brexit, Britain can be more flexible in its approach and quicker to react within the WTO, as you don’t have to coordinate with all the other members of the EU
As the global centre of economic gravity shifts east, multilateral institutions are having to adapt. While Azevedo’s own appointment, in 2013, reflected this shifting balance of power, does he feel there’s further to go? “The WTO was updated with the entry of China in 2001, and Russia in 2012 – two very large and important economies,” he said. “That represents an update – and these members are very active, so the WTO is changing.”

And what difference will the UK make at the WTO, acting as an independent trading nation for the first time since 1973? “I hope Britain will help co-operation among nations – which has always been your traditional approach,” says Azevedo. “The UK has many qualified professionals – and generally liberal views on trade.”

After Brexit, Britain can be “more flexible in its approach and quicker to react within the WTO, as you don’t have to coordinate with all the other members of the EU”, observes Azevedo. “You will lose the weight of the EU as a market, but the UK is by no standards a minor economy or a minor player in the multilateral system.”

As our conversation draws to a close, Azevedo smiles for the first time, revealing a big toothy grin. “I think Britain has an opportunity,” he says, “a chance to contribute in a way that is consistent with the quality of your professionals and the size and importance of your economy.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/25/no-eu-uk-deal-not-end-world-says-head-wto/
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 166,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,890
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #337 on: November 25, 2017, 21:34:43 »
The latest cost of quitting Brussels? British farmers learn of sprouts crisis because of a shortage of seasonal workers from Europe  ;D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5117679/The-latest-cost-quitting-Brussels-sprouts-crisis.html

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 221,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,669
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #338 on: December 02, 2017, 10:40:48 »
A good example of the quality of most Euro MEPs and their thought processes:

EU should 'force UK to give us English language after Brexit', former Italian PM says

The European Union should adopt English as one of its most prominent languages after Brexit because the move would "force" the UK to "give to us one of the very best products of Britain", a former Italian prime minister has said.
Mario Monti, who is also a former EU commissioner, said Europeans "should find ways to upgrade the use of English" in official bodies after Britain's departure from the EU.

The move would serve "two purposes" - forcibly taking one of Britain's "very best products", and increasing the European Union's competitiveness with the UK on the world stage.

The comments prompted raised eyebrows among Eurosceptic Tory MPs, although Peter Bone, a member of the Commons Brexit committee said: "I thank the former prime minister for recognising that English is the language of business and the international language.

"I think that's supposed to be a compliment."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/25/eu-should-force-uk-give-us-english-language-brexit-former-italian/
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 221,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,669
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #339 on: January 30, 2018, 01:10:01 »
The English Channel: the World's Largest Tank Trap :)


German ambassador: second world war image of Britain has fed Euroscepticism

Exclusive: Peter Ammon says some Brexiters were motivated by a sense of national identity built around UK standing alone

“I spoke to many of the Brexiteers, and many of them said they wanted to preserve a British identity and this was being lost in a thick soup of other identities. Obviously every state is defined by its history, and some define themselves by what their father did in the war, and it gives them great personal pride.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/29/german-ambassador-peter-ammon-second-world-war-image-of-britain-has-fed-euroscepticism
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #340 on: June 16, 2018, 11:31:00 »
Foreign involvement in internal affairs....


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/15/tory-rebels-leading-britain-towards-brexit-name/

Quote
... are the Tory rebels part of a wider plan to stop Brexit?

While Mr Grieve insists he does not want to stop Brexit, he likes to keep company with those who do.

On Wednesday Mr Grieve attended a meeting at the European Commission’s London headquarters in Smith Square (which was, ironically, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative HQ) convened by avowed opponents of Brexit.

Among the groups represented were Best For Britain, the anti-Brexit group founded by Hungarian-American investor Mr Soros, known as “the man who broke the Bank of England” after he bet against the pound during the 1992 Black Wednesday crisis.

The group has been courting hundreds of MPs that it believes it can convert to its cause of a second referendum. Each one is shown electoral data that “proves” they could increase support in their constituency by backing a second referendum or a “soft” Brexit.

