AuthorTopic: BREXIT! The FUN Begins!  (Read 15355 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
BREXIT! The FUN Begins!
« on: June 24, 2016, 07:36:14 AM »


youtube-Logo-4gc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on The Doomstead Diner on June 24, 2016



http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/content/uploads/2016/03/brexit-800x500.jpg



Discuss this article at the Geopolitics Table inside the Diner



Unbelievably, INCREDIBLY, the Brits Voted for BREXIT, aka divorcing from the European Union.



As this campaign went on over the last few months, the Brexit Champions seemed to be gaining the upper hand, and as of about a week ago I thought Brexit would win over Bremain.



But then, by SHEER COINCIDENCE, something happened.  A Brit MP, Jo Cox was ASSASSINATED, with the Assassin reportedly crying BRITAIN FIRST or something like that anyhow before he shot and stabbed her to death.  Not quite ALLAHU AKBAR! but similar enough to turn off people to voting for Brexit if this reminded them of Terrorist Tactics.



Campaigns were suspended for 3 days on both sides, and although there was some variation in the Polling, the tactic appeared to have WORKED, and the major Polling companies began reporting that Bremain would win.



Global Markets breathed a sigh of RELIEF, and after being hammered for a few weeks the Pound Sterling began to recover.  The markets calmes, all would be well, BAU would continue onward.



However, in the driving rain and flooding in many locations, with Polling locations having to be moved due to the weather issues, the Brits still turned out to vote, and in the end, the Brexit crowd won the day.



Tomorrow, and all of next week as well will see complete TURMOIL in the Financial Markets as well.  Nobody is certain of the repercussions, other than at least at the beginning the financial markets both in Britain and Europe will get positively HAMMERED.



At the same time though, just a Vote by the population at large to dissolve this marriage doesn't instantaneously dissolve all their financial entaglements, any more than when you get a divorce the financial entaglements with your spouse instantly dissapear.  In fact, it is orders of magnitude WORSE in a case like this, with "International Law" and "International Treaties" all involved.  Not just a few, hundreds if not thousands of laws and contractual agreements are on the chopping block here, and each one of them can run into hundreds if not thousands of pages of Legalese.  So what you will have here is a long and interminable set of court cases being held, and trust me the people who voted for Brexit will have no say whatsoever in how those cases are adjudicated.  What comes out at the end of it a few years down the line is a complete mystery, although if BAU ontinues, you can expect the result to benefit the Trnasnational Corporations rather than the people of Britain.



On Sunday here on the Diner on our Collapse Cafe discussion, we will be getting together with a few of the Diner Brits to discuss the outcomes and possible future resultant from the Brexit Vote.  We will go off LIVE @ High Noon Alaska Time, 4PM Eastern Time, 9PM Brit Summer Time.  Be there, or be Square.


Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
Re: BREXIT! The FUN Begins!
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2016, 09:24:54 AM »
...and so it BEGINS!

RE

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-24/worse-lehman-european-bank-bloodbath-sparks-dollar-funding-crisis

"Worse Than Lehman" - European Bank Bloodbath Sparks Dollar Funding Crisis

Tyler Durden's picture

For European banks, today is worse than Lehman with a 13%-plus collapse in the broad index. The major banks - like Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank - have crashed over 15% to record lows as "Lehman moments" loom. This crisis prompted massive demand for USDollars, sending basis swaps (and other funding vehicles) spiking which it appears is why The Fed said it was ready to provide liquidity.

The broad EU banking system is collapsing...

 

Led by the majors...

 

 

Raising "Lehman moment" alarms again...

And sparking desperate demand for USDollars...

 

And Sterling was sold hard into the European close (down 200 pips)

 

 

As counterparty risk looms again...

Which explains why The Fed stepped up already with swap lines...

Earlier today we said that it was inevitable that the Fed would join the world's other central bankers in providing backstops to global markets, the only question is whether it would take place before or after the open. We now have the answer. Before.

The Federal Reserve is carefully monitoring developments in global financial markets, in cooperation with other central banks, following the results of the U.K. referendum on membership in the European Union. The Federal Reserve is prepared to provide dollar liquidity through its existing swap lines with central banks, as necessary, to address pressures in global funding markets, which could have adverse implications for the U.S. economy.

Because free, impartial, efficient, and unmanipulated markets.  Also we can finally stop holding our breath on those two Fed rate hikes which the FOMC anticipates in 2016.

And then Lagarde confrmed:

  • *LAGARDE REITERATES SUPPORT FOR C.BANK LIQUIDITY READINESS
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
The Brexit Hotel California: You Can Check Out, but You Can Never Leave
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2016, 08:21:58 AM »
Who could have expected this?   ::)

RE

http://www.businessinsider.com/eu-officials-britain-brexit-theresa-may-2016-7?r=UK&IR=T

'They have to sort themselves out': Why a Brexit won't happen for a very long time

    Adam Payne


German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May address a news conference following talks at the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany July 20, 2016. REUTERS/Stefanie Loos

Britain simply is not prepared to even begin negotiating the terms of a Brexit and it should not expect to officially withdraw from the European Union until at least 2020, according to various EU officials.

Prime Minister Theresa May is under pressure from Leave MPs to deliver a Brexit as soon as possible. Pro-Brexit ministers like Liam Fox and David Davis have said that Article 50 — the official two-year process of leaving the 28-nation bloc — would begin as early next year.

However, EU diplomats have ruled this out amid the reality that a number of major hurdles are likely to severely delay the process.

One of these is the fact that nobody is entirely sure what the terms of Britain's departure from the EU will be.

"They [Britain] have to sort themselves out,"an EU diplomat at the centre of Brexit preparations told the Financial Times. "They come from London and they don’t know what they want. They don’t know what their government wants, what their parliament wants. They have not prepared.”

