Brexit and The EU’s Future

zyklon-ben-abandon-eu-ship

Source: Ben Garrison – Abandon Ship

In recent days the Brexit debate has suddenly gone from boring to interesting, with opinion polls swinging from a comfortable lead for Remain to a neck and neck race between staying in and leaving the EU. One of the most recent polls has even seen Leave take a ten percentage point lead over Remain, though it remains an outlier.

wikipedia-polls-brexit-2016The major financial institutions now rate the chances of Brexit at 30%-40%, which is in sync with the odds given by prediction markets. (Quite the change from the start of this year, when it wasn’t even clear that the Brexit referendum would be held in the current year and I gave it a 10% total chance of happening).

What must be especially worrying for Bremain supporters is that polls have historically tended to have an anti-conservative bias in the UK, the most famous example being the 1992 elections (which saw the coining of the famous “Shy Tory” term) and continuing through to today in both the 2015 elections (Conservatives did much better than expected) and the Scottish referendum (rejection of independence, a primarily younger and more liberal position, by a much larger margin than the polls predicted).

There are two big reasons for the turn around in the past few weeks.

First, there are problems specific to the Remain campaign, whose strategy basically boils down to: (1) Threatening Britons with negative economic consequences for Brexit; (2) Trundling out a bevy of Very Respectable People such as Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Tony Blair’s spinmaster Alastair Campbell,  Peter Sutherland, George Soros, etc., etc., to make the case for Remain; (3) Displaying a “compendium of tabloid poltergeists” such as Trump, Putin, Le Pen, and ISIS who are alleged to support Brexit. Unfortunately, fewer people are impressed by such hamfisted tactics than were presumably hoped for.

pew-2016-eu-favorability-historicalThe second reason for the Leave surge is that it is part and parcel of the general disatisfaction with The Establishment sweeping the Western world, which has manifested itself in the good electoral performance of the Front National in France, the general swing towards nationalist parties throughout Europe, Corbyn’s successful takeover of the Labour Party in the UK, and the twin challenges of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to the old order in the US.

This sense of disillusionment extends to the EU. Although the EU enjoyed a small bump in support in 2015 once the effects of the 2012 double-dip recession faded away, anger has since returned with a vengeance in the wake of the recent European immigration crisis and the widespread perception that it was disastrously mishandled by a dangerously out of touch globalist elite. There are also broader concerns with the EU’s lack of democratic legitimacy, opposition to national sovereignty, straitjacket monetary policies, and unsolicited geopolitical adventurism in Ukraine and beyond.

pew-2016-eu-favorabilityIndeed, one of the most stunning findings of a recent PEW poll is that Britain, once the central bastion of Euroskepticism, may have actually been superceded in its dislike of the EU not just by a Greece understandably upset with Frankfurt’s diktats (so hardline that even the IMF balked) but by a France where a majority now want a Frexit referendum of their own.

The only places where the EU remains unambigiously favorable is amongst its newer eastern members, their contrarian yapping in opposition to mass immigration regardless (which is ultimately for show, since to be quite frank no refugee is going to be staying in Bucharest when he can move on to Budapest and then Berlin).

The reason for that essentially reduces to money:

eu-transfers-per-capita

SourceReddit, OP’s per capita calculations based on EU data.

Basically, the Eastern Europeans get huge amounts of gibs from the West Europeans, especially the Germans and Scandis. Poland alone got €57bn in 2010-2014. These numbers are rarely mentioned but they are quite huge – in fact, in per capita terms, they are comparable to what the Russian budget gets from the entirety of its oil and gas sectors. Those much vaunted economies (“Polish economic miracle,” “Baltic tigers,” etc) would look much different without the huge capital transfers implicit in EU structural funds.

The EU has also been good for the northern countries who, unlike the Mediterranean states, have the discipline to keep labor costs down without resorting to devaluations: The Netherlands, Sweden, and of course Germany. In contrast to the stagnation in the peripheries, their economies have generally done well since 2010 and they have become labor magnets stripping the south and east of their human capital.

But for most of the rest of the EU these arrangements haven’t been working out, with the result that support for the EU there has generally plummeted.

These internal economics explain much of the panic behind Brexit, which from a certain perspective is admittedly altogether irrational. The exit of the UK alone would remove 10% of total EU contributions and 15% of net contributions (based on 2007-2013 figures). This would increase the funding strain on the other rich members. If more of the core countries then started to withdraw, it would conceivably lead a cascading collapse in which the last man out has to pay the utilities bills. No longer accruing benefits from its competitiveness advantage, Germany is the last major net funder to throw in the towel, and thus only the husk of the EU is left, stretching all the way from Lodz to Lemberg.

Comments

  1. michael dr says

    The English football forum I frequent is unanimous in reckond that if England gets kicked out of the Euros for fan violence, a Brexit is pretty much guaranteed.
    Which begs a few questions – are the Russian hooligans taking on the English hybrid warriors for Putin!!!!! Or indeed are the French Ultras who are a major cause of violents acting for Marine le Pen? And are the US law courts in NY acting to infuence UEFA top staff with the threat of corruption inquries and off shore fund revelations?

  2. jimmyriddle says

    The polls may well underestimate the Brexit vote.

    There is a social taboo. Very few Labour MPs are openly for Brexit, despite the fact that the left of the party have been anti-EU from when we first joined.

    The Labour MPs that have come out for Brexit include Kate Hoey and Gisella Stewart – both very independent minded. The Labour leader who has opposed the EU all his adult life is pretending to support Remain, but not trying very hard.

  3. Erik Sieven says

    “Those much vaunted economies (“Polish economic miracle,” “Baltic tigers,” etc) would look much different without the huge capital transfers implicit in EU structural funds.”
    this is why I find it ridiculous that increasingly often infrastructure projects in Germany have huge signs at the building site with the EU sign and the message that this was financed by some EU fund. This is like pretentious paying dinner for your parents when you still live at their home and get pocket money.

  4. German_reader says

    “Germany is the last major net funder to throw in the tunnel”

    throw in the tunnel??? Or do you mean towel?
    Personally I’m ambivalent about Brexit…I think a lot of people in Britain have strange illusions about the viability of their Commonwealth ties, and in my opinion some form of European cooperation with Britain as an integral part is still desirable. On the other hand though I loathe the present EU regime and the thought of a United States of Europe horrifies me…perhaps it’s necessary that the whole edifice come crashing down.

    [AK: Yes, towel of course. Thanks.]

  5. I love the hilarious cartoon, especially the portrayal of “Greece” as a seasick sailor throwing up on the deck. I hope the Brits vote for the Brexit and start to put an end to this sorry enterprise. I believe that will start the unwinding of this misguided venture. They should have stuck to the concept of a free-trade zone.

  6. Cicerone says

    No matter what, 2016 will have been one of the most decisive years in modern history with decisions in all corners of the Western World that have the potential to shake the global power system. From Cologne over Brussels and Orlando, from the triumph of the populist right and possible Brexit to the grand final of Trump vs. Clinton.

    The EU and the whole West is in deep lethargy since the financial crisis. Progress, productivity and growth stalling, fertility declining in many countries, Islam issue still unresolved etc. I hope that the Brits will decide in favour of Brexit and will send shockwaves through the system that are badly needed. The West needs a restart and needs to get going again.

  7. Anatoly Karlin says

    Heh… that’s not a bad conspiracy theory.

    https://twitter.com/flymobimir/status/742437116676820992

  8. Anonymous says

    “First, there are problems specific to the Leave campaign, whose strategy basically boils down to:…”

    Is this a typo. Think you mean the Stay campaign?