Among the MPs targeted are Conservatives in constituencies with a high number of Labour Remainers: by appealing to those voters, the theory goes, they could scoop up thousands more votes at the next election. Presentations are being held three times a week attended by MPs individually or in groups.

Why this matters is that if Best For Britain succeeds in “turning” enough MPs (and it has a target of recruiting 100), Mrs May could be powerless to stop amendments to forthcoming Brexit-related bills that would achieve what Mr Grieve wants.

And there are many more facets to the well-funded campaign. As MPs geared up to vote on Tuesday, the Financial Times carried a full-page advert urging MPs to defy the Tory whip.

It reproduced the November front page of The Daily Telegraph that described 15 rebels as “The Brexit Mutineers” but replaced the headline with “The Brexit Heroes?”

The advert was paid for by the US-based civil rights campaign group Avaaz, which was founded by two other groups that have together received £1.3 million from Mr Soros.

Nor is Best For Britain the only anti-Brexit group out there. It works in collaboration with eight other groups that all moved onto the same floor of Millbank Tower in Westminster in March, including European Movement UK, Britain For Europe, Scientists for EU, Healthier IN the EU, InFacts, Our Future Our Choice and For Our Future’s Sake.

Once mocked as a disparate group of zealots getting in each other’s way, they are now disciplined, drilled and co-ordinated.

Also sharing the building’s first floor is Open Britain, which includes the People’s Vote campaign and which has organised next Saturday’s march.

It is funded by Roland Rudd, the chairman and founder of the PR company Finsbury who has been dubbed the “Godfather of Remain” and is a close friend of former Labour Cabinet minister Lord Mandelson.

Open Britain has close contact with MPs from all parties, with Mr Grieve, Anna Soubry and the former education minister Nicky Morgan among its former supporters.


Friends and associates .... https://www.americanprogress.org/series/global-progress/view/
« Last Edit: June 16, 2018, 11:39:14 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,111
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #341 on: June 16, 2018, 11:41:45 »
I guess foreign interference is ok, as long as it is US Progressive causes doing the interfering...

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #342 on: June 20, 2018, 20:42:40 »
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/977225/Brexit-news-UK-EU-House-of-Lords-Theresa-May-European-Union-Withdrawal-Bill

The enclosed video clip is classic in its demonstration of British Parliamentary Democracy at its finest.  Sir Humphrey would be pleased.  (As would R.D. Laing for that matter).

For the record, it means that Theresa May continues the battle.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,365
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #343 on: July 09, 2018, 18:17:28 »
The British people voted to leave the EU, but PM May seems to be trying to ignore that.In fact several ministers are leaving her government in opposition.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #344 on: July 18, 2018, 19:16:38 »
As a Brexiteer at heart I feel some stake in this discussion.

At the same time, as I have said upthread, I am immensely proud of the democratic display my mother country is putting on.

It is not efficient.  It is profoundly disconcerting, both to the Brits and the rest of the international community.  But it is considerably better than the alternatives .....

Here we see people within parties, Labour and Tory, voicing and voting their principles in the House.  We see debates in cabinet.  We see cabinet ministers quitting so as to be free to voice opposition to the government.  We see ministers and shadow ministers taking to their preferred newspapers to offer their opinions whole and entire without editorializing by reporters.  We see pundits discussing those opinions.  We see groups forming to oppose peacefully using the legitimate means at their disposal.  We see protests in the public square, petitions to parliament and appeals to the courts. 

What we don't see is blood in the streets....

For the bureaucrats of the world it must be terribly annoying to have all these people interfering with their jobs and making things more difficult for them.... but, for me, it is what democracy looks like.

Precious few trained seals in evidence at Westminster.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -3925.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 268,462
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,286
    • Army.ca
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #345 on: July 18, 2018, 20:07:59 »
Too bad the purveyors of our own Westminister application can't do the same.
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #346 on: August 06, 2018, 18:41:34 »
Much has been made of Britain's poor decision with respect to Brexit and how the position outside the EU is so inherently bad that Britain must have a deal other than one based on the WTO.

There are contrary opinions - such as this one -

But the Society opinion is that a deal must be made or Britain will suffer.