Another senior European diplomat said: “We’ve not even worked out what all the questions are, let alone found the potential answers." The current lack of consensus over what "Brexit" actually means isn't the only issue facing May, though.

Firstly, European Parliament elections are set to take place in 2019, where a brand new assembly will be elected with the power, in theory, to veto Britain's proposed Brexit terms. This means a Brexit could face a major roadblock even if May and her government are successful in working to a fast-track timetable.

Secondly, there is the well-documented issue of just how complex the process of negotiation will be."For all sorts of reasons we will want to finish this all before the June 2019 elections," a senior EU official told the Financial Times. "But that will be very, very tight. The complexity is vastly underestimated unless you want to be brutal and cut off ties.”

These warnings from EU diplomats come as a Conservative peer said on Monday that the House of Lords would likely delay Article 50 being triggered if a bill was put before parliament.

"If it comes to a Bill, I think the Lords might actually delay things. I think there's a majority in the Lords for remaining," Baroness Patience Wheatcroft told The Times newspaper.

"I would hope, while we delayed things, that there would be sufficient movement in the EU to justify putting it to the electorate, either through a general election or a second referendum."

The task facing Theresa May in delivering a Brexit seems to be getting more difficult with each day that passes. Business Insider has already noted how Leave voters shouldn't be sure about her "Brexit means Brexit" promise and why a Brexit might not actually happen at all.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: BREXIT! The FUN Begins!
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2016, 12:46:50 AM »
Quote
The complexity is vastly underestimated unless you want to be brutal and cut off ties.

Brexit means "cutting off ties" - it couldn't be simpler.  The author wants to make it seem difficult, but it's not.  The House of Lords can't block legislation, only delay it a couple of days.  Teresa May won't last long if that's her attitude, which isn't clear from this biased account.  Once the ties are cut, then they can start on a new arrangement.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
Re: BREXIT! The FUN Begins!
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2016, 12:54:23 AM »
Quote
The complexity is vastly underestimated unless you want to be brutal and cut off ties.

Brexit means "cutting off ties" - it couldn't be simpler.  The author wants to make it seem difficult, but it's not.  The House of Lords can't block legislation, only delay it a couple of days.  Teresa May won't last long if that's her attitude, which isn't clear from this biased account.  Once the ties are cut, then they can start on a new arrangement.

The issue is, all the MPs are being heavily lobbied to "explain" to them how difficult this would be and how HORRIBLE it would be for them and their investments and paychecks once a Brexit really goes through.  So when caucusing to decide on some "plan" for Brexit, the MPs cannot themselves come to an agreement on ANYTHING, thus they have nothing to present to the EU as a consensus group opinion.  They simply do not KNOW what they want, or how to achieve it.  Not surprising because about anything they want is NOT achievable.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
British court delivers blow to E.U. exit plan, insists Parliament has a say
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2016, 06:40:32 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/british-court-delivers-blow-to-eu-exit-plan-giving-parliament-role-in-process/2016/11/03/36a98138-a1af-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html

World
British court delivers blow to E.U. exit plan, insists Parliament has a say
Claimants in Brexit case welcome court ruling
Play Video1:37
Hairdresser Deir Dos Santos and investment manager Gina Miller, the two lead claimants in a case at England's High Court, welcomed the court's Nov. 3 ruling that the British government needs parliamentary approval to trigger the process of exiting the European Union. (Reuters)
By Griff Witte November 3 at 8:46 AM

LONDON — A senior British court on Thursday dealt a severe blow to Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans to begin the process of exiting the European Union early next year, ruling she must get Parliament’s approval before she acts.

The decision greatly complicates May’s stated plan to trigger Article 50 — the never-before-used mechanism for a country to leave the European Union — by the end of March at the latest.

Most members of Parliament opposed Brexit in the lead-up to Britain’s June referendum, when voters opted for an exit by a 52-to-48 margin. On the streets, however, the court decision risked setting off an angry backlash from voters who favored leaving the European Union and believed the issue was settled.

[What is Article 50?]

May’s lawyers argued that she had the right to begin the Brexit process without first getting Parliament’s consent. But a three-judge panel on the London-based High Court sided with a group of plaintiffs who contended that Parliament must first weigh in.
British prime minister: Brexit will happen 'before the end of March'
Play Video1:19
Speaking July 10, British Prime Minister Theresa May said she would trigger the process to leave the E.U. by the end of March 2017. (Reuters)

“The most fundamental rule of the U.K.’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses,” the judges wrote. “As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown — i.e. the Government of the day — cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament.”

May is now likely to appeal Thursday's ruling to the Supreme Court, with justices likely to take the case in December. A Downing Street spokesman, speaking on the typical condition of anonymity, said that the government still intends to trigger Article 50 on its original schedule.

But analysts said that process could now be significantly delayed, especially if the Supreme Court rules Parliament should have a vote not only on whether the government triggers an exit but also on the substance of British demands in the divorce talks with Europe.

The court's decision stunned British political and legal observers — just as the referendum outcome also defied predictions that voters would favor staying in the European Union. Until Thursday, most analysts believed the court would side with the government. The High Court in Northern Ireland had even ruled as recently as last week that May's government could bypass Parliament.

The opposite decision on Thursday, by a court representing England and Wales, sets a new legal course and leaves it to the Supreme Court to ultimately sort out.

It also sparked an immediate rally in Britain's beleaguered currency, the pound, as traders reacted to the possibility that Britain's E.U. exit could be significantly delayed — or even blocked.

[Britain still struggles to define post-E.U. identity]

The pound has been battered since the referendum, and has been one of the worst performing currencies anywhere in the world this year. London's FTSE exchange remained down slightly despite the announcement, but other markets, including France's CAC, were higher in midday trading.

Pro-Brexit advocates quickly denounced the decision, saying it amounted to a betrayal of the public's will.

“I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50,” tweeted Nigel Farage, a longtime Brexit champion. “They have no idea level of public anger they will provoke.”