    [AK: Thanks]

  9. I’ve long thought a Brexit had a non-negligible, about 30% possibility. (Just as I now think — I would not have said this six months ago — that a Trump presidency is possible.) Mainly because the UK elite doesn’t care enough either way.

    Contra both pro/anti-EU folks, I don’t think Brexit by itself would either be an economic calamity (the effect will almost certainly be marginal either way) or would “liberate” the UK (the EU’s sovereignty is mostly symbolic, no army, little influence over UK’s immigration policy re: non-Europeans).

    But it would be interesting to see if Brexit serves as a spark for something bigger . . . Renegotiation would certainly occupy the political space for years and deliver a huge blow to Establishment self-confidence, inspiring dissident movements.

  10. Polish budget 2015: income 297 bln PLN, that is 65bln euro.

    As for UE funds, in 2014-2020 we will pay 40 bln euros and receive 106 bln euros (ie netto 66 bln euros). Because our payments into EU radically rose, it’s not true that we will get almost double of previous 7-year period. Meaning we will get netto 9.5 bln euro yearly, that is 14% of our budget incomes. This is not counting the costs of “absorbing the funds”, as thousands or beaureau… beuar.. clerks will work with very high salaries to write multiple documents. Their salaries are estimated as 1.5% of funds received. Note that there is no guarantee we will actually receive this money;

    I would say, however, that a lot of those money gets simply eaten. Some EU projects are totally absurd (I’ve heard about “assertiveness courses for village housewives”, for example), some are waste of money (building new pavement in a village along a road where almost no one walks, note that between 1/4 to 1/3 of funds must be provided by village, usually they take credit to get those funds), some are corrupting the market (where more effort is put into filling EU documents than improving productivity and innovation). I participated in two EU projects and both were waste of money (though because of them, I am able to finish my house 😀 ).

    All in all, I would say that Poland would be better without EU funds, if instead EU would make subsidizing products illegal. Our export would rise two or threefolds if only France would stop subsidize her food.

    [AK: “Because our payments into EU radically rose, it’s not true that we will get almost double of previous 7-year period.” Thanks for pointing this out, hadn’t released the new figures referred to gross not net.]

  11. perhaps it’s necessary that the whole edifice come crashing down.

    I think some of the architects of the EU had malign intent from the beginning but many were just too influenced by how close they were to WW2.

    So I think bringing it all down and then maybe starting again at a later date is the only way.

  12. Germany should be the last country to complain about funding Eastern European states as the money from their infrastructure projects usually finds its way back to German companies. The short of it is that Easterns don’t have much in the way of industry, so when they need heavy machinery, etc. it is purchased from EU, usually Germany. I’d understand why Britain would be unhappy though.

  13. jimmyriddle says

    JCB is one of the few big companies to support Brexit.

  14. Why hasn’t Sweden adopted the Euro?

  15. Jaakko Raipala says

    Scandinavia + Finland were already more euroskeptic than continental countries before the bills started coming for much the same reasons that Britain was. The geographic separation from continental Europe also means a more separate identity and economy than in those countries where history is an endless series of countries and federations coming and going while locals remain the same.

    Sweden and Denmark had votes on whether to go with the euro and the euro lost both of them. In Norway the EU membership had already lost the vote so the euro issue was irrelevant. In Finland the euro would have lost the vote but unfortunately our politicians were smarter and decided to not let us vote (and curiously Finland is one of the worst crisis countries while Scandinavia is doing OK).

    The political elites are of course extremely pro-EU because the EU offers better paying and more prestigious careers for them so it’s in their financial interest even if it benefits no one else. The incentives are really perverse for small countries.

  16. The EU has also been good for the northern countries who, unlike the Mediterranean states, have the discipline to keep labor costs down without resorting to devaluations: The Netherlands, Sweden, and of course Germany. In contrast to the stagnation in the peripheries, their economies have generally done well since 2010 and they have become labor magnets stripping the south and east of their human capital.

    None of which has been good for northern labor. All the of the benefits of the EU have flowed to the upper-class, the banks and the corporations. The middle class in these countries is just treading water, while at the lower end of the pay scale, people’s standard of living has been eroding for years. That’s why last year in Germany the lack of a minimum wage suddenly became a political issue for the first time ever. You heard that correctly: officially, the Federal Republic of Germany does not have a national minimum wage. During the long years of the pot-war economic Wirtschaftswunder it never needed one; but things are changing now and many people want a minimum wage law for Germany.

  17. Seems odd for them to be the leading contributor to the EU when they’re not using its currency. Is this just another case of their government putting everyone but its own people first?

  18. Jaakko Raipala says

    It’s typical for European countries with historically highly unionized workers to lack minimum wage laws. We don’t have minimum wage laws either but historically there were still effective minimum wages because basically all of the working class was unionized and wages were always negotiated between labor unions and employer’s unions and the labor unions of course insisted on wage protections for their members.

    This has became an issue now that the economy has shifted away from smoke pipe industry and the work force is much less unionized, plus the left has been abandoning the native working class and transitioning to demanding protections for immigrants and sexual minorities and this is alienating the working class from labor unions who remain married to left-wing parties.

  19. RadicalCenter says

    Really free trade among the USA and UK and European countries (including eastern Europe).

    Free travel for tourism, study, and business for any NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN of those countries who can establish that all four of his grandparents was born in their country.

    NO laws whatsoever imposed from outside one’s national borders.

    No PC authoritarian police state, no welfarist superstate, no mandatory acceptance of invasion by savages.

    These countries can do a lot for their security and prosperity by banding together, just not in the form of a fascist-socialist-antiwhite EU superstate.

  20. RadicalCenter says

    If Germany weren’t subsidizing eastern European countries through the EU, would those eastern European countries suddenly no longer be buying German machinery / equipment? Why is the EU necessary for that?

    Also, are eastern Europeans in fact not starting to buy some CHINESE-made equipment instead of German-made?

  21. Cleared my cache and still can not see all posts, it shows me only 8.

    Update. Disregard this post. I can see dead people, now(c)

  22. German_reader says

    A lot of the EU’s founders were Christian Democrats with rather authoritarian inclinations:
    http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/rome-brussels-and-ventotene/
    That spirit seems to live on in people like Merkel and Juncker…I have no sympathy whatsoever for that. We need to start over.

  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_and_the_euro

    They can buy non German goods now but the EU money is going to bring them to the point where they meet the EU convergence criteria, whereupon they will obliged to adopt the single currency and face Germany without any exchange rate protection from deindustrialisation. Chinese goods will be frozen out out the single market because lowering barriers within a customs union is a form of barrier to the outside world. It also causes the members of the union to coalesce into a state.

  24. yes but also i think politicians of that type from the immediate post-war era were more authoritarian than they otherwise would be because they wanted the EU to be able to control the member nations – whereas the exact same type of person starting now might be less so.

  25. Anonymous says

    Check out the url of the comic linked at the top.

  26. Anatoly Karlin says

    Hush now, you are blowing Ben “One Man Klan” Garrison’s cover.

  27. Anonymous says

    Are there any any parallels with the breakup of the Soviet Union? EU and USSR comparisons: over-reach, enfeebled by bureaucracy, dubious democratic credentials, drained by poorer regions etc. Were there hyperbolic warnings from the Soviets / Russians that if there was a break up it would lead to chaos? In truth, there was chaos and decline for many for a few years. But the boil needed to be popped. I’m pro-brexit, but my main worry is that the UK will become a testing ground for US globalists without the protection of the EU (as inefficient as it is).

  28. I think a lot of people in Britain have strange illusions about the viability of their Commonwealth ties, and in my opinion some form of European cooperation with Britain as an integral part is still desirable.