William Hague, remainer, former leader of the Conservatives and one time Foreign Secretary, and one suspects strong proponent of May's Chequers Proposal, has today penned a piece in the Telegraph suggesting that Macron needs to move and make a deal with Britain or else

Quote
Within Britain, many of us who have advocated pragmatic solutions to Brexit would switch to calling for this country to maximise its competitive advantage against the rest of Europe in every way possible – open the freeports, make financial regulation more attractive for those locating in the UK and halt payments to the EU budget.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/06/france-key-credible-brexit-deal-macrons-interest-make-happen/

Curiously that is the very argument that the Brexiteers have been making all along - that Britain, freed of the EU regulatory regime, has the tools to remake itself again, prosperously.

Hague's submission seems to me to indicate that the Brexiteers are correct in thinking that even British supporters of the EU, the Remainers, are willing to knee-cap Britain in order to maintain and support the EU regardless of economic costs to Britain.

Pretty hard to get a good deal when the people doing the dealing don't want to be dealing in the first place.

Staff Edit: Removed link, as it lead to user's desktop...
« Last Edit: August 06, 2018, 19:04:04 by PuckChaser »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #347 on: August 10, 2018, 11:43:51 »
Offered without comment - and quoted in its entirety

Quote
Why is it that so many leading Brexiteers studied history?
Greg Hall
 
 
 
The history boys: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Arron Banks (Getty)
Greg Hall

11 August 2018

9:00 AM


What do Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Cummings all have in common? They are Brexiteers, of course. Yet little is it known that they all studied history or classics at university. Add to this list John Redwood, Bill Cash, Daniel Hannan, Owen Paterson and Douglas Carswell — some of the most influential Eurosceptic MPs from the past 30 years. Michael Gove may have studied English literature, but as education secretary he sought to establish a ‘narrative of British progress’ in the history curriculum. Boris has written a biography of Winston Churchill and Nick Timothy has written a biography of Joseph Chamberlain. Even two of the so-called ‘Bad Boys of Brexit’, Arron Banks and Nigel Farage, are self-proclaimed history buffs. After claiming that Ancient Rome was ‘destroyed’ by immigration, Banks was called out by classicist Mary Beard, to which he retorted: ‘I studied Roman history extensively — you don’t have a monopoly on history!’ Nigel Farage is a regular visitor to the battlefields and cemeteries of Europe.

Why is this significant? Much has been made by the liberal left of the association between Brexit and nostalgia, whether it be the dream of returning to an imperial past or the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. Take Back Control. And the implication of nostalgia is not a positive one; after all, when the term was first coined it referred to a medical condition. Many opponents of Brexit would argue that Brexiteers do have a medical condition — Anna Soubry has already said that all the banging on about Europe is ‘not particularly good for their [the Brexiteers’] mental health’. It may be nostalgia for some, but for others, such as the Question Time audience member who rebuffed Matt Forde last May, Brexit is about ‘the future not the past’.

And if nostalgia is unhelpful, then so too is amnesia. In the UK our past is not comprehensively taught — hence Gove’s reforms; and when it is, it is often the subject of derision. I am not suggesting that anyone who studied history or has a similar degree is a Brexiteer — far from it in fact. More than 300 prominent historians signed a letter to the Guardian before the referendum encouraging Britain to Remain. Yet it is no coincidence that many of the leading Brexiteers have. Whereas the Declaration of Independence is gospel in America, in the UK only a history graduate like Jacob Rees-Mogg could describe the White Paper agreed at Chequers as ‘the greatest vassalage since King John paid homage to Philip II at Le Goulet in 1200’. The pollsters at Vote Leave decided that ‘Take Back Control’ was the most effective slogan, but what it communicates is the doctrine which the History Boys continue to espouse: parliamentary sovereignty. If you know your British history, then you’ll known that this is not an abstract idea but something which parliamentarians have wrestled for since, well, not long after Le Goulet.