Pro-E.U. politicians, meanwhile, celebrated the decision and called on May to share with Parliament her negotiating strategy — something she has steadfastly refused to do.

“So far May’s team have been all over the place when it comes to prioritizing what is best for Britain, and it’s time they pull their socks up and start taking this seriously,” said Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron in a statement. His call was echoed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The court ruling — assuming it is not overturned on appeal — sets up a crucial decision in Parliament. Members of the ruling Conservative Party were almost evenly split on whether Britain should stay in the E.U. or leave when the country voted June 23. But solid majorities of the other major parties in Parliament — including Labour, the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats — all opposed an exit.

[How globalism became a political boogeyman on both sides of the Atlantic]

May, who took office in July following the resignation of David Cameron, has only a narrow majority in Parliament and could struggle to pass legislation authorizing the start of Britain's departure.

Mujtaba Rahman, Europe director for the Eurasia Group consultancy, described the court decision as “a severe setback for Theresa May’s government.”

If the Supreme Court rules that Parliament needs to have a say in the government's strategy for handling the E.U. exit talks, Rahman wrote in a Thursday analysis, then pro-E.U. members of Parliament could use the process to “seek to tie May’s negotiating hand.”

One option for May, in turn, could be to call a general election next year “in order to ask the public to endorse her negotiating goals — in effect, to use an election to override Parliament,” he added.

Even before Thursday's ruling, pro-Brexit forces have experienced a number of setbacks since the June referendum vote.

May's government has struggled to put together coherent strategy for the tough negotiations to come with Europe if Britain goes ahead with departure plans. European leaders, meanwhile, have been fairly united in their insistence that Britain will not be given a special deal.

The negotiations are likely to focus on the trade-off between Britain's desire both to control E.U. immigration into the country and to retain access to the E.U.'s common market. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, a leading Brexit proponent, has said the government's objective in the talks “should be having our cake and eating it.”

But European leaders have said that won't be possible, and that Britain will have to allow immigrants if it wants to maintain the market access that is at the core of its trading relationships with Europe.

Johnson on Wednesday appeared to make unwitting reference to the government's struggles with its Brexit strategy, saying in a speech at an awards ceremony sponsored by the conservative Spectator magazine that Britain would make “a titanic success” of Brexit.

George Osborne, Britain's pro-E.U. former Treasury chief, quickly interjected: “It sank.”

Brian Murphy in Washington and Karla Adam in London contributed to this report.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3754
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: BREXIT! The FUN Begins!
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2016, 01:33:14 PM »
While it is true the UK Parliament is sovereign, not the people, it would be a very brave Parliament that goes against the people's expressed will.  Cameron knew that, that's why he said he would quit if he lost, and then actually did.  The Scottish National Party perhaps has a moral case to argue, because Scotland as a whole voted against Brexit, but Scotland is not sovereign, the UK is. 

The Conservative Party whips will be hard at work, threatening withdrawal of pre-selection on mavericks.  The only alternative would be to form a new party, around Cameron I suppose.  If the same thing goes on in the Labour Party, I don't know who represents the Blairite faction these days, both major parties could split.

Whether they will bring up a split from NATO as well, which Corbyn personally supports, should be interesting.  All of the US's plans long-term imperial plans, the EU and NATO, are falling apart, and a Trump win could finish it off.
The State is a body of armed men

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
Why May’s Going to Court to Avoid Parliamentary Vote on Brexit
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2016, 07:31:46 PM »
More Brexit nonsense.

RE

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/why-may-s-going-to-court-to-avoid-parliamentary-vote-on-brexit


Why May’s Going to Court to Avoid Parliamentary Vote on Brexit
by Alex Morales
December 1, 2016 — 7:01 PM EST

    Supreme Court hears government appeal in Brexit case next week
    Ex-minister says lawmakers ready to vote to trigger Article 50


British Prime Minister Theresa May. Photographer: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty Images

A landmark court case next week will decide whether U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May must call a parliamentary vote before triggering Brexit. She has plenty of reasons to avoid one, chief among them a reluctance to reveal her negotiating hand and concerns about delay.

The government’s top legal experts head to the Supreme Court in London for four days of hearings, seeking to overturn a High Court verdict that Parliament must have a say before Article 50 of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty is invoked to formally start Britain’s withdrawal from the bloc. With even many ardent pro-“Remain” lawmakers saying they won’t try to block Brexit, the question arises why May doesn’t just accept the court’s decision.

“They may not wish to block it, but that doesn’t mean to say that they won’t try to use the opportunity to flush out the government’s negotiating stance,” John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University in Glasgow, said in an interview. Parliament “may not say ‘no,’ but they obviously do have the ability to delay saying ‘yes.’”

May is trying to keep a tight rein on the divorce proceedings, telling lawmakers repeatedly she won’t elaborate on her negotiating stance to avoid giving her EU counterparts the upper hand. She’s pledged to trigger Article 50 by the end of March, and is seeking to avoid a potentially time-consuming process in Parliament’s two houses. Ministers argue executive privilege -- known in the U.K. as royal prerogative -- allows the government to bypass lawmakers.
Outside Forces

“The government is throwing down a very clear sign about who wields power in modern Britain -- the government and not the courts,” said Matthew Flinders, a politics professor at the University of Sheffield. “It’s also an important part of Theresa May’s ideology that she wants to be seen as a strong, powerful politician who makes commitments, follows through on them and isn’t willing to be frustrated by outside forces.”

Those forces range from the plaintiffs in the High Court case that the government lost -- including Gina Miller, who runs an investment startup, and Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser -- to Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who says the semi-autonomous Parliament in Edinburgh must also have a say in pulling the Brexit trigger. Sturgeon’s top legal officer is also scheduled to be in court next week.