    But why would Britain exiting the oncoming United States of Europe mean an end (or even necessarily any great interruption) to British cooperation and friendly trading relations with European countries?

    Nobody in Britain wants reduced trade with Europe. The only likely reason would be a determination on the part of the Eurocrats to “make an example of” Britain, pour encourager les autres. It’s up to you and your fellow voters in European countries to squash that.The costs will be mostly borne by you, otherwise.

  29. Anonymous says

    When one looks at the map of net contributors, one cannot help but think that Vlad Putin would actually want the EU to stay intact since it seems to be bleeding the life-force out of Russia’s major NATO opponents in Europe.

  30. macilrae says

    I am reminded of a referendum which was held in Canada in 1992 upon the question of whether to adopt some crucial amendments to the constitution – lately ‘imported’ from Britain.

    Are you still awake? Wait!

    Elder statesmen (lawyers of course, are there any other kinds?) put their hearts and souls into reaching a ‘balance’ between the aspirations of Quebec and the rest of Canada – blowhards in Quebec, you may recall, threatening a “Quexit” every few years unless it received preferential treatment – and always getting it. The proposed amendments included one particular concession that, assuming continued demographics, would yield to the French Province rights of veto out of proportion to its population.

    A huge (for Canada) campaign ensued: The Federal and all ten Provincial (i.e. State) governments were in 100% support: as was the bloody press. The “Yes” campaign outspent the “Nos” in blatant advertising (public funds of course) by something like 5:1.

    To their eternal credit, and despite dire predictions of doom, Canadians voted “No!” Interestingly, Quebec also voted “No”.

    And then? Nothing happened – nothing! – and life went on just as before: grizzled lawyers retired into obscurity on fat pensions and, thank God, Canadians have been spared continual nagging about the effing constitution ever since!

  31. Wizard of Oz says

    It is also notoriously hard to get up a constitutional amendment by referendum in Austtalia where it requires a majority in a majority of the states and compulsory voting means a pretty good turnout of voters.

  32. LondonBob says

    The EU was a CIA project, not entirely unjustifiably.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

    I do now think Brexit will happen, hopefully it will give the whole European establishment the kick up the ass they need. A Trump win in November as a follow up.

  33. macilrae says

    I can imagine, and Aussies are generally viewed as being pretty bloody-minded when it comes to complying with government/media dictates! Canadians less so and Brits probably somewhere in between. “Americans” are generally seen as more compliant but that seems to be changing.

  34. JustJeff says

    (((Christian Democrats)))

  35. LondonBob says

    There is a forum I read where a contributor is an ex MP and he bluntly said many politicians support the EU as it as potential career option that is very lucrative for them. Being half Swedish, yes you would expect Scandinavia to very pro EU on paper, but there is that history of separateness, protestant religion etc. that fuels skepticism.

  36. Patrick Armstrong says

    Your mention of the Commonwealth brings back memories. In 1975 I, a Canadian, was resident in the UK and was allowed to vote in the referendum to join the Common Market (as it then was). That was, as I recall, the only time I heard about the Commonwealth in the 3 years I lived there. The anti EEC people were praising it as a better group to belong to. But there was no substance to it as a trading group. BTW I voted to join, not realising that the EEC would metastisise into a bureaucratic and counter-liberty monster. I would certainly be for Brexit now. And everybody-else-exit too.

  37. Expletive Deleted says

    Germans won’t trade with the perfidious Inselaffen? Whatever are they going to do with all those right-hand-drive Mercs, (SA-built) Beemers, Porsches etc. Punt them off to Japan,India or Oz?
    Oh dear, what a shame, it’s New World/former Empire wine as well from now on, the French, Spanish and Italians won’t even return our shaky-handed calls, if we run away.

  38. milford e smiff says

    “Eastern Europeans get huge amounts of gibs”

    Gibs? Where did you learn that terrible term?

  39. Oskar Kokoschka says

    The prestige of the EU is the lowest it’s ever been. This contempt is well-merited. It’s mishandled, not just the refugee crisis, but also the banking crisis and the Ukraine crisis.

  40. German_reader says

    Merkel and her ilk will certainly want to “punish” Britain if it leaves…don’t blame me, I don’t vote for their kind and would like to see them permanently gone.
    I stand by my opinion though that a lot of pro-Brexit people in Britain have idiotic ideas about Britain’s destiny in the world…there’s a lot of nonsense going around about the “Anglosphere”, mixed with pathetic sycophancy towards the US. If Britain/England wants to regain any semblance of real sovereignty and nationhood, Brexit can only be a first step…other measures (that is stopping subcontinental and African immigration, re-evaluating the “special relationship” with the US) will have to be taken, and those will be much more difficult to implement.

  41. German_reader says

    Let’s be blunt: when I wrote that British illusions about the Commonwealth are idiotic, I didn’t mean ties to British-derived Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders which Britain seems to have neglected to its detriment.
    I meant that it’s ridiculous to pretend that the average Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman has more in common with Nigerians or Pakistanis than with continental Europeans.

  42. RadicalCenter says

    See your point, but Russians should NOT be doing anything to exacerbate or celebrate the recent acceleration and expansion of the Muslim invasion of Europe.

    Russia’s security — and its opportunity for desireable economic and cultural exchange — will suffer as it will face an Islamist-intimidated and eventually Islamist-controlled France, England, and now Germany. Sadly, the nuclear weapons of England and France will fall into the hands of Islamists if those countries do not stop accepting rape-fugees and start deporting Muslims already living there. This is not good for Russia or anyone.

  43. If Britain/England wants to regain any semblance of real sovereignty and nationhood, Brexit can only be a first step…other measures (that is stopping subcontinental and African immigration, re-evaluating the “special relationship” with the US) will have to be taken, and those will be much more difficult to implement.

    Agree entirely with this, but “the journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one’s feet.” We are where we are, and the first step is to leave the EU.

    There are some who over-idealise the Commonwealth, and also there are Yankophile traitors here just as there are Europhile traitors. As I usually put it, our elites have outsourced our foreign and military sovereignty to Washington and our domestic policies to Brussels. Both must be taken back if we are to recover any self respect as a nation. In the end, as the Spectator just put it in coming out for Brexit, it’s a matter of Out, and into the world.

  44. woodNfish says

    I like the allegorical penis (bow sprit) breaking off indicating Europeans are a bunch of dickless fools – a sentiment I totally agree with.

  45. Drapetomaniac says

    “Aussies are generally viewed as being pretty bloody-minded when it comes to complying with government/media dictates!”

    That bloody-mindedness is being swamped by the not like-mindedness of immigrants.

    It happened to the US – the rugged individualism was overrun by the sniveling socialism of immigrants.

  46. I thought Australia always had a reputation for “tall poppy syndrome” like Scandinavia?

  47. Drapetomaniac says

    I admit to having tall poppy syndrome and it has to do with how one achieves wealth and fame. Prestige gained by someone through government, a POS, through voluntary interaction, a hero. The politicians and elites are foremost examples of POS.

    Given the level of government presence in society, I disrespect almost all of those who are normally respected.

    So to me, knocking the tall poppies back is a good thing.

  48. LondonBob says

    I agree with that, we have ties to the Anglo Saxon nations, not the random countries we happened to rule over for short periods of time, but we are part of Europe. The problem is the EU is not the means by which to foster pan European cooperation.

  49. Because you openly speak about how evil Germans are and threaten them with a trade embargo unless you get exactly what you want.

    Look,
    when Alt-Right people speak about Germans and that they need to wake up they need to understand that the first thing Germans do afterwards will be to realize that Americans and Brits hate them.

  50. You threaten the rest of EU with an embargo unless you get exactly what you want.

    Cute but proves German_reader’s point about your illusions.

