Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Theresa May holds "No Deal" Brexit cabinet meeting" video.

We can expect.the cabinet subjected to a concentrated version of project fear generated by pro EU civil servants. We can expect members of the government to leave the meeting armed with lots of pro EU advertising material in the form of project fear literature and reports. If we had a real government they would be taking the fight to the EU, pointing out the true down side of remaining in the EU. Those advocating a second referendum to reverse brexit, do not even know if the EU would allow the UK back or the terms under which this might happen. In the unlikely event that a second referendum is held and it manages to reverse the result of the first, without first obtaining the terms for the EU. The UK government might end up having to renegotiate the terms under which the UK remains a member. Better if every one accepts that the UK has burned is bridges and is now fully committed to leaving the EU. The government should now be making ambitions plans for a post brexit Britain. A prospect that will terrify the EU.
9
@Soordhin yes the EU is changing, but in the completely wrong direction. Almost all economists agree the euro zone is unstable because of its lack of central financial control. One of the drivers to federalisation is the need to stabilise the euro zone. The purpose of a federal government is to impose fiscal control on all member states, making it impossible for them to adopt policies of self interest. This is really bad news for the Germans, as they do very nicely out of the current system. All understand that federalisation will result in a significant loss of sovereignty and cultural identity. Many are not willing to take that step. Macron sees the path to controlling the EU in Frances military advantage, not being able to compete with German economic power, hence the push for an EU military. There is little doubt that French military ambitions will get the EU into serious trouble in the medium to long term. When the EU was formed as the common market, the governments of the member states were in control. Slowly as the federal project has developed, power has shifted to the EU civil service and the unelected eurocrats. As there power grows the EU becomes every more undemocratic, with the EU parliament rubber stamping the policies made by the commissioners. The more dictatorial the EU becomes the more the resentment grows among the populations of the member states. It is this that has resulted in the growth of the extreme parties, essentially as the eurocrats refuse to listen, the populous becomes more frustrated and shouts louder and becomes more extreme in their views. Then there is the little matter of migration. I suspect that the EU has used the oppertunity provided by the migrant crisis to dilute the cultural differences between member states with the migrant population. It is EU policy to do everything in its power to bind the member states together by forcing co-dependence and suppress the cultural differences that might otherwise lead to conflict. I am sure the ambition is for the EU to be a monoculture with national loyalties replaced with a single loyality to the EU super state. Unfortunatly it has not worked, as the migrant arrival has further accelerated the rise of nationalist feelings. There is much that can be written about the folly of dumping a large number of ill educated, and therefore unemployable, adult migrants from alien cultures into the EU population. It is reasonable to assume among this number will be militants and extremists. This does not bode well for a stable civilised society, particularly when unemployment is already very high in the EU, with the unskilled facing the greatest difficult in finding work due to advances in industrial technology. Essentially the migrants are likely not to integrate and form ghettos of unemployed resentment and crime. All the above suggests the EU is not the stable utopia you would like us to believe, but is at real risk of falling apart. (You will note that I have not mentioned brexit.)
1
@Soordhin to start other the end. The UK people were lied too when they voted to join the common market. The bit about ever closer union was not mentioned. A few knew the real consequences and voted against joining, as I did. The proof of this treachery was recently revealed by the declassification of the foreign office document FCO 30/1048. This treachery continues to this very day. You repeatedly hold me personally responsible for the treasonous europhilic policies of our current government with all its vested interests. Mrs May is so keen on ingratiating herself with Macron that she has commited UK armed forces to work as mercenaries for the French. For a long time financial vested interests have resulted in the UK speaking loudly while carrying an stick of every reducing size. The exact opposite of Roosevelt doctrine. Like the EU, the UK has an elite class that works for its own interest only. This goes some way to explain why the UK joined the common market, that and the failure of the UK to recover after WWII. In some part the result of the UK government's failure to insist that Germany pay Britain war reparations. To some extent, brexit is a fight against the elites of both the EU and those in the UK establishment. So many bad uk government decisions can only be explained by assuming that vested interest of an elite few played a part, since that level of gross incompetence seems so unlikely. The EU will break up because it serves the same corrupt vested interests that pervade the UK system.
1
@Soordhin you are of course completely wrong and have read into my words thing that are not there. There was a conspiracy among the political classes to get the UK into the common market by any means. Those involved were well aware of the intention to turn the common market into a federal super state, but the information was not provided to the uk public, and any talk of a super state was played down with the preferred reference to a "free trade club". It must be remembered that this all predated the internet, where information about such things is very difficult to suppress. This is not some imagined memory on my part, the details of the conspiracy were recently made public in a declassified UK foreign office document of the time that very accurately forecast what has happened over the last 50 years, ref FCO 30/1048. The Irish question is a red herring, as it is being used by both the EU and those who want a united Ireland. Ironically neither the Irish government or the EU really want a united Ireland at this time, as neither wants the liability it represents. It is just being used as a tool to keep the UK within the EU costume union and therefore under EU control. The factions that conspired to make the UK join the common market still exist and are behind the much of the organised remain campaign. With regard to the UK voting system. Attempts have been made to reform it by converting to some form of proportional representation system, but this was rejected in a referendum vote. The argument being that proportional representation was the system used to get Hitler elected in Germany. A far better reform would be the abolition of the feudal undemocratic house of lords, replacing it with a house of elected people's representatives outside political party control.
1
@Soordhin give thst there was a conspiracy in the uk the population did not have much choice inthe mattrr of joining the common market. Much has been made of the alleged mis selling of brexit to the UK public. But far more information was made available this time, then was provided when we joined the common market. There may in fact be a connection between the mis selling then and now. In the former case the government was all in favour of joining the CM, playing down any possibility that it might lead to a federal Europe. This time the government issued a booklet to every household, making dire warnings about leaving the EU. This time the UK public did not believe them. With regard to the UK political system, elections are about many issues, leaving the winning party the opportunity to Interpret the wishes of the electorate anyway it has to bias it. The first past the post party system means that most seats are safe and play no part in deciding which party forms a government. The electorate do not really vote for a candidate, they vote for a party manifesto, which covers a wide range of issues both local and national. The manifestos can be loaded so that the electorate are tricked into voting for an important issue close to their heart's, such as the NHS, while simultaneously voting for a much less popular issue such as supporting the EU. It is only in a referendum that the will of the people is expressed without ambiguity, which is why the politicians hate them, and why we have so few. The succinct nature of the referendum question dose not allow the electorate to express a view about how their answer is to be implemented. In the brexit case, this was the ambiguity the politicians were seeking, providing the wiggle room to do as they liked. I am not surprised that you support a hard brexit, you are clearly a member of the group that wants the UK to be punished. The only reason that this is even possible is because of the insidious way the EU has positioned itself as legal arbiter of international standards and professional organisations. An area that should have been above EU control in a truly international court where all those subject to its decisions are also automatically represented. But the EU runs a closed shop in these matters. Without a deal the EU is certainly likely to suffer equally with the UK. Philosophically it should be pointed out that that which does not destroy us, makes us stronger. The UK will undoubtedly suffer a hard few years, but the EU may come to regret the creation of a vengeful competitor. A hard brexit will put the UK beyond EU control.
1