But for May, the political hurdles may be as high as the legal ones. The bulk of House of Commons lawmakers campaigned for “Remain” in the June referendum, and May doesn’t have a majority in the upper chamber, the House of Lords.

Even so, “if she puts it to a vote in Parliament, MPs will vote to trigger Article 50,” said former Business Minister Anna Soubry, who turned down a post in May’s government and has since been one of the most vocal Conservatives in seeking to temper the government’s stance on Brexit. “Their fear will be that it will be in some way open to amendment.”
‘Tug of War’

The most important business stories of the day.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
Soubry said she won’t personally vote to block Brexit. But earlier this week, she appeared alongside Chuka Umunna, the Labour Party’s former business spokesman, and former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a Liberal Democrat, to argue that retaining membership of the European single market should be at the core of Britain’s Brexit plan. The single market joins the 28-member EU with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein in a free-trade area that also has common regulations and product standards.

May has refused to commit to keeping Britain in the single market or the customs union, which binds the EU and Turkey in a trading zone with common external tariffs. Lawmakers may seek to put riders on a Brexit bill to flush out her stance.

“It will become potentially the focus of a tug of war in which all sorts of different amendments are tabled,” said Flinders. “The parliamentary process is like a sausage machine: It’s a very irrational way to make law. You can understand why she would rather not have to put a bill through that process,” he said. “She may well have to make deals to get things through.”
Tory Divisions

There’s also a risk parliamentary debates will re-expose the longstanding fractures in May’s Conservatives that helped bring down the party’s past three prime ministers: David Cameron, John Major and Margaret Thatcher. Already, pro-Brexit lawmaker Peter Bone has submitted his own bill seeking to hold the premier to her timetable.

“The more action there is in the House of Commons, the more divisions inside the Conservative Party on this issue become exposed,” said Curtice. “There will be the Anna Soubrys of this world who will be looking for one thing, and the Bill Cashes who will be looking for something very, very different.” Cash, a vocal Euro-skeptic, heads the Commons European Scrutiny Committee.

The government has laid out the case it will make to the Supreme Court, saying on Nov. 11 it has the power to give effect to the result of the June referendum without going to Parliament. On Thursday, it said the legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also don’t need a say because they don’t have jurisdiction over foreign affairs.
‘Not Telling’

"We’re appealing because we believe we’ve got a very strong case, and we intend to go to the Supreme Court and win it," May’s spokesman, Greg Swift, told reporters on Tuesday.

The court won’t rule until January, and Flinders said the verdict is “very unlikely” to differ from the lower court’s. That would leave the Brexit trigger in the hands of Parliament.

“The government will try a short, tight bill that’s framed as narrowly as possible in order to limit the opportunity for amendments,” said Curtice. “Don’t be surprised if the opponents say: ‘You’re now passing a resolution that we want to leave the EU; well, what are you arguing in this process?’ And that will make it quite difficult to carry on saying ‘we’re not telling you.’”
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
The BREXIT that never was
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2017, 03:19:14 AM »
Hotel California.  You can Check Out, but you can NEVER LEAVE.

Favorite quote from this article:

Quote
“This case was about the legal process, not about politics,”

hahahahahahahaha!  ::)

We don't NEED no Stinkin' DEMOCRACY!

RE

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/world/europe/theresa-may-brexit-vote-article-50.html

‘Brexit’ Talks Can’t Start Without Parliament, U.K. Supreme Court Rules

By KATRIN BENNHOLDJAN. 24, 2017


Journalists waiting for the ruling outside the Supreme Court in London on Tuesday. Credit Toby Melville/Reuters

LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May must secure the approval of Parliament before she can begin the process of taking Britain out of the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The ruling, which upholds an earlier decision by the High Court in London, creates another hurdle for Mrs. May, who has promised to begin a two-year, irreversible process of exit negotiations by the end of March by invoking the European Union’s Article 50, the legal mechanism for leaving the bloc.

“Today, by a majority of 8 to 3, the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorizing it to do so,” said David Neuberger, the Supreme Court president, in announcing the decision.

A majority of lawmakers, including many from Mrs. May’s Conservative Party, campaigned to stay in the European Union before the referendum last year, although most political observers said it was unlikely that legislators would dare to reject the will of the voters who backed a withdrawal.

In one important victory for the government, the court ruled that Mrs. May would not need separate approval from the regional legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Continue reading the main story
‘Brexit’: Britain’s Decision to Leave the E.U.
Updates on Britain’s exit from the European Union.

    Retrial for Law Executives, U.S. Economic Growth Findings and Auto Industry and Trump
    JAN 22
    Fox News Hires Nigel Farage, a Trump Ally Who Backed ‘Brexit’
    JAN 20
    Godfather of ‘Brexit’ Takes Aim at the British Establishment
    JAN 20
    Theresa May’s ‘Global Britain’ Is Baloney
    JAN 20
    Theresa May Explains ‘Brexit’ at Davos
    JAN 19

See More »

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

“The devolution statutes were enacted on the assumption that the U.K. would be a member of the E.U. but they do not require it,” Lord Neuberger said. “Relations with the E.U. are a matter for the U.K. government.
How ‘Brexit’ Could Change Business in Britain

Months after the vote, little is clear. Britain’s trading relationship with the E.U. looks to be in limbo. Companies are reassessing their long-term investments in Britain. Here’s what’s happened so far.

Within minutes of the ruling, Jeremy Wright, Britain’s attorney general, issued a statement saying that the government would comply with the ruling.

The case has underscored the polarizing nature of the June referendum, in which 52 percent of Britons voted to leave the European Union.

One of the plaintiffs, Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, has said she was threatened with murder and rape by supporters of Brexit, as Britain’s decision is commonly known, who have accused her of trying to sabotage an exit. A lawyer by training, Ms. Miller has said she is merely standing up for the rights of Parliament.

