BREXIT! — initial concerns and impacts

It is interesting to watch these two pretending how they fight for our interests. It is actually sad, you know. They do not care that our problems ( I mean people who can’t stay three months without having to go to the 1 hour payday loan store), but they pretend that they do. In the end, it does not matter who becomes a president. I think it won’t change a lot for us, usual people. Well, at some point it will, but it won’t be a huge deal for sure. CandiceC

PPS: Then, there is Libya: https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/libya/articles/20160623.aspx kairosfocus

PS: Chaos in the general Congo region: https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/congo/articles/20160630.aspx kairosfocus

F/N: Strategy Page on the Russian wild card:

https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/201607060108.aspx . . . NATO'S biggest difficulties begin in the Russian Kremlin, the one led by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia's creeping war of aggression against Ukraine -- which began with an attack on the Crimean peninsula in February of 2014 -- continues unabated. The Ukraine War has displaced over a million people (1.5 million by some estimates) and killed over 10,000 people. The Ukraine War is on the summit agenda. Ukraine makes no secret of its desire to join NATO. The Ukraine invasion shook neighboring Poland, which maintains close ties with Ukraine. The invasion frightened the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania -- remember, in June 1940, Joseph Stalin's Red Army invaded the Baltic nations and made them Soviet socialist republics. Like the Poles, the Balts say never again. To deter further Russian aggression, all four states demanded a permanent NATO troop presence on their soil. Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey are concerned about increased Russian military activity and belligerence in the Black Sea. The Kremlin's Black Sea mischief leverages its now total control of the Crimean peninsula. For the past four years, NATO's Nordic members, Norway and Denmark, have confronted increasingly belligerent Russian military activity in the Baltic Sea. Russian aircraft buzzed U.S. Navy and British Royal Navy ships. One of the most worrisome Russian military probes occurred in mid-June 2014, when Russian aircraft carrying live missiles bluffed an attack on Denmark's Bornholm Island. Russia's provocative military activity has led some citizens of Sweden and Finland to suggest their countries join NATO. Sweden recently demurred and said joining the alliance wasn't likely. Russia, however, has been openly threatening Finland; Putin recently told Finland that Russia would bolster its forces on the Finnish border if Finland joined NATO. Nevertheless, the foreign ministers of both Sweden and Finland attended a pre-summit meeting in May. That sent a political message Moscow couldn't miss. Other pre-summit activity also sent Moscow a message. I am referring to NATO'S Anaconda 2016 war game, which began in Poland in early June and ran for some 10 days. Over 31,000 NATO soldiers participated, including U.S. and British troops . . .

Part of the context on potential geostrategic fallout from a "rump- state - ification" of the UK. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Fedja Buric of U of Sheffield Dept of history on a comparative with Yugoslavia:

http://www.historymatters.group.shef.ac.uk/brexit-lesson-yugoslavia/ Brexit: A Lesson from Yugoslavia June 30, 2016 · by Fedja Buric · in EU Referendum, History Behind The Headlines, Modern On June 23, 2016 the UK decided to leave the European Union. The Brexit referendum, like any other, was supposed to let the people speak. The trouble is, that they did not speak in unison and now the raison d’être of this multinational state has disappeared. In the early 1990s, Yugoslavs also went to their referendums to determine their willingness to stay in another federation. The result was bloodshed and the fragmentation of Yugoslavia into squabbling, dysfunctional mini nation-states. What can a dead country teach the (barely) alive one? The UK has a lot in common with Yugoslavia. Like Yugoslavia, the UK is a complicated multinational state born out of a contentious historical project that often overlapped with the imperial project of the country that would form the core of the multinational federation. For Yugoslavia, this was Serbia, and for the UK, this was England. Like the English in Scotland and Ireland, the Serbs in Croatia, Kosovo and Bosnia were sometimes perceived as brute conquerors. Like the English, the Serbs felt misunderstood by the populations they were trying to integrate, accusing them of ungratefulness at all the sacrifices they are making for the common cause. Like the non-English in the UK, the non-Serbs in Yugoslavia felt patronised, bullied, and colonised by their more powerful big brother. The creations of both unions were preceded by periods of terrible interethnic and inter-religious violence. And yet, despite the pull of history, the elites managed over time to assemble messy, but durable, multinational experiments. Complicated compromises were hammered out and historical animosities became more predictable and controllable, if not entirely extinguished. Local self-rule and autonomy to ethnically distinct regions was the modus operandi in both the UK and Yugoslavia. For the minorities stuck in areas where their political desires were not shared, there were also special provisions. For the Protestants in Northern Ireland maintaining cultural and political links to their brethren in England was as important as the free flow of cultural capital between the Serbs of Bosnia and the Serbs of their motherland, Serbia. Aware of the unprecedented nature of multinational federations in an era of nation-states, the elites in both federations were reluctant to push any notion of a multinational identity that would supersede the deeply entrenched national identities of the constitutive units . . . . The Yugoslav case defies the notion that democracy is an essential good in itself, that it brings stability and that it liberates people. In Yugoslavia, the 1990s began with a genuine mobilisation of grassroots engagement with the political process. New political parties sprang up overnight. People demonstrated, asking for all sorts of things. Referendums were announced. New futures were promised. The decade ended in a bloodbath, the country tearing itself apart into dysfunctional or nonfunctional nation-states. The end tally: over 100,000 dead, more than 2 million displaced, new borders erected and a future poisoned by hate, division and nationalist-coloured corruption. If there is one lesson the UK should take from Yugoslavia it is this: referendums are terrible. These brief exercises in direct democracy not only fail to solve existential societal questions, but they bring to the fore societal divisions that had previously been channeled into civil political discourse (like in the UK) or, yes, been politically repressed (like in the case of Yugoslavia). Because they are almost always organised around issues that seem existential, their disruptiveness is also due to the fact that they are, mostly, irreversible. Unlike in elections, the losing side cannot redirect its anger into winning the next round because the matter had supposedly been settled forever . . .

Let us hope the comparison fails. KF kairosfocus

F/N: A "simple" Brexit vote breakdown:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/03/brexit-and-beyond-the-great-unruly-rebellion-against-the-neo-liberal-crony-capitalists.html The London Times post-election analysis , notes socialist author James Heartfield, found the upper classes 57 percent for remain, the upper middle class fairly divided, while everyone below them went roughly two-thirds for leave. It doesn’t get much plainer than that. This dissent reflect the consequences of the globalization celebrated by elites in both parties. Britain’s industrial workforce, once the wonder of the world, is half as large as it was as just two decades ago. The social status of the British worker, even among the Labour grandees who pay them lip service, has been greatly diminished, notes scholar Dick Hobbs, himself a product of blue collar east London. “There are parts of London,” he writes, “where the pubs are the only economy.” . . . . The Brexit vote also revealed a chasm between the metropolitan core and the rest of the country. The urban centers of London, Manchester and Liverpool all voted Remain. Central London has benefited from being where the world’s super rich park their money. The devastation of the industrial economy in the periphery has hardly touched the posh precincts of the premier global city. In contrast the more distant, often working class, suburbs of London and other cities voted to Leave. Small towns followed suit. The Brexit vote, suggests analyst Aaron Renn, demonstrated that arrogant urbanites, seeing themselves as the exclusive centers of civilization, ignore those who live outside the “glamour zone” at their own peril. Similar voting patterns can be seen in the US . . .

of course, likely, Scotland views the EU as a counterweight to the toffs of the City. We can see fault lines emerging all over our civilisation, indeed it is interesting to see here the difference between Caribbean elites and the quiet word form more working or lower middle class people with family living and working in the UK, many of whom voted for Brexit. And a lot of people were thinking that the Brussels bureaucrats were too unaccountable, so use the opportunity to vote a way out. KF kairosfocus