  51. So what is?

    I mean,
    we can all agree that the current EU is bad but I still like the idea. EFTA/EEA is probably a decent level of cooperation but it seems like that is impossible now.

    Another problem is it’s easy to see that some countries could easily create another trade block but all of them would probably like to have one or two other countries join that wouldn’t be palatable to the others.

  52. MEH 0910 says
  53. Because you openly speak about how evil Germans are and threaten them with a trade embargo unless you get exactly what you want.

    Who does? Not I.

    I don’t have a problem with Germans as “evil”. As duped suckers for the globalists and leftist mass immigration multiculti zealots, yes, but the same can be said of Brits as a whole.

    Nor does anyone “threaten them with a trade embargo”, as far as I’m aware. They want to trade with us and we want to trade with them. The only way there would not be trade is if one side decided to be unreasonable in order to score some kind of political point, and the only side likely to be doing that after Brexit would be the Eurocrats trying to intimidate other potential leavers. Like I said, it will be up to the Germans to stop their leaders from biting off their collective nose to spite their own face.

  54. Speaking of Germans, here’s some encouraging data:

    Germans becoming increasingly xenophobic, study finds

    [Haven’t seen any original German text, but in the English-speaking mainstream media “xenophobic” codes for “having sensible traditionalist views on foreigners and/or immigration”]

    From the article:

    Respondents also displayed more animosity towards other minority groups, including homosexuals and Romany people, also called gypsies. More than 40 percent of those questioned said it was disgusting when gays kissed in public, compared to 25 percent in 2011. A third tought same-sex marriages should be banned. Nearly three out of five respondents believed that Gypsies were more likely to commit crimes.

    That figure on “finding gays kissing in public disgusting” is interesting and topical. There’s no way that people taking that view has increased by 15% in 5 years. Clearly, the low figure in 2011 was a result of social desirability bias, with people lying about their true feelings, and most likely that still applies to some extent. It will be interesting to see how much further it has to rise.

    And there’s an interesting kicker as well:

    Also on Wednesday, a separate study by the polling company Allensbach revealed further skepticism towards Muslims. Only 13 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement “Islam belongs in Germany.”

    The survey, published in the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,” showed most Germans believed that integration could only happen so long as German culture remained the dominant culture.

  55. Oskar Kokoschka says

    It could be argued that Brexit would strengthen the EU. Britain often plays a disruptive role in the organisation. For example, without Britain there would have been united EU opposition to the Iraq invasion. (Without Britain on their side, the Spanish/Poles/Italians would have deferred to the French/Germans on this issue.)

  56. Pseudonymic Handle says

    Pearls thoroughly clutched? Karlin always uses the cool kids slang

  57. German_reader says

    If I’m not mistaken the “researchers” for that study are linked to the Heinrich Böll foundation and the Rosa Luxemburg foundation, the party foundations of the Greens and the ex-commie Left party respectively. This is part of their quest to paint mainstream German society as deeply racist and in need of further multiculturalist education.

  58. random observer says

    A superb vision, and maybe what some Britons thought they were signing up to in 1973 [at least for the European area], since all they heard about was the “common market” and seemingly rarely if ever the “European Economic Community” that it was actually called. Perhaps I have imbibed biased memory, but it seems to me most ordinary Britons I ever met who were adults then never lost the habit of calling it the “common market” and never tracked its evolution from EEC to EC to European Union, nor were really aware of the more or less explicit endgame of political union encoded on the EEC’s first day in 1957.

    If it had just been a common market, then [cautiously] that would have been great.

    The downside is that some of the stuff ordinary Brits and the Daily Mail find most offensive in EU diktat are actually the stuff made necessary for a true common market- the common standards and regs, labour rules, labour mobility, etc. I suppose if these were framed all along as intergovernmental agreements rather than orders from “Brussels”, they might have been more acceptable to Britons as workings of the common market and seen less as authoritarianism. But, of course, they WERE intergovernmental agreements if only because that’s how the EU seems really to work. Brussels was the general staff and policy secretariat, not the ruler.

  59. No surprise that Guardian says that cartoon is racist, anti-Semitic:
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/14/leave-eu-cartoon-racist-nazi-brexit-antisemitism-1945

  60. Well it cheered me up a bit anyway…

  61. random observer says

    Broadly Anglophilic Canadian here, with two parents UK born [Scotland], long Euroskeptic from a distance…

    Largely agree with all your points above. Britain is a European country and a part of European civilization without question, and it has always interacted with other countries in Europe as a part of one civilization and international ‘system’ [to be a bit modern/anachronistic]. It should and must aim to keep doing that.

    But it has always stood apart in some ways, most dramatically its collective objections to being part of a larger continental polity. Sure, Anglo-Norman and Plantagenet royals were also French lords and warred with other such over their holdings, and in parts of the 100 years war the English Crown’s holders claimed to have inherited the French Crown and arguably might have aimed for a durable personal union [which I suspect would have been eventually Gallicized given France’s size and wealth]. For a while the Scots seemed willing to have a similar arrangement with France and even submit to a French occupation and regency. But these latter two cases are pretty unusual over the past millennium and map poorly onto modern statehood or identity.

    Saxon England had close ties to the Carolingian empire and some cultural influence on it, but I have never read there was any notion of subjecthood to it, though England’s land had been as much a province of the older Rome as most of the rest of what the Franks claimed to have rebuilt. Those patterns of cultural/civilizational interrelationship, commercial life, yet political separateness have dominated more often than not.

    I guess what I might hope for if my life had taken me back to my parents’ country would be a world in which Britain cooperates closely on economics and security with other Europeans, as a sovereign state with no commitment to unifying measures like currency or common armies [common possible commands as allies are fine, in a nod to Prince EUgene’s ghost], or political union as one state, and that Britain retain this position whether the rest of Europe remains similar sovereign nations or forms some other kind of union.

    There is no need for the idea that “Europe” and the EU are identical concepts, or that disdain for the latter is denial of identity with the former. Far too much pro-EU discourse assumes the EU IS Europe. “We need more Europe…” “The Hour of Europe has come…” and other such nauseating formulations of the 1990s need to be let go.

    As for the Commonwealth… nobody cares that much and hasn’t in my lifetime, at least in Canada. We looked South long ago. If the Commonwealth were a catchphrase for closer cooperation among UK, Canada, OZ and NZ I’d love that. I wouldn’t expect or desire, nor see a need for, it to be anything like as close as the EU. But it would be a recovery of a strand of Canadian identity that was supported as late as the 1950s and could now be taken off the shelf and dusted off by a more confident Canada, with fewer old liberal diehards [always white and Anglo] clutching skirts and fearing we were being “neocolonial” and subjecting ourselves to Britain.

    I just would be willing to eschew the term “Commonwealth” if necessary to avoid having to include any other countries currently in that group. Conrad Black wants India in as well, and I sympathize, not at all minding Indians on the whole and it would lend some clout. But I wouldn’t want all India’s demographic, economic, social and strategic problems.

  62. German_reader says

    I’m afraid there aren’t many reasons to be cheerful about the situation in Germany. I don’t see any way how the establishment’s grip on power could be loosened…Merkel certainly seems to intend to stay chancellor until well after 2020, preferably in coalition with the leftie Greens from 2017 onwards. All the established parties are basically on the same page concerning immigration and asylum, the differences are minor at best. The only opposition party, the AfD (which unfortunately does have a few nutcases in its ranks) is demonized by the entire establishment (not just political parties, also the media, churches, trade unions etc.) and attacked by violent antifa-thugs. Even many people who reject Merkel’s immigration madness won’t vote for them because of some misguided concern about the return of “fascism” or out of genuine distaste for some of the AfD’s policy positions.
    And of course, Merkel’s open borders refugee lunacy has already created facts which will be very difficult, if not impossible, to undo.