“This case was about the legal process, not about politics,” Ms. Miller said in a news conference outside the Supreme Court, where she thanked her law firm, Mishcon de Reya, for fighting her case.

Ms. Miller said she had been the victim of a torrent of criticism since filing the case, and said she was “shocked by the levels of personal abuse that I have received from many quarters over the last several months for simply bringing and asking a legitimate question.”

Even the judges have found themselves under immense pressure. Members of the High Court who ruled against the government in November, setting the stage for the Supreme Court decision, were described by one tabloid newspaper as “enemies of the people.”

The ruling comes a week after Mrs. May first outlined her vision for a clean break with the European Union single market, one in which Britain would close its borders to visa-free migration for citizens from other countries in the bloc — a “hard Brexit” as it is often referred to here.
Photo
Prime Minister Theresa May has already outlined her vision for a clean break with the European Union single market. Credit Matt Dunham/Associated Press

Under the terms of Article 50, the prime minister, who officially supported remaining in the bloc but expressed only tepid support for it during the referendum campaign, has two years to complete exit negotiations once she invokes the rule.

In her speech last week, Mrs. May pledged to give both houses of Parliament the opportunity to vote on any accord, but lawmakers from across the political spectrum have made clear that they want to be involved from the start.

“I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this Parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government,” Stephen Phillips, a member of Mrs. May’s Conservative Party, said when the case was first brought.
Morning Briefing: Europe

What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

    Privacy Policy

If no deal is reached with the 27 other member states once the two-year countdown begins — or if Parliament rejects a final deal at that stage — it would most likely result in the sort of “cliff edge” breakup that Mrs. May, along with Britain’s bankers and business leaders, hope to avoid.

Mrs. May’s government had argued that under Britain’s unwritten constitution, the leadership can make or leave international treaties without parliamentary approval.

The High Court disagreed, ruling in November that it would be unlawful to use executive powers known as “royal prerogative” to start a process that would take rights away from citizens that had been granted by Parliament. Only Parliament could take those rights away, the court said.

The government appealed the decision, taking the case to the Supreme Court, the country’s highest judicial body, which came to its own conclusion after four days of hearings in front of its 11 justices.

Most legal commentators had predicted that the government would lose the case, and according to British news reports, officials have already started drafting parts of a bill that would be subject to parliamentary approval in a bid to keep to the March timetable.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: BREXIT! The FUN Begins!
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2017, 02:50:33 PM »
I still don't think there is much of a problem.  PM May, or at least her whips, in private conversations with Conservative Party MPs, will say "If we lose this vote, May will call a snap General Election, and you will be disendorsed if you didn't vote the Party line", and everything will fall into place.  There's a lot of support for Brexit in other parties too, more than enough to cover any rebels.

Referenda are an unfortunate embarrassment, because they make the people think they matter.  Parliament IS sovereign, after all. 
"The State is a body of armed men."

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
Re: BREXIT! The FUN Begins!
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2017, 03:00:31 PM »
I still don't think there is much of a problem.  PM May, or at least her whips, in private conversations with Conservative Party MPs, will say "If we lose this vote, May will call a snap General Election, and you will be disendorsed if you didn't vote the Party line", and everything will fall into place.  There's a lot of support for Brexit in other parties too, more than enough to cover any rebels.

Referenda are an unfortunate embarrassment, because they make the people think they matter.  Parliament IS sovereign, after all.

Articles I have read stated that MOST MPs (like 80%) of ANY party were against a Brexit.  Just like the CONgress Critters here, their loyalty is not to the people, but to the corporations that fund their campaigns.  Corporations are AGAINST a Brexit.  Forget the Whips, the lobbyists will swamp them and buy better Dinners with fine wine also.

A Snap Election would not bring in much better pols.  And then like Syriza in Greece, the banks would put the thumbscrews to them and they would lose their nerve.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
Brexit or Not, Parliament Reigns Supreme
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2017, 11:46:44 AM »
So when will Parliament vote on this?  ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-25/brexit-or-not-parliament-reigns-supreme

U.K.
Brexit or Not, Parliament Reigns Supreme
1
Jan 25, 2017 1:01 PM EST
By
Noah Feldman

The U.K. Supreme Court’s judgment on Tuesday requiring Parliament to authorize Brexit was conservative in the deepest and best sense of the term. Allowing the government to withdraw from the European Union without a parliamentary vote would have enabled the prime minister and her cabinet to change U.K. law on their own, a violation of Parliament’s traditional sovereignty. In practice, if Parliament votes in favor of Brexit, the judgment may not slow down the process very much. But the court nonetheless imposed a respect for orderly constitutional forms -- and required Britain’s elected representatives to take full and individual responsibility for their epochal decision.

Unlike the High Court, whose judgment it was reviewing, the law lords of the U.K.’s highest court  avoided high-flown theoretical declarations about the nature of parliamentary sovereignty. Instead, the court presented its ruling as an interpretation of the European Communities Act of 1972, the law that Parliament passed to facilitate the incorporation of European law into U.K. law.

The basic argument urged by the Brexit challengers was that withdrawing from the EU would effectively change U.K. domestic law -- because the 1972 law makes EU law into domestic U.K. law. According to basic British constitutional principles, only Parliament can change domestic laws. The ministers can conduct foreign relations on their own -- including signing and withdrawing from treaties -- but they’re not supposed to be able to change the legal rights of British subjects.

On the other side, the Tory government maintained that informing the EU of Britain’s intention to leave wasn’t a domestic act, but rather an exercise of foreign relations power. It added that the 1972 law didn’t say anything about the legal effects of EU withdrawal.

The government acknowledged, of course, that announcing withdrawal would trigger legal consequences. But it pointed out that under the relevant EU treaty, withdrawal would still take two years. In the meantime, the government could introduce legislation in Parliament -- charmingly known as a “Great Repeal Bill” -- that would take care of changes to U.K. law.