In comparison, the leading opponents of Brexit such as Ken Clarke QC, Keir Starmer QC, Tony Blair, Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry and Matthew Parris all read law or jurisprudence at university. To be sure, they have appealed to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, but only since the referendum, and in order to soften the withdrawal process. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath, the prime ministers who brought the UK into the European Economic Community, studied the now-infamous philosophy, politics and economics. So too did Michael Heseltine, David Cameron, Peter Mandelson, the Miliband brothers, Yvette Cooper and Will Straw, the director of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. Does this point to conspiracy? No. But it is an interesting pattern to highlight. The old ruling class — politicians such as Herbert Asquith, Harold Macmillan and Boris — studied the classics. The new ruling class — the ‘experts’ — have studied vocational degrees like law and PPE. Whereas our rulers were once versed in the past, they are now versed in technocracy.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and I am not suggesting that those who oppose Brexit have not studied history or are not interested in it (Dominic Grieve and George Osborne, for instance, read history). But it does not seem too unreasonable to presume that many of the influential opponents of Brexit in politics and the media do so because of their education. If you studied modules on European law or international political economy at university, rather than, say, the Glorious Revolution, it is not surprising that you will come to prioritise the global over the national, the present over the past. Undoubtedly the lawyers ‘understand the importance of statute’, as Soubry put it, but do they understand the importance of history? Magna Carta and what it stands for becomes one of many legal cases to memorise, not a founding national document.

Where does this leave Brexit? I’ll leave the detail to Theresa May, but I suspect that the outcome she achieves will not end this Thirty Years War between our representatives. This is a war which began, and which may have to be settled, on campus. To be sure, such a divergence of outlook among political representatives is not new. Following the French Revolution, Edmund Burke reflected on the fact that the Third Estate, the body of men which came to dominate the legislature in 1789, was composed mainly of lawyers. Fuelled by Enlightenment theories and self-interest, they overturned the ancien régime.

In our case, forget the Bad Boys of Brexit: 23 June 2016 was the work of the History Boys, and its destiny lies with whichever group of graduates holds the balance of power.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/why-is-it-that-so-many-leading-brexiteers-studied-history/


Edit: And thanks to the moderators for catching my security problem on the preceding post.  Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #348 on: August 22, 2018, 11:02:41 »
So, the big argument in Britain is whether or not it needs a deal with the EU or it "crashes out" without a deal.

The population at large seems a lot more sanguine about the no-deal/WTO/FTA prospects than does the "establishment".  The "establishment" is at one with its legal advice.

Which brings us to this briefing from the Law Society:

Quote
10.40am update: Legal sector growth could halve by 2025 without trade deal

Growth in the legal sector could halve by 2025 if the UK leaves the EU without a trade deal, the Law Society has warned.

The professional body has estimated the secotr would grow by 2.2 percent each year between 2019 and 2025 if the UK pursued a soft Brexit, remaining inside the customs union and single market.

But this growth could halve to 1.1 percent if the UK exits the bloc without a trade deal.


The figures, compiled by Thomson Reuters, showed that opting for a no deal over a soft Brexit would wipe almost £3bn from the turnover of the sector.

The Law Society also predicted that by 2025 there could be up to 5,000 few people employed in the legal sector if the UK agrees a Canada-style free trade agreement with the EU.

But this could rise to 10,000 if the UK leaves the EU under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1006709/brexit-latest-news-no-deal-brexit-michel-barnier-emergency-talks-northern-ireland

Cynics might suspect some special pleading on the part of Law Society support for the EU and Free Trade Agreements.

It sounds as if businesses are faced with competing costs.  They can either pay the costs of filling out paperwork to comply with tariffs, or, they can pay the costs of hiring lawyers to fill out paperwork to avoid tariffs.

Apparently the Law Society has its preferences.

I suppose we should be glad that we have lawyers negotiating trade deals.


Edit to add link
« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 12:18:52 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,355
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
« Reply #349 on: September 29, 2018, 11:50:50 »
I hear the voice of Humphrey -   


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public

More on  FCO30/1048 -

This, in 1971, represents an explicit internationalist proposal to Edward Heath from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office laying out the procedures and benefits for eliminating national sovereignty, the sovereignty of parliament and the necessary transfer of power to European bureaucrats and the European Court of Justice.   Democracy would be limited but, hopefully, at some point in the future, weather permitting, it would be restored at the European level - Westminster would be relegated.