  63. German_reader says

    “Far too much pro-EU discourse assumes the EU IS Europe.”

    In German official discourse “Europe” is generally used for the EU/European integration…so if you question the EU in its current form you’re “anti-Europe”, with the insinuation you’re some fanatical nationalist who hates other Europeans. “Europe” in that sense has acquired quasi-sacral status in Germany, and can’t ever be questioned.
    Largely agree also with your other points.

  64. Anonymous says

    So Poland and Hungary would have half of the GDP per capita it does now without the EU?

    I assume the transfer of 2000 euros per person trickles down throughout the economy and is multiplied in GDP stats compared to the original transfer, accounting for a lot of the output.

    Hungary has a GDP per capita nominal of only 12,000 dollars so imagine the effect of a 2500 dollar per person transfer to them.

  65. Get out while you can Britain. This could be the last chance you will ever have to salvage something from the wreck of Blair’s Marxist labourites.

  66. Maybe the Globalists can do a spin on Brexit.

    Crimea freely voted to leave Ukraine taken over by Jewish-Homo Globalists.
    It was Crimeaxit.

    It was not invaded and taken by Russia. It freely choose to exit Ukraine and join Russia.

    But the Globalist Media would have us believe that Russia INVADED and STOLE Crimea.

    Well, maybe the Media can do the same with UK. If UK leaves the EU, maybe the spin can be Russia-China-Iran invaded UK.

  67. Drapetomaniac says

    I’m sure the upper class benefits greatly from a $2500 per capita transfer. Government just doing what it’s created for.

  68. Sam Shama says

    EU, or more to the point the EMU, at the slight risk of sounding a bit reductionist, was the brainchild of of the Bundesbank, which since at least the tenure of Otto Pohl and Schlesinger culminating in the Maastricht – so really decades in the making, an attempt to cobble together something resembling the U.S. Federal Reserve System. The motivation was clear from the beginning to monetarists. Germans wanted a weak currency to propel her exports which had been flagging for more than two decades. The quality of the merchandise was unparalleled really, but relatively few in world could afford them compared to say the Japanese items. There were a few requirements: Germany wanted to run a tight ship, where every member country would [at least on the surface] run no more than small budget deficits, but taken together, larger than Germany’s own internal numbers, which were stubbornly in surplus; mostly, that is.

    It worked rather well for a while, but there were a few troubling fault-lines. First, the ECB counted only on the single mandate of price stability [instead of the U.S. dual model of price and unemployment]. Second, the Union did not have a central fiscal authority to collect federal taxes and therefore could not conduct federal fiscal policies. Third, Banking Union was merely lip-service paid to those willing to listen over lavish Brussels sponsored luncheons and banquets, and the national central banks had nowhere near the flexibility and influence enjoyed by the U.S. regional Feds. Lastly, corporate taxation was all over the place with no standardisation to speak of.

    Well, come to think of it [a rather crucial absence in my reckoning], I am unaware of any country [historically] with extensive regional membership, which enjoyed both a central fiscal authority while lacking it’s necessary complement [with associated expenses] of a centrally controlled military. NATO doesn’t count.

    So the appeals to “European” values was rather a neat trick foisted on member European populations to achieve Germany’s goals of obtaining its de facto sovereign fiat, the Euro, without incurring the expenses that go with maintaining the viability of such an arrangement. It was a cheaper currency compared to the Deutsche Mark, kept Germany’s surplus intact, kept the similarly spendthrift northern members satisfied [Finland, Netherlands], French and Italian elites in a combination of delight and mild unease on account of their legacy labour laws, and peripherals like Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain bristling with pride mixed with glee at the prospect of belonging to an exclusive club they could happily fleece with innovative accounting [aided naturally, by Goldman Sachs].

    So on the whole, the cultural integration fable was convenient. The U.K. wanted no part of that currency by sacrificing the Cable, knowing full well from experience [Gold Standard] the pitfalls of not having its own fiat.

    My own estimate is that Brexit has a higher probability of a ‘yes’ vote than the converse. At most Britain will suffer a 1% drop in GDP in the first two years, feasibly countered by a mix of fiscal and monetary measures, but the knock on effects on the EU might be large. I don’t want to speculate too much, but it appears that the political winds are also blowing in the direction that favours this outcome.

  69. If you’re not one of the Leavers that regularly mention cars then you’re not one of those advocating a trade embargo. I see that you’re talking about one side being unreasonable. The problem is that most of us can see that the Brits will be unreasonable and want access to the single market without immigration.

    If the Brits accept that they voted NO to the single market(and not just the mythical EU) then negotiations will be straightforward although still complicated due to the number of regulations that need to be discussed. I just don’t see that happening. I even see people scream bloody murder about Wolfgang Schäuble saying he wants to respect the wish of the British people, i.e. no single market access.

  70. I could reply with simplistic cheer up lines like “it’s always darkest just before dawn” but ……. the reality is I don’t see much hope for the future either, either in my country or in yours.

    I was cheered up by that survey a bit because it came after reading two depressing pieces – one in Amconmag about Trump’s low polling ratings and one in DW English edition about Israel’s latest success in manipulating big German banks into closing the accounts of its political enemies. It’s nice to see any indication that people are starting to rebel against the Official Truth.

    For sure, any path to success will be long and hard in all our countries. Imo Brexit and Trump are two key issues in the fight. But I would still bet against either succeeding – Leave is currently doing slightly better in the polls, but the likelihood is still that it will go marginally against Leave on the day. And even if they succeed, the forces of darkness will just regroup and try to turn them into draws at best – the globalists will try to redo the referendum in better circumstances for them, or turn Britain’s escape from the EU into a renewed and even deeper submission to the US, Trump will cave on the important issues (it’s not as though he’s a true believer anyway).

    Respect is due for those who face down the violence of the left and continue to turn out for Trump or for AfD, though, even if I don’t agree with some of their positions. They give some balance, and some hope, at least. Sadly, the result of leftist violence against these people can only be the creation of organised self defence forces for the parties of the right, and thus the leftist claims of fascism etc will become self-fulfilling.

    The best hope is that a shift of support towards the harder right will trigger a movement to the right of the establishment parties, while there still might be time.

  71. If you’re not one of the Leavers that regularly mention cars then you’re not one of those advocating a trade embargo.

    Surely any talk about cars is just pointing out the obvious – that trade goes both ways? It’s not “calling for an embargo”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone do that.

    I see that you’re talking about one side being unreasonable. The problem is that most of us can see that the Brits will be unreasonable and want access to the single market without immigration.

    Why would these two issues be linked in any way? Did you mean free movement rather than immigration? They are related, for sure, but not identical. But nobody in Britain that I’m aware of has any problem with Germans coming here as freely as they want, provided reciprocal arrangements are in place. Though that does depend on how German Germany actually will be in the next few years, I suppose.

    If the Brits accept that they voted NO to the single market(and not just the mythical EU) then negotiations will be straightforward although still complicated due to the number of regulations that need to be discussed. I just don’t see that happening. I even see people scream bloody murder about Wolfgang Schäuble saying he wants to respect the wish of the British people, i.e. no single market access.

    It’s rather comical to refer to the EU as “mythical”, considering the number of fat cats who rely upon it for their power, prestige and money. On the other hand, the “single market” is a bit of a shibboleth. Once we’re out, the reasonable assumption is surely that we would do a deal that suits both sides covering trade issues. As long as that deal isn’t prevented by one side (the Eurocrats, obviously) trying to impose harsher terms as a punishment then there should be no reason why a satisfactory deal shouldn’t be done that will allow us to sell you our business services and you to sell us your cars.