The Supreme Court resolved the case in an 8-3 vote by holding that the true meaning of the 1972 law was that Parliament delegated to EU institutions the power to make some domestic U.K. laws. If the U.K. left the EU, the court reasoned, the result would be that the 1972 law would no longer be operative. The domestic laws would therefore change. That meant withdrawal would affect U.K. domestic law, and change the existing legal rights of British subjects. It followed that an act of Parliament was required.

In a separate analysis, the court also said that the parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland did not have the inherent right to block EU withdrawal by demanding their own votes. The basis for this holding was that Parliament has retained its authority to make decisions regarding the devolved parts of the kingdom.

The constitutional upshot of all this was to reaffirm the centrality and essentially absolute sovereignty of Parliament when it comes to making the most important decisions in the life of the U.K.

Seen from the perspective of Britain’s partly unwritten constitutional law, this outcome was deeply conservative. The idea of parliamentary sovereignty, put into canon in the late 19th century by the scholar A.V. Dicey, goes back centuries, to William Blackstone (1723-1780) and (Dicey thought) even Edward Coke, who died in 1634.

Indeed, the greatest reduction of parliamentary sovereignty in modern British history came from allowing EU law to determine domestic U.K. law -- precisely what the 1972 act did, according to the court. The thrust of the court’s judgment was therefore to reinstate the traditional, conservative doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty at precisely the moment that the U.K. is preparing to throw off the partial sovereignty of the EU.

Brexit supporters therefore shouldn’t be too upset about the judgment. Many of them deeply dislike the idea of Britain ceding sovereignty to Brussels. The Brexit referendum can be seen in symbolic terms as a kind of “Britain first” objection to such concessions.

The U.K. Supreme Court was reminding Brexit voters that if they want to get back to traditional British sovereignty, they also have to go back to traditional British sovereign institutions -- of which Parliament is first and foremost.

That’s good conservatism, the kind grounded in the preservation of tradition that has worked. Such conservatism insists, with the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke, that change should proceed gradually, stepwise, not by leaps.

Referendums are populist. Parliamentary votes express the traditional values of representative government. There is important value in making Parliament vote for Brexit. It’s not just that individual members will have to take a stand. The longest-running democratic institution in the world will have to give its imprimatur to a fundamental national decision.

    The name of the U.K.’s court was changed from Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or law lords for short, to the “Supreme Court” by the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005. One reason for the change was to ensure compliance with European norms regarding an independent judiciary. It will be interesting to see if there is a move to rename or reorganize the court once Brexit goes into effect.
Save As Many As You Can

Offline monsta666

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit or Not, Parliament Reigns Supreme
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2017, 12:54:45 PM »
So when will Parliament vote on this?  ???  :icon_scratch:

While the decision in the supreme court may seem dramatic the reality is it is not likely to effect the final outcome all that much. A bill - which is currently given special priority - is being passed through the house of commons to enable the UK to leave the EU (the government had anticipated the supreme court would reject their appeal). Since the conservative government holds a majority in the house of commons and the overwhelming majority are in favour of evoking article 50 it is likely the bill will pass allowing the UK to leave the EU. If all goes to plan then the UK would officially leave the EU by May 2020. The main thing this decision by the supreme court brings is the Teresa May and the executive branch of the government must lay out more detailed plans on what the conditions of an exit deal are so the members of parliament will debate those changes. However most MPs recognise the significance of the referendum and will not go against the will of the people. This sentiment does not just include the conservative party but also various labour MPs as well. The chances of a block to Brexit are quite low at this point as no party wants to contemplate the political fallout of going against the will of the people. For more information check out this article.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39124
    • View Profile
The Brexit Soap Opera Marches On...
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2017, 03:00:20 AM »
More Daze of Our Collapse Lives...  ::)

RE

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/763293/BREXIT-Theresa-May-Tory-revolt-Neil-Carmichael-Ken-Clarke-Anna-Soubry-Nicky-Morgan

Theresa May faces Tory REVOLT as rebel MPs threaten to reject ‘CLIFF-EDGE’ Brexit

THERESA May faces a new threat to her Brexit timetable after up to a dozen Tories threatened to back a motion rejecting a “cliff-edge” exit from the European Union if negotiations with Brussels go south.
By Harry Walker
PUBLISHED: 02:52, Sun, Feb 5, 2017 | UPDATED: 03:37, Sun, Feb 5, 2017

Rebel Remoaners including Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry have argued Parliament must retain the right to tell the Government to get a better Brexit deal if the one brought to the table is not satisfactory.

Because the Prime Minister has only a razor-thin majority of 16, the move puts her in a dubious position.
Related articles

    STURGEON WARNED: Do more to 'sell BRAND SCOTLAND' in wake of Brexit
    House of Lords could force May to delay Brexit for a YEAR

Rebel leader Tory MP Neil Carmichael told the Mail on Sunday it was “illogical” to have a Commons vote on any Brexit deal after two years of negotiations, but no vote if there was no deal.

He said: “Parliament must have a final say when we get to the endgame.

“We could be faced with the prospect of leaving the EU by ‘falling off a cliff’ – as some have described leaving with no deal – with potentially disastrous economic consequences.

neil carmichael theresa mayGETTY
Neil Carmichael is leading a potential revolt against the Prime Minister on Brexit.

The MP for Stroud added: “To argue that MPs can have a say if we achieve a deal, with all the safeguards implied by it, but no say if we walk away with none of these, defies all logic.

“If that occurred, it would be even more important for MPs to be able to vote for or against it.”

Anna Soubry, who has been one of the most vocal critics of Brexit within Tory ranks since the referendum campaigns last year, backed Mr Carmichael’s argument.

anna soubryGETTY
Anna Soubry has been an outspoken critic of Brexit since the referendum last year.

ken clarkeGETTY
Ken Clarke is among the MPs threatening to back the motion.