It also describes how the plebs need to be kept in the dark until it is too late for them to do anything about it.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/883540/FCO-30-1048-Brexit-EU-secret-document-damned-Britain-EU-membership

Quote

A SECRET document prepared for pro-Europe Tory Prime Minster Edward Heath shows how the Foreign Office knew EU membership would dismantle Britain as a sovereign nation.

By LARA DEAUVILLE
PUBLISHED: 09:01, Fri, Sep 28, 2018 | UPDATED: 20:27, Fri, Sep 28, 2018
   
More damningly, in line after line, the faceless Whitehall mandarins behind the astonishing briefing paper FCO 30/1048 actively welcome Britain’s decline and Europe’s predominance.

The briefing paper acknowledges that Britain would in time become little more than a puppet state of Brussels, after ceding judicial and executive powers to the fledgling EU – then called the EEC.

But, instead of sounding alarm bells, the authors of the paper warn ministers to hide the truth from the British public.
 

And, damningly for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, and all those who kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s, the document, known as FCO30/1048, was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost five decades.

What the writers – famously championed by Mr Heath – could not have envisioned was that the British public would see though the audacious abuse of power and vote to LEAVE Europe in a fiercely contested referendum half a century later.

To some critics the lie is at the heart of the Brexit battle faced by Theresa May as she prepares to face her embattled delegates at Tory Party Conference, in Birmingham next week.

The classified paper, dated April 1971, even suggested the Government should keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership means predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening by which time it would be too late to leave.

Bizarrely FCO 30/1048 reads more like an educated anarchists’ guide to crushing Britain’s political standing on the world stage than the sober briefing of civil service pillars of the British establishment.

The language suggests repeatedly that the British people are too stupid to grasp the implications of joining the EEC (which became the EU in 1993) and that indeed this stupidity could be used against them to hide the truth until it was essentially too late to do anything about it.

Again and again they assert that Britain’s parliament will be sidelined and that, sooner rather than later, there will be a United States of Europe with a single currency.

Here we read between the lines of the most damning paragraphs of the FCO 30/1048 and explain what the writers really meant:

The paper starts with a academic discussion of sovereignty – arguing that sovereignty is not necessarily a good thing.

By page five we are left in no doubt as to the author’s position on sovereignty as he writes:

“Sovereignty is a technical concept with in many ways only limited bearing on the questions of power and influence that form the normal preoccupation of foreign policy.”

And after some rambling paragraphs about the Queen having sole sovereign law making power in Britain he cuts to the chase saying:

“Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action.”

The first acknowledgement that Britain was about to transfer significant powers to Europe.

A few paragraphs later he confirms this saying: “we shall be accepting an external legislature which regards itself as having direct powers of legislating with effect within the United Kingdom, even in derogation of United Kingdom statutes, and as having in certain fields exclusive legislative competence, so that our own legislature has none.”

And further the authors not only concede the handing over of power but that this is a no-going back deal:

we shall be accepting that the Commission will jointly represent the member states, who to that extent will have their individual international negotiating powers limited; and we shall in various fields be accepting a wide degree of coordination of our policy with that of the rest of the Community. All of this we shall be accepting “for an unlimited period,” with no provision for withdrawal.

In a clumsy attempt to diminish the massive changes to the way Britain is governed the writer says: “Overall it is clear that membership of the Community in its present form would involve only limited diminution of external sovereignty in practice.”

But just a page later the author makes it crystal clear that it is just a matter of time before Europe starts eating away at Britain’s ability to govern itself saying: “The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome 'to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples'.”

Paragraph 12(I) is one of the most damning – as it clearly details the way in which EU law will trample over British law. But that this must be kept from the common knowledge of the British people.