EZ, if you refuse to accept that Britain holds a key role as a senior member and counsellor of the maritime-rimlands western alliance (which collectively guards the trade routes and stabilises the world), there is little more to discuss. I am fully aware of the UK's long retreat from the world [e.g. on May 31, I took time out to pay personal respects to the visiting patrol vessel, in effect a coast guard cutter with token armament sent across the Atlantic] and how it in effect sought to become a European state. I also point out the basic geostrategic significance of the UK's location as "cork" of the Baltic. Even so, the UK has been a key global force, on the whole for the good; reduction to a rump state would be a damaging weakening, especially given other weakenings in a dangerous age. Perhaps you may want to read vol 1 of Churchill's history of WW 2, to get an idea of how such weakness opens the door to aggressors and to wars that could be averted through early, prudent action backed up by adequate muscle and a responsible critical mass (as opposed to "consensus"). I point you onward to Mackinder's corpus (start here: http://www.thinkorbebeaten.com/Library/M/MacKinder's%20Heartland%20Theory.pdf ), to this survey: https://espacepolitique.revues.org/1714 and to a current review: http://www.badgleyb.net/geopolitics/docs/theory/defenseofclassicalgeop.htm (you may also want to look up Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard as a fairly modern work). You will note that I point to an opening, Africa and its resources in the context of the IslamIST push and China's search for a resource base that does not cast it into direct contention with Russia, as well as to parallels over the past 500 years: Spain + Latin America, Britain + India, The federated 13 former colonies + North America: continental scale resources count. A side-remark and comments in a blog discussion are not adequate space to elaborate a field of study in its own right. Though, I have pointed to indicators of relevance over the past 100 years, and to onward relevance. Maybe, at minimum, Wiki is a useful 001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrategy KF PS: I am fully aware of the grand apostasy of the West and the underlying fatal intellectual pretensions -- undermined by self-referential incoherence and amorality -- of evolutionary materialist scientism. Plato's parable of the mutinous mis-managed ship of state, suitably adapted to our circumstances, has much to say to us as does the miniature case study of the shipwreck in Acts 27 (which I think Luke in part penned in conscious reflection of Plato). PPS: This survey is also useful: http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History kairosfocus

Oh, by the way, the British MPs are debating whether solicitation by sex workers should be illegal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36677693 The UK no longer patrols the seven seas. Europe is politically stable and increasingly secular. Some yahoos in England were whipped up into a frenzy by dopes like Nigel Farage and were made to believe that by some undefined magic England could be 'great again' and voted out of a free trade and free movement zone. Scotland voted to stay and is willing to exit the UK to be part of a bigger group. ellazimm

KF

In that context, I have been concerned on the specific issue of a reduction of the UK . . . for a very long time, one of the lynchpin states in the Western, Maritime-Rimland Alliance . . . to a rump state given the issue of a likely Scottish exit. That could have sobering geostrategic consequences that should be borne in mind in onward considerations by the Scottish people. This is not just an economic matter or a question of nationalism in a vacuum. Ponder Churchill’s words on the Nazi takeover of Austria, if you want a comparison.

But you're not specific! You just express some vague concern. Britain is no longer a necessary 'lynchpin', stabilising state. AND the UK is still part of NATO which also includes the USA and Turkey. And there is still the UN. Europe is now stable except for some internal squabbles about immigration and 'sovereignty'. So, what is it SPECIFICALLY that worries you about the UK's exit from the EU? '[S]obering geostrategic consequences' means what EXACTLY?

Above, I have simply continued to update — the dropping out of the touted man to beat is a significant development all by itself.

It's interesting from a local political perspective but it's probably an indication of an attempt by the Tories at damage control. Which is a good thing. ellazimm

EZ, you seem to be missing what I have actually pointed to in the context of what you imagine I must mean. I have pointed to geostrategic realities, in explanation given your earlier remarks -- cf 55 - 57 above and additions to the OP. These should show how well they explain key aspects of the past 100 years. They point to a very dangerous time ahead, esp. in the notoriously turbulent ME shatterbelt and in Africa, with extensions into Europe and the Americas. In that context, I have been concerned on the specific issue of a reduction of the UK . . . for a very long time, one of the lynchpin states in the Western, Maritime-Rimland Alliance . . . to a rump state given the issue of a likely Scottish exit. That could have sobering geostrategic consequences that should be borne in mind in onward considerations by the Scottish people. This is not just an economic matter or a question of nationalism in a vacuum. Ponder Churchill's words on the Nazi takeover of Austria, if you want a comparison. KF PS: I am fully aware of the Westminster definition of Prime Minister and its import: he who commands the parliamentary majority, which in this case is tantamount to the Conservative Party parliamentary delegation. Above, I have simply continued to update -- the dropping out of the touted man to beat is a significant development all by itself. kairosfocus