She said: “It is essential that MPs get a say when the negotiations are over. Some Brexiteers would be happy to force the Prime Minister to walk away with no deal and no thought to the consequences for the country.

“Sensible voices inside the Government know it would be a mistake to rush this.”

But Government ministers have accused the rebels of undermining the Prime Minister’s negotiating tactics.
Theresa May's Brexit plan
Mon, January 16, 2017
It's finally here!
      
      
Play slideshow
Continued cooperation with the EU to tackle terrorism and international crime.
Getty Images
1 of 7

Continued cooperation with the EU to tackle terrorism and international crime.

    Continued cooperation with the EU to tackle terrorism and international crime.
    The British Prime Minister Delivers Her Brexit Speech
    Michael Gove Discusses How EU Membership Weakens British Border Control And Threatens Our Security
    FRANCE-EUROPE-MIGRANTS-BRITAIN-CALAIS-DEMOLITION
    Frankfurt City Feature
    INDIA-BRITAIN-DIPLOMACY-TRADE
    Article 50: The Justices of the Supreme Court of the UK who will be sitting on the Article 50 case

One told the Mail: “If we tell the EU we will walk away if they don’t make concessions, but they know Parliament can make us go straight back again, it gives us zero leverage.

“This is just another obstacle put up by people who are unable to accept that Brexit means Brexit.”

Tory rebels, along with Labour MPs, Lib Dems and Scottish Nationalists are ready to back an amendment tabled by Labour’s Chris Leslie.

Mr Leslie said: “No one doubts that Brexit will go ahead. But it is crazy for Mrs May to say she will consult Parliament if she gets a deal but not if she doesn’t.”
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy2

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 6097
    • View Profile
    • Palloy's Blog
Re: BREXIT! The FUN Begins!
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2017, 12:05:30 AM »
When I read things like this I realise how pathetic all my efforts to try and change the world have been.  How is it possible to fight a hydra-headed monster like this?

Brexit was the people telling the elites what they think of them - no, it wasn't, it was all part of a ploy by the US elites to drag Britain away from the EU and weaken the standards that make life so difficult for US exporters.

http://www.monbiot.com/2017/02/04/dark-arts/
Dark Arts: How a dark money network is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic.
George Monbiot
4th February 2017

It took corporate America a while to warm to Donald Trump. Some of his positions, especially on trade, horrified business leaders. Many of them favoured Ted Cruz or Scott Walker. But once he had secured the nomination, the big money began to recognise an unprecedented opportunity.

Trump was prepared not only to promote the cause of corporations in government, but to turn government into a kind of corporation, staffed and run by executives and lobbyists. His incoherence was not a liability but an opening: his agenda could be shaped. And the dark money network that some American corporations had already developed was perfectly positioned to shape it.

Dark money is the term used in the US for the undisclosed funding of organisations involved in political advocacy. Few people would see a tobacco company as a credible source on public health, or a coal company as a neutral commentator on climate change. To advance their political interests, such companies must pay others to speak on their behalf.

Soon after the Second World War, some of America’s richest people began setting up a network of thinktanks to promote their interests. These purport to offer dispassionate opinions on public affairs. But they are more like corporate lobbyists, working on behalf of those who founded and fund them. These are the organisations now running much of the Trump administration.

We have no hope of understanding what is coming until we understand how the dark money network operates. The remarkable story of a British member of parliament provides a unique insight into this network, on both sides of the Atlantic. His name is Liam Fox. Six years ago, his political career seemed to be over.

The scandal he had caused by mixing his private and official interests, that was highly embarrassing to David Cameron’s government, had forced him to resign as Secretary of State for Defence. But today he is back on the front bench, with a crucial and sensitive portfolio: Secretary of State for International Trade.

In 1997, the year the Conservatives lost office to Tony Blair, Liam Fox, who sits on the hard right of the parliamentary Conservative party, founded an organisation called The Atlantic Bridge. Its patron was Margaret Thatcher. On its advisory council sat the future cabinet ministers Michael Gove, George Osborne, William Hague and Chris Grayling. Fox, who became a leading campaigner for Brexit, described the mission of The Atlantic Bridge as “to bring people together who have common interests”. It would defend these interests from “European integrationists who would like to pull Britain away from its relationship with the United States”.

The Atlantic Bridge was later registered as a charity. It was part of the UK’s own dark money network: only after it collapsed did we discover the full story of who had funded it.

Its main sponsor was the immensely rich Michael Hintze, who worked at Goldman Sachs before setting up his own hedge fund, CQS. Hintze is one of the Conservative party’s biggest donors. In 2012, he was revealed as a funder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, that casts doubt on the science of climate change. As well as making cash grants and loans to The Atlantic Bridge, he lent Liam Fox his private jet to fly to and from Washington.

Another funder was the drug company Pfizer. It paid for a researcher at The Atlantic Bridge called Gabby Bertin. She went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary, and now sits in the House of Lords: Cameron gave her a life peerage in his resignation honours list.

In 2007, a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) set up a sister organisation, The Atlantic Bridge Project, to run the US arm of Fox’s initiative. ALEC is perhaps the most controversial of the corporate-funded thinktanks in the US. It specialises in bringing together corporate lobbyists with state and federal legislators to develop “model bills”. The legislators and their families enjoy lavish hospitality from the group, then take the model bills home with them, to promote as if they were their own initiatives.

ALEC has claimed that over 1000 of its bills are introduced by legislators every year, and one in five of them becomes law. It has been heavily funded by tobacco companies, the oil company Exxon, drug companies and Charles and David Koch: the billionaires who founded the first Tea Party organisations. Pfizer, that funded Gabby Bertin’s post at The Atlantic Bridge, sits on ALEC’s corporate board. Some of the most contentious legislation in recent years, such as state bills lowering the minimum wage, bills granting corporations immunity from prosecution and the “ag-gag” laws, forbidding people to investigate factory farming practices, were developed by ALEC.