He writes: “By accepting the Community Treaties we shall have to adapt the whole range of subsidiary law which has been made by the Communities. Not only this but we shall be making provision in advance for the unquestioned direct application (i.e. without any further participation by Parliament) of Community laws not yet made (even though Ministers would have a part, through membership of the Council, in the making of some of these laws). Community law operates only in the fields covered by the Treaties, viz, customs duties; agriculture; free movement of labour; services and capital; transport; monopolies and restrictive practices; state aid for industry; and the regulation of the coal and steel and nuclear energy industries. Outside this considerable range there would remain unchanged by far the greater part of our domestic law.

Community law is required to take precedence over domestic law: i.e. if a Community law conflicts with a statute, it is the statute which has to give way. This is something not implied in other commitments which we have entered into in the past. Previous treaties have imposed on us obligations which have required us to legislate in order to fulfil the international obligations set out in the treaty, but any discrepancy between our legislation and the treaty obligations has been solely a question of a possible breach of those international obligations the conflicting statute has still undoubtedly been the law to be applied in this country. But the community system requires that such Community Law as applies directly as law in this country should by virtue of its own legal force as law in this country prevail over conflicting national legislation.”

Clause III adds with shocking prescience that the seismic legal shift would in effect be creating a federal law in a United States of Europe. And this was 46 years ago, back in 1971.

He writes: “The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court’s decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.


"(iv) The Law Officers have emphasised that in accepting Community Law in this country we shall need to make it effective as part of a new and separate legal order, distinct from, but co-existing side by side with, the law of the United Kingdom. They have referred to the basic European Communities Treaty provisions as amounting “in effect to a new body of ‘Federal’ statute law.”


Next he deals with the reality of the homogenising of British life into European life and says:

“In lay terms we may say that if Britain joined the Community there would be many implications for both external and internal (particularly parliamentary) sovereignty. Some of these would be wholly novel, and the general effect particularly in the longer turn would be of more pervasive and wide-ranging change than with any earlier commitments. Largely this is because the Community treaties when drawn up were seen as arrangements not merely for collaboration but for positive integration of large parts of the economic and social life of the Member States. As a result the conventional theoretical line dividing internal from external affairs has become blurred, a process which as we have seen is already advancing with the development of transnational economic activity.”

The patronising tone deepens further as the writer suggests Britain is populated by xenophobes who have a large ‘mistrust of foreigners.’ He bizarrely quotes novelist Nancy Mitford saying: “Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

He writes:

15.(i) National Identity: "We are all deeply conscious through tradition, upbringing and education of the distinctive fact of being British. Given our island position and long territorial and national integrity, the traditional relative freedom from comprehensive foreign, especially European, alliances and entanglements, this national consciousness may well be stronger than that of most nations.

"When “sovereignty” is called into question in the debate about entry to the Community, people may feel that it is this “Britishness” that is at stake.
Hence Mr Rippon’s pointed question “are the French any less French?” for their membership. There is another, less attractive, aspect of this national pride. This is the large measure of dislike and mistrust of foreigners that persists in Britain. Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

"(iii) Remoteness of the Bureaucracy: It is generally acknowledged that in modern industrialised society the impersonal and remote workings of the Government bureaucracy are sources of major anxiety and mistrust. The operations of democracy seem decreasingly fitted to control the all-embracing regulatory activities of the Civil Service. In entry to the Community we may seem to be opting for a system in which bureaucracy will be more remote (as well as largely foreign) and will operate in ways many of which are already determined and which are deeply strange to us. This bureaucracy is by common consent more powerful than compared with the democratic systems of the Community than is ideal. Yet the way to remedy this balance without reducing the Community to a mere standing association for negotiation between national Ministers is by strengthening the Community’s democratic processes which in turn means more change and more “loss of sovereignty.”

The following paragraph iv is so damningly anti-British it reads like the ramblings of some pseudo Guy Burgess type Oxbridge communist attacking, as it does, Britain’s idea she has any power on the world stage as fantasy.