  72. Tsar Nicholas says

    I think the main reason why Leave is ahead in the polls – it’s not just a case of one rogue poll – is because Labour voters have woken up to the fact that Brexit is not just a right wing cause.

  73. annamaria says

    “… if those countries do not stop accepting rape-fugees and start deporting Muslims already living there. This is not good for Russia or anyone.”

    The breakup would also include weakening of political correctness, hence there will be less enthusiasm for vibrant diversity but more common sense towards the US (Israeli/Saudis) policies in the Middle East.
    Case in point, during a recent talk, “Russia; A test for Western Unity,” Mrs. Marie Mendras (a Senior Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy and visiting scholar at Georgetown University) informed the public that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East brought the “civil society” to Libya and other ME countries. These Transatlantic cannibals are incorrigible, because their passion for paycheck is much greater than respect for decency and truth. Throughout her speeches, the elderly Mrs. Mendras had been making terrible grimaces (they were supposed to be smiles) while lying through her teeth. She tried to present the European (particularly French) discontent re illegal sanctions towards Russia as a subversive activity of Marin La Pen, but the audience corrected the speaker that there are all colors of French society that are against the US-forced sanctions. Another presented, Alexander Cooley (Professor of Political Science at Barnard College and the Director of Columbia University’s Harriman Institute) tried to compensate his pedestrian language with energetic gesticulation (who else would do this dirty work but mediocrities?) Mr. Colley was criticizing, smugly, the Russian diplomats for reasoning on the “lower lever” than the EU/US diplomat, because Russians have the temerity to bring the history of Kosovo and Syria into the conversation about Crimea; and this is why Russians are not ideologically pure. The Russians “do not understand” that for the EU/US ideologists the concepts of sovereignty and democracy are only “instrumental.”

  74. annamaria says

    After his election, Groysman told parliament, “Together we will make Ukraine successful.”
    “Meet Volodymyr Groysman, Ukraine’s Jewish Prime Minister:” http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/meet-volodymyr-groysman-ukraines-jewish-prime-minister/2016/04/14/

    New Purim-land.
    “Groysman, as the president’s man, would do little to advance the cause of structural reforms — or give Ukraine what it needs most: a professional and technocratic government that roots out corruption, installs rule of law, privatizes, deregulates, de-oligarchizes and, in general, puts the public interest above the corrupted vested interests.
    Any government that Groysman leads would likely perpetuate the corrupt business-as-usual status quo of horse-trading for positions, favor and subsidies. It would also mean a resurgence of vested and often oligarch interests fiercely sabotaging reform.
    His appointment, coupled with the election of EuroMaidan Revolution hero Andriy Parubiy as speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, would further sink the already low popularity of the president and the government almost instantly.”

    “Andriy Parubiy, the Neo-Nazi Leader Turned Speaker of Ukraine’s Parliament. An outspoken neo-Nazi takes the reins of Ukraine’s parliament, as the US and its European vassals remain silent:” http://www.globalresearch.ca/meet-andriy-parubiy-the-former-neo-nazi-leader-turned-speaker-of-ukraines-parliament/5520502
    Not a peep from the Holocaust Biz.

  75. Agree

  76. “Why would these two issues be linked in any way?”

    Surely you’re joking?

    You can’t seriously mean you don’t know that “single market” is a concept that includes the so called four freedoms: freedom of goods, services, capital and persons.

    When you talk about reciprocal arrangement with Germany then this is what you have today.

    Btw,
    the future trade deal you’re talking about will be prevented by the British who almost certainly will push for access to the single market and then the EU side will repeatedly have to point out that if UK voters reject immigration then they don’t want the single market.

  77. You can’t seriously mean you don’t know that “single market” is a concept that includes the so called four freedoms: freedom of goods, services, capital and persons.

    You seem to fetishize “the single market” as it currently exists to an unhealthy degree.

    Britain doesn’t want “access to the Single Market [peace be upon it]”. Britain just wants to trade reasonably openly on mutually agreeable terms with European countries. If that’s not available because Eurocrats are determined to “make an example of” Britain in order to intimidate other countries who might want to follow them out, then there will be no agreement and trade will suffer. That’s not Britain imposing an “embargo”.

    There’s no reason why free movement of people, especially lots of muslim foreigners let in by irresponsible European governments who ought to know better, should be a requirement for trade. That’s just part of the Eurocrat dogma because what they really want is to lay the foundations for a European superstate. If they want to trade with Britain European governments will do a deal on reasonable terms. If they don’t, we’ll all lose out. Better than losing our country forever, though.

  78. Anonymous says

    THE EUROPEAN UNION WAS CREATED BY THE JEWS AS THE MEANS TO IMITATE THE UNITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THEY SAW THE PROSPERITY OF HOW THE UNITED STATES AS ONE OF THE YOUNGEST NATIONS ON PLANET EARTH DEVELOP ITS INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALL AREAS OF TECHNOLOGY, FARMING, MANUFACTURING ETC, EXCIDED ALL OTHER OLDER NATIONS THAT WERE NEVER ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR OWN PROSPERITY.

    THE GREAT DIFERENCE WAS THAT AMERICA WAS ESTABLISHED FROM THE BEGINNING WITH THE PEOPLE THAT GOD OUR CREATOR BROUGHT TOGETHER IN ORDER TO MELT THEIR INDIVIDUAL CULTURES INTO “”” ONE “”” WITH A DOCUMENT CALLED THE CONSTITUTION THAT IN MY OPINION WAS INSPIRED OF GOD OUR CREATOR TO ESTABLISH AMONGST MEN KIND THE FACTS THAT GOD IS THE ONE THAT GAVE US FREEDOM TO EACH ONE AS INDIVIDUALS “”””NOT MEN”””” THERE IS NO OTHER CONSTITUTION ANY WHERE ON THE FACE OF PLANET EARTH THAT READS LIKE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

    NOT EVEN THE IMPOSTOR JEWS WHO MAKE THEIR OWN CLAIM TO BE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD BOTHER TO EVEN HAVE A CONSTITUTION, PEOPLE THAT EVEN HATE THE ONE THEY CLAIM TO BE THE ONE THAT CHOSE THEM.

    NO NATION THAT HAS PUT OUR CREATOR AND SAVIOUR ASIDE CAN EVER PROSPER, AND THAT IS WHY EUROPE AS WELL AS THE AMERICAS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AS THEY CHOSE TO PUT ASIDE OUR CREATOR FROM THE PUBLIC ARENA. SPECIALY WHEN THE WORLD HAS SEEN ALL THE BLESSINGS THAT GOD BESTOWED UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,

    THE DAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OPEN THEIR DOORS TO PERMIT THE JEWS TO COME ON OUR LAND AMERICA BEGAN ITS OWN DECLINE TO THE POINT NOW THAT ALL WE CAN TALK ABOUT IS THE DAMN JEWS AND ALL THE CHAOS THEY ARE CAUSING AROUND THE WORLD. SO WE ALL KNOW WHO THE ENEMY OF HUMANITY IS SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE NON JEW GOING TO DO ABOUT IT WILL IT BE WORTHED TO DESTROY 6’000.000,000.+ HUMAN SOULES IN ORDER TO SPARE A TRIBE OF GODLESS AND LAWLESS CRIMINALS WHOS ONLY AGENDA IS TO DESTROY, CAUSE CHAOS AND STEAL THE BLESSINGS OF ALL OF HUMANITY FOR THEIR OWN WELL BEING? THAT IS WHAT WE ALL ARE COMEING TO THAT POINT OF DECITION AS CREATURES THAT GOD PROVIDED INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS BUT WHOS FEEDOMS ARE BEEN STOLEN BY THIS DERANGED PARASITICAL TRIBE THEY ARE EVERY WHERE WHERE THERE IS WEALTH TO STEAL WETHER IS NATURAL RESORCES OR INDIVIDUAL WEALTH.