To run the US arm of Atlantic Bridge, ALEC brought in its director of international relations, Catherine Bray. She is a British woman who had previously worked for the Conservative member of the European Parliament Richard Ashworth and the UKIP member Roger Helmer. She has subsequently worked for the man who brought us Brexit, Daniel Hannan. In 2015, she married Wells Griffith, who became the battleground states director for Trump’s presidential campaign.

Among the members of The Atlantic Bridge’s US advisory council were the ultra-conservative senators James Inhofe, Jon Kyl and Jim DeMint. James Inhofe is reported to have received over $2 million in campaign finance from coal and oil companies. Both Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have been major donors. Coincidentally, he has described man-made global warming as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.

Jon Kyle, now retired, is currently acting as the “sherpa” guiding Jeff Sessions’s nomination as Trump’s attorney general through the Senate.

Jim DeMint resigned his seat in the Senate to become president of the Heritage Foundation, which is probably, after ALEC, the second most controversial thinktank in America. It was founded with a large grant from Joseph Coors, heir to the Coors brewing empire, then built up with money from the banking and oil billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Like ALEC, it has been richly funded by the Koch Brothers. Heritage, under DeMint’s presidency, drove the attempt to ensure that Congress refused to pass the federal budget, temporarily shutting down the government. Fox’s former special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, an American called Luke Coffey, now works for the foundation.

The Heritage Foundation is now at the heart of Trump’s administration. Its board members, fellows and staff comprise a large part of his transition team. Among them are Rebekah Mercer, who sits on Trump’s executive committee, Steven Groves and Jim Carafano (State Department), Curtis Dubay (Treasury) and Ed Meese, Paul Winfree, Russ Vought and John Gray (Management and Budget). CNN reports that “no other Washington institution has that kind of footprint in the transition”.

Trump’s extraordinary plan to cut federal spending by $10.5 trillion was drafted by the Heritage Foundation, which called it a “Blueprint for a New Administration”. Russ Vought and John Gray, who moved onto Trump’s team from Heritage, are now turning this blueprint into his first budget.

It will, if passed, inflict devastating cuts on healthcare, social security, legal aid, financial regulation and environmental protections, eliminate programmes to prevent violence against women, to defend civil rights and fund the arts, and will privatise the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump, as you follow this story, begins to look less like a president and more like an intermediary: implementing an agenda that has been handed down to him.

In July last year, soon after he became trade secretary, Liam Fox flew to Washington. One of his first stops was a place he has visited often over the past 15 years: the office of the Heritage Foundation, where he spoke among others to Jim DeMint. A freedom of information request reveals that one of the topics raised at the meeting was the European ban on American chicken washed in chlorine: a ban that producers hope the UK will lift under a new trade agreement. Afterwards, Fox wrote to DeMint, looking forward to “working with you as the new UK government develops its trade policy priorities, including in high value areas that we discussed such as defence.”

How did Fox get to be in this position, after the scandal that brought him down six years ago? The scandal itself provides a possible clue: it involved a crossing of the boundaries between public and private interests. The man who ran the UK branch of The Atlantic Bridge was his friend Adam Werrity, who operated out of Michael Hintze’s office building. Werrity’s work became entangled with Liam Fox’s official business as defence secretary. Werritty, who carried a business card naming him as Fox’s adviser but was never employed by the Ministry of Defence, joined the secretary of state on numerous ministerial visits overseas, and made frequent visits to Fox’s office.

By the time details of this relationship began to leak, the Charity Commission had investigated The Atlantic Bridge and determined that its work didn’t look very charitable. It had to pay back the tax from which it had been exempted (Hintze picked up the bill). In response, the trustees shut the organisation down. As the story about Adam Werrity’s unauthorised involvement in the business of government began to grow, Fox made a number of misleading statements. He was left with no choice but to resign.

So when Theresa May brought him back into government, and gave him a portfolio that should, in principle, involve setting clear boundaries between public and private interests, it was as strong a signal as we might receive about the intentions of her government.

The trade treaties that Fox is charged with developing set the limits of sovereignty. US food and environmental standards tend to be lower than ours, and they will become lower still if Trump gets his way. Any trade treaty we strike will create a common set of standards for products and services. Trump’s administration will demand that ours are adjusted downwards, so that US corporations can penetrate our markets without having to modify their practices. All the cards, following the Brexit vote, are in US hands: if the UK resists, there will be no treaty. What May needed – even before Trump became president – was a person prepared to strike such a deal.

As the Financial Times reports, “the election of Donald Trump has transformed the fortunes of Liam Fox”. He is now “an indispensable member of Theresa May’s front bench team”. The shadow diplomatic mission he developed through The Atlantic Bridge plugs him straight into the Trump administration.

Long before Trump won, campaign funding in the US had systematically corrupted the political system. A new analysis by US political scientists finds an almost perfect linear relationship, across 32 years, between the money gathered by the two parties for congressional elections and their share of the vote. But there has also been a shift over these years: corporate donors have come to dominate this funding.

By tying our fortunes to those of the United States, the government binds us into this system. This is part of what Brexit is about: European laws protecting the public interest were portrayed by Conservative Eurosceptics as intolerable intrusions on corporate freedom. Taking back control from Europe means closer integration with the US. The transatlantic special relationship is a special relationship between political and corporate power.

In April 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent the US Congress the following warning. “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.” It is a warning we would do well to remember.
"The State is a body of armed men."

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
...and so it BEGINS

Started by RE « 1 2 3 » Geopolitics

36 Replies
27783 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 11:12:55 PM
by RE
0 Replies
585 Views
Last post August 24, 2016, 04:49:04 AM
by Slogger
0 Replies
290 Views
Last post June 03, 2018, 09:00:47 AM
by Eddie