He writes:

"(iv) National Power: As explained in paragraph 6 above, questions of power and influence have a close popular connection with ideas of sovereignty. The British have long been accustomed to the belief that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world and that in ordering our own affairs we are beholden to none. Much of this is mere illusion. As a middle power we can proceed only by treaty, alliance and compromise. So we are dependent on others both for the effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial and international financial conditions which govern our own economy. But this fact though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of greater British power. Joining the Community does strike at these attitudes: it is a further large step away from what is thought to be unfettered national freedom and a public acknowledgement of our reduced national power; moreover, joining the Community institutionalises in a single, permanent coalition the necessary process of accommodation and alliance over large areas of policy, domestic as well as external. Even though these areas may be less immediately relevant to survival than defence, as covered by NATO, the form of the Community structure and the intentions explicit in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome emphasise the merging of national interests.”

In a section that could have been written 46 minutes ago rather than 46 years ago he deals with the inevitable – and welcome – single currency, and the prospect of an EU army.

He writes: “…but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy. This sort of grouping would bring major politico/economic advantages but would take many years to develop and to win political acceptance. If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.”

Towards the end the anti-British, pro-Europe rhetoric is in full flow, accepting Britain’s notion of itself as an independent state would be completely dismantled. Britain would be a European state, it’s Parliament neutered.

"19...then over a wide range of subjects (trade, aid, monetary affairs and most technological questions) Community policies toward the outside world would be common or closely harmonised. Although diplomatic representation would remain country by country its national role would be much diminished since the instructions to representatives would have been coordinated among member states. By the end of the century with effective defence and political harmonisation the erosion of the international role of the member states could be almost complete. This is a far distant prospect; but as members of the Community our major interests may lie in its progressive development since it is only when the Western Europe of which we shall be a part can realise its full potential as a political as well as economic unit that we shall derive full benefits from membership."

"20. …of the functions of the Community could probably only take place with concomitant development of the institutions of the Community. It is hard to envisage the necessary decisions being taken under the present organisation of the Community; more effective decision-making at Community level would either require majority voting on an increasing range of issues in the Council or stronger pressures to reach quick decisions by consensus. In either case the role of the Commission would become more important as the Community became responsible for the regulation of wider areas of the internal affairs of the member states and this would in turn increase the need to strengthen the democratic institutions of the Community, including perhaps a directly elected Parliament. In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well as the erosion of 'parliamentary sovereignty'."

FCO 30/1048 even predicts Michel Barnier’s current attempt to bully and punish Britain for having the temerity to leave the EU saying member states would probably nominally have the ability to leave until about the year 2000, but such a move would have increasingly damaging economic consequences for the defector.”

And in yet another sideswipe at the British public he says it will be important for politicians to deal with – or cover-up – “anxieties about British power and influence (masquerading under the term sovereignty) by presenting the choice between the effect of entry and on Britain’s power and influence in a rapidly changing world.”


“After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community. This counsel of perfection may be the more difficult to achieve because these same unpopular measures may sometimes be made more acceptable if they are put in a Community context, and this technique may offer a way to avoid the more sterile forms of inter-governmental bargaining. But the difference between on the one hand explaining policy in terms of general and Community-wide interest and, on the other, blaming membership for national problems is real and important.”

Finally, in conclusion, the writers concede openly that Parliament will be made effectively redundant saying:

“To control and supervise this process it will be necessary to strengthen the democratic organisation of the Community with consequent decline of the primacy and prestige of the national parliaments.”





And then, there is this headline:

Nations putting the EU in danger
Mon, October 23, 2017


My personal take on this document is not just concern about the impact on Britain about the document itself but the fact that it is indicative of broad tranche of western thought.  And, unfortunately, in my opinion, that thought finds common ground in Ottawa, the State Department, the EU and Whitehall.  It also finds expression in parties as diverse politically as the Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and the Church parties of the right.  The common ground is the belief in the requirement for supra-national agency and is based on the notion that somewhere along the line there is a perfectable human agency that can determine absolute answers and render perfect laws and usher in the millenium on earth.  This notion is currently defined as the liberal rule of law.

In fact, in my opinion, it is the age old quest for control rationalized by other means.

As the heir of non-conformists, dissenters, disestablishmentarians and other reprobates: I object.


PS - I didn't run out of yellow ink. I got fed up hitting the switches. There is too much of import in that article.


« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 13:10:50 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"