Gotta love it. KF is anticipating the exit of the UK from the EU as being some kind of harbinger of the end of Western Civilisation at the same time completely ignoring the fact that the EU is becoming increasingly secular and in favour of such things as same sex marriage. KF, if you care to defend your views then please explain how Boris Johnson's withdrawal from the Conservative (not the UK) leadership race matters. (Please note: it is true that the Conservatives are the ruling party at the moment but the Prime Minister first has to become the leader of the party. And, in fact, the BBC news item you link to says that explicitly: Boris Johnson drops out of Tory leadership contest. Please try and get your facts straight.) ellazimm

BREAKING: Boris Johnson pulls out of the UK leadership race http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120 kairosfocus

F/N: Daniel Hannan -- We Leavers are not racists, bigots, or hooligans – no matter what the bitter broadcasters say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/we-leavers-are-not-racists-bigots-or-hooligans--no-matter-what-t/ . . . For what it’s worth, polls consistently showed that Leave’s top issue, by a long way, was democracy. Immigration was a distant second and, even among those citing immigration, few wanted or expected that there would be zero settlement from Europe. What they wanted – and what we will be in a position to deliver when we leave – was control. Parliament will decide who comes here and on what terms. How much free movement of labour we retain will be up to us. In the past 24 hours, I have twice had it put to me on air that I am responsible for hate crimes. The first time was by Christiane Amanpour on CNN, who wanted me to condemn some horrible graffiti that she called “fallout” from the vote. When I replied that there were a few racist idiots in every society, she thought that I was refusing to condemn them. So a few hours later, interviewed by Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain, I decided to leave no doubt. Yes, of course I condemned intolerance, though I still thought it absurd to suggest that there was some kind of continuum linking racists to the 52 per cent of Britons who had opted for democratic self-government. Ending the interview, Piers remarked to his co-presenter that condemning the attacks was “the least they could do”. Seriously? Those of us who argued for a global Britain, looking further than one declining trade bloc, are responsible for hatred? I have have spent months campaigning, not only alongside Britons of Commonwealth backgrounds, but alongside many people of Continental origin who have clocked Brussels for the remote oligarchy it is. Are we all racists? Since the vote, I’ve been doing my best to acknowledge the narrowness of the outcome, to take on board the concerns of the 48 per cent. Just as Leavers need to acknowledge that we have only a limited mandate, so Remainers must acknowledge which way the vote went. Only then will it be possible to work together on a new deal with Brussels, keeping parts of our current arrangements while repatriating powers. This isn’t a good time to sulk.

We are here seeing an echo of an all too familiar pattern of narrative shaping and message/ agenda dominance that too often polarises by pigeon-holing people and painting them in lurid caricatured colours rather than responsibly engaging the substantial issues and views they raise. It seems some time out for re-balancing may be in order. This media message dominance and polarisation issue of course ties right back into a main theme of the UD. There is a problem with our media-opinion culture, and if we do not fix it, it will do serious damage. KF kairosfocus

F/N: EU response to Sturgeon's attempt to "simply" keep Scotland in the EU:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/nicola-sturgeons-hopes-of-keeping-scotland-in-eu-dashed-by-spani/ Nicola Sturgeon’s hopes of negotiating a deal to keep Scotland in the EU has suffered a major setback after Francois Hollande ruled out talks and the Spanish Prime Minister said it has to leave with the rest of the United Kingdom. Mariano Rajoy told a news conference following the European Council meeting in Brussels that the Scottish Government “does not have the competence” to negotiate with the European Union. He concluded: “If the United Kingdom leaves... Scotland leaves too.” He was echoed by Mr Hollande, the French President, who insisted the EU will make no advance deal with Scotland. He said: "The negotiations will be conducted with the United Kingdom, not with a part of the United Kingdom.” During a chastening visit to Brussels yesterday for Ms Sturgeon, Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, also made clear that neither he nor European Council president Donald Tusk would “interfere in the British process” by negotiating with Scotland. A series of other member states, including Germany, also said they would not get involved in “internal” British politics.