    THEY ARE NOT TO PARTICULAR WHEN IT COMES TO STEALING. SO EUROPE WILL NEVER BE WHAT AMERICA BECAME BECAUSE OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL CULTURES AND SPECIALY WHEN THE JEWS ARE TRYING TO FORCE THEM INTO A UNITY THAT WAS NEVER MENT TO BE. SCRIPTURES TELLS US THAT ONLY 10 NATIONS WILL STAY UNITED THAT IS WHERE THE JEW POWER WILL BE CONSENTRATED AS FOR THE JEWS IN ISRAHELL THEY ARE THE GOD AND MAGOG THAT INVADED THE LAND WITH OUT WALLS WITH ALL ITS BANDS OF CRIMINAL JEWS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF ALL EUROPEAN NATIONS BUT THE ONES THAT ARE PRIORITY ARE THE JEWS THAT COME FROM EASTERN EUROPE SPECIALY THE ONES THAT ORIGINATE FROM THE UKRAINE WHICH IS THE LAND OF THE KHAZARS OR MODERN JEWS OF TODAY, WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BIBLICAL HEBREWS WHATSOEVER

  79. If Brexit is done, Paris Market place will grow and London one will collapse.

    http://www.fpga.red

  80. Even more to your point, Crimea actually was a part of Russia for centuries until the Ukrainian Kruchsnev, simply ‘attached’ it to Ukraine.

  81. Doesn’t the City of London have its own sovereignty? Maybe The CofL could stay in the EU and the rest of Uk could leave?

    Brexit could also push companies over to Ireland, where corporation tax is in any case lower.

    Does any of that matter? What is a country, is it only an economy or is it something more than money?

    Most people will vote out of fear, fear of global economics.

  82. Sam Shama says

    [Doesn’t the City of London have its own sovereignty? Maybe The CofL could stay in the EU and the rest of Uk could leave?]

    Right you are, and for HMQE, entering London would only present slightly revised formalities.

    [Most people will vote out of fear, fear of global economics]

    I hope you are right, since some people have more than emotion riding on this outcome.

  83. D’you mean you have a bet on? I listened to CEO Gundrich (something like that) talking about Brexit and I think he was saying now is a good time to buy stock that has gone down in value because Britain ….ain’t going nowhere. Elsewhere I’ve heard GS predict Brexit would lead to 20% downturn in sterling (something like that); I’m sure they’re right – they’re the ones who can make it happen!

  84. Sam Shama says

    Yes you might call it a wager all right!

    Jeff Gundlach [if that’s the chap you are alluding to] is long UST bonds and typically does not comment on stocks; so whatever he said about stocks is likely motivated by his own book.

    Sterling could devalue a fair bit [5-7% , still large], but 20% is absurd. GS is applying fear tactics on willing idiots to dump the sterling I reckon, and in the process reduce the number of ‘yes’ votes. The currency devaluation will be a net benefit for the U.K. and won’t hurt the locals really. GDP will likely fall by 1-1.5% at most, but feasibly countered by policy. Still, even if the vote is a ‘yes’ for exit, nothing is automatic, and terms of trade, commerce and payments are to be negotiated for a period of two years. Europeans are likelier to cry uncle first.

  85. Or he was talking about bonds. Yes, I think he was. He also said that the FED don’t understand that negative interest rates lead to consumers saving not spending and he predicted that the FED would carry on with the policy until it fails to provide the outcome they predict, again. Then they might change tack. Fascinating stuff?

    “‘yes’ for exit”

    You’ve seen the exam paper already??

    Not sure what crying uncle means, I don’t think we do that over here. It means one is hurting? or is it something to do with uncle sam (never really understood uncle sam neither). We’ll be punished either way. Made an example. we could end up envying the greeks. Actually I do anyway. If you’re gonna be poor, make sure you have an idyllic mediterranean backdrop!

  86. Philip Owen says

    The 20 year EU boom has already started. Unemployment is falling to levels not seen since 2006 in the early starters (like the UK). Why? The oil price is down. EU along with Turkey, India and Japan consumed more oil than it produced. In Russia’s EEU, every country is not only poorer than the poorest in the EU but also shrinking. Every country in the EU is growing. Internationally trading SME’s I know and I know many, all report record increases in sales. Another 6 months, maybe even three and this will show to everybody.

    Brexit was built on 40 years of campaigns to create doubt, turn that into fear which makes it easy to create hate and conspiracy theories. Such things attract those who dislike uncertainty, sometimes to the point of mental illness. It is how ISIS or the Pan Slavic fighters in the Donbass are recruited. And now it has recruited a gunman for Brexit. Fear and hate are not the building blocks of freedom and justice.

  87. Philip Owen says

    Thickhead. “Eurocrats” have no power to do anything the Council of Ministers doesn’t tell them to do. The Commissioners are Civil Servants. You promote fear and hate and conspiracy theories. Such things attract the mentally ill who are more determined than you.

    Prime example “Eurocrats are determined to “make an example of” Britain in order to intimidate other countries who might want to follow them out”. You know this do you? When did you attend the Council of Ministers?

    You are not alone. The whole of Russia is being fear washed by viscious nationalists too. Trump is trying hard.

  88. Sam Shama says

    Fed would be hard pressed to raise rates in July . There is is no objective reason to do so and the asymmetry associated with an erroneous raise on one hand, with unanticipated inflation on the other [which can be easily controlled], should prompt them to hold off. What’s sorely needed is sustained spending on infrastructure.

    [crying uncle]

    American idiom which has crept into my speech after having lived in NY for years now. It does mean ‘hurting’ [can’t quite remember any equivalent from U.K. otoh, the Spanish ‘No Mas!’ is the most apt, I should think]

  89. Thickhead.

    Come back when you are able to engage in adult discourse.

  90. annamaria says

    A new paper on Saker blog. Very impressive analysis, the bird’s eye view:
    http://thesaker.is/grandmaster-putin-grandiose-multi-step-operation-lasting-16-years/

  91. [Every country in the EU is growing. Internationally trading SME’s I know and I know many, all report record increases in sales. Another 6 months, maybe even three and this will show to everybody.]

    Kampfgruppe Steiner must be just around the corner! Honest Injun!

    [And now it has recruited a gunman for Brexit]

    Getting pretty desperate, eh? Turn on the waterspouts.

  92. Anatoly Karlin says

    In Russia’s EEU, every country is not only poorer than the poorest in the EU but also shrinking. Every country in the EU is growing.

    Russia is ahead of Bulgaria and Romania however you measure their economies, and by PPP remains in the same league as Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

  93. Anatoly Karlin says

    Grandmaster Putin (Grandiose multi-step operation lasting 16 years)

    Looks like that website has decided to print self-parody.

  94. I think the fed, or someone from the fed, had said, reversing their previous position, no rise for 2 yrs, hence the interview with gundlach.

    “What’s sorely needed is sustained spending on infrastructure.”

    ‘great minds’ …http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-05/30/c_129024689.htm

  95. “And now it has recruited a gunman for Brexit. Fear and hate are not the building blocks of freedom and justice.”

    Yes, the main learning point for citizens is, Far Right = Mentally Ill. They’ve been pushing for this for ages so that they can start removing stuff/people from the internet in the same way paedophilia is dealt with.

  96. Far Right = Mentally Ill

    Most Far Right not Mentally Ill

    Some Far Right=Mentally Ill

    Some Far Right closely approximate Mentally Ill

    “They” use this to defeat ideas and curb support for opposition to what “they” want.

    Solution:

    The pragmatic opposition to “them” rejects and evicts the Mentally Ill and close approximates from the “real opposition.”

    The “real opposition” stands on its own and is immune to being discredited by association with crazy Far Right or approximates.

  97. “The “real opposition” stands on its own and is immune to being discredited by association with crazy Far Right or approximates.”

    That would be like the surprise vote for UKIP – nobody had dared talk about their feelings so the pollsters hadn’t picked it up. But it’s no way to live – reminds me of a Romanian professor telling me that in the communist era he and his colleagues would go to the park if they wanted to discuss something. Czech Rpbc was much worse of course with family members grassing on each other. We’re not quite at that stage in GB yet but secrecy would seem to be the only alternative to bald-headed bravados.

  98. I wrote this to you on t’other thread, hasn’t been published but I thought it quite amusing:

    “Nope. The ANS and the CNS are two parts of a single inter-connected system. The aim is more curling than bob-sledding, with the intellect being the stone.”

  99. I like yours as well, however it seems to describe a well mannered Tory Englishman rather than a Scotch-Irish descendant in the US.

    but secrecy would seem to be the only alternative to bald-headed bravados.

    I have to disagree.

    We need an open conspiracy.

    Tell’em who we are, what we want, what we are against, what we are going to do, how we are going to do it, and then do it.

  100. But isn’t figuring-out who we are the problem? I think in the UK people got caught off-guard. Decades of living in a CofE culture, not having to go to church but voluntarily complying with a tax system full of loop-holes, and with good manners avoiding them. Suddenly to be surrounded by tradition and ritual so entrenched it cannot be prized from the person and a hunger for advancement that ignores all but the most physical of barriers. Once it was decreed that CofE had to mean regular church attendance, even as tax loop-holes were being serially occupied by others, I think a lot of people became culturally-adrift and still aren’t quite sure who they are. Your best idea was the north European neo-genesis, but I think you were being sarcastic. Besides which I can’t bring myself to exclude those adorably passionate southern types.

    I won’t look at Cameron the same again; for sure Osborne should take a broom with him to cabinet meetings in case Cameron runs short on inspiration!

  101. But isn’t figuring-out who we are the problem?

    Absolutely! I tend to think of it in terms of choosing up sides for fighting.

    Christianity has been a major part of the glue for a long time. Will we be able to get by without it? I don’t know, but it looks like we are going to find out.

    culturally-adrift and still aren’t quite sure who they are

    Absolutely! I see a lack of competent and effective leadership. We no longer seem to be able to produce honorable leaders.

    Your best idea was the north European neo-genesis, but I think you were being sarcastic. Besides which I can’t bring myself to exclude those adorably passionate southern types.

    Not being sarcastic at all. I was under the impression that you were into excluding certain groups and wanted to restrict your side on some racial or ethnic basis rather than a political ideology.

    I happen to believe that Western Civilization brought us to the dance, it has had way too much to drink and if we try to go home with it there is a chance that we will crash and burn. Maybe on the way home we will get pulled over and get a DUI arrest, and that will give us a chance to sober up and proceed safely.

    I won’t look at Cameron the same again

    As I said, I think the lack of honorable and competent leadership is one of the main problems.

  102. German_reader says

    “The “real opposition” stands on its own and is immune to being discredited by association with crazy Far Right or approximates.”

    To some extent I agree with this (e.g. in Germany the right-wing opposition party AfD now has trouble with some real crazies among its members elected to state parliaments…one of them, a former Maoist, believes the protocols of the elders of Zion are authentic…such people need to be expelled, they only cause trouble)…but the problem is, where do you draw the line? “Conservatives” in Western countries have been busy denouncing and purging right-wingers for decades, and the end result is that “conservatives” are indistinguishable from the globalist “left” on almost all matters of importance.

  103. where do you draw the line?

    Well, this is the difficult part.

    To take just one slice, the party just has to decide if it is a “normal” nationalist party or does it want to include fascists.

  104. German_reader says

    But that raises the question what you define as “fascist”. Ok, the 88-crowd who want a dictatorship based on the leadership principle, want women subjected and dream of programmes of racial purification achievable only through mass killings are pretty obvious cases. But after that it becomes much more difficult to decide…the use of terms like “racist”, “nazi” or “fascist” has certainly become rather elastic among the political mainstream. Any true opposition will to some extent have to try to break down that pseudo-consensus…but at the same time one has to be wary of genuine extremists and fantasists trying to take over that opposition. Maybe it’s an impossible balancing act, I certainly don’t see any easy answers.

  105. The terms are used by the MSM as terms of opprobrium to de-legitimize their opposition and to keep it dis-organized and deprive it of support from potential adherents. We can see it playing out here with the Trump campaign and it is likely to work. He and his supporters have been and will be repeatedly characterized as racist, fascist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, misogynist, etc. It is working and will likely be the main reason for his demise. He will lose because there is a segment of Republicans that always vote for the Republican candidate and they are going to sit this one out, a few might even vote for Hillary. This educated segment is put off by populist rhetoric and notices all the racists and neo-Nazis coming out of the woodwork to support Trump and they are not going to associate themselves with those people.

    Any true opposition will to some extent have to try to break down that pseudo-consensus…but at the same time one has to be wary of genuine extremists

    Yes, it would be a battle over what those terms actually mean and to whom they apply. Obviously it will be difficult or it would have already been done.

    I am worried that the next few years will be the last chance.

  106. “…History and recent events suggest that is a risky proposition. Inflamed popular passions and overreaching presidents have at times not been checked. Presidents have ignored Supreme Court rulings; and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918, Jim Crow, the mistreatment of German Americans during World War I and of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II, and the investigations of Sen. Joseph McCarthy all showed how a frightened, angry or simply bigoted majority could deprive individuals of their rights despite the Constitution’s checks and balances. That those rights were eventually restored is no cause for satisfaction: The damage done was permanent…

    Will the Republican Party that made Donald Trump its prospective nominee protect us from Trump when he is president? Even as they call him a “textbook” racist

    Today, Americans can’t simply rely on the system to save them from the possibility of a fascist president.”

    This is from the WaPo opinion page.

    Take a look at the hysterical MSM trying to tie everything imaginable to Trump.

    Jim Crow, McCarthism, Japanese interment, etc.

    And most telling, the last line suggesting we can’t rely upon rule of law.

  107. Berta Arnason says

    No matter what, 2016 will have been one of the most decisive years in modern history…

    … or not.

  108. There are a lot of funny things in that cartoon. Too many to list. I am sure everybody has his own personal favorite. I could have easily cited the “Muslim” near the bow of the boat “making moves” on the carved wooden bare breasted figurehead under the bowsprit desperately crossing her arms to cover her bare breasts. Or the Krusty the Clown figure manning the steering wheel.

  109. German_reader says

    Yes, seems hysterical to me. I have my doubts whether Trump is trustworthy (he might just be another oligarch who’s going to throw his voters under the bus and break all his promises…not that my opinion matters, since I’m not American), but his proposals concerning immigration (basically enforcing existing laws and restricting Muslim immigration if I understand correctly) seem well within constitutional bounds to me, no comparison to things like internment of US citizens or restricting basic rights as happened in WW1/2. Pretty sick when it’s coming from an establishment mouthpiece like the WaPo…they certainly weren’t overly concerned with all the constitutionally dubious stuff under the last few presidents.