Of course, Spain has to deal with Catalonia and with Basque separatists, and while it looks at Gibraltar [which voted for stay by about 90%], it too has two enclaves on the opposite shore of the Mediterranean. So, in effect the message is, to "stay" with the EU, Scotland will have to go through a second independence referendum process. Thus, Telegraph went on to say:

Mr Rajoy’s uncompromising stance appears to make a second independence referendum more likely, as Ms Sturgeon has said that she will propose one if that is the “best or only way to protect Scotland’s place in the EU.” But his statement also suggests that a separate Scotland would start life outside the EU and have to negotiate entry, a process that could take years and involve adoption of the euro, a hard border with England and tight public spending controls. [--> That is, such would become a tough road to take]

We live in interesting times. KF kairosfocus

KF, yes, I totally agree with your grave concerns. It only takes one man or race to fan a flame, and one God to deal out justice and mercy. Still, Britex has democratically voted out, come hell or high water. We need people to pull us together; not divide us more. Thank you for a very interesting and thought provoking post. mw

MW, I find our lack of exposure to geopolitics and geostrategy -- thence, grand strategy -- interesting, esp given how powerfully it fits with global developments over the past 100+ years, and how tellingly it speaks to current events and trends; esp Ukraine and the perennial ME shatterbelt in the rimlands. Yes, it is a pretty grim view of history and policy -- esp when one has a choice between a colonising maritime power and an aggressive continental one, but it speaks too well too often to be ignored. And yes, this is part of my context of deep concern for a civilisation in serious decay. KF kairosfocus

KF’s world map marks concerns and potential trouble spots. A spiritual warfare overlay may provide more food for thought. In Christian terms, we fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers in high places (Eph 6:12). This world is a backdrop to such. In relation, a small number of centres may feature on such a map. Down (England), Fatima (Portugal), Rome, and Dallas (USA). All, surely are involved in some kind of spiritual warfare. It is believed that Satan is Prince of this world. Belief/thought is what holds this world together in human terms. The enemy is the best teacher. However, the antichrist plan: start, from Downe, England, which exudes the chloroforming effects of Darwin, now having subdued and almost conquered the world. If I was Satan, my first point of attack would be a divine law that could not be refuted. Six-day creation is just that, tied to a historically unbroken chain of worship that God asked to be remembered every seven days that He created in six days. Darwin is the means, under free will of humans to believe Darwin, who rejected Judaeo-Christianity and Jesus as divine. Eventually, the Trogon horse of Darwin would persuade and coral like-minded evolutionary theistic Christians. Eventually through the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, a pope would be beguiled, possibly from the antichrist himself under the influences ecclesiastical freemasonry. A true wolf in sheep’s clothing. For example, at Assisi, as the principle worked there! All religions and beliefs worshiping together in terms of their own spirituality. At the first world Peace Day (1986) Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran and had a statue of the Buddha on a Catholic altar, wrote J. Allan in letters to the editor, The Catholic Times, (UK) April 24, 2011. Also relating to Assisi, J. Thavis wrote in “Vatican Letter,” The Catholic Times, October 23, 2011, “A tribal chief from Toga invited spirits to enter a bowl of water.” In scripture, that is called sin (Deut. 18:9–14). At the time, the Catholic Church provided the facility. That would be my strategy, and of course, the number of the Beast is the same as man; 666. The chief errors of Darwin and Russia remain. In England, Darwin was buried in a Christian church. Marx is honoured and buried in Highgate cemetery, England. His arrangement took care of by Engels, while the ashes of Engels’ were scattered at sea off Beachy Head, England. Ref also, http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism I say the “errors of Russia,” because we now come to Fatima. An officially accepted mystical phenomena of the Catholic Church, having the mark of the Virgin Mary from 1917. Basically, world peace is the message. However, the request was, for the Catholic Church: that is with all the Bishops of the world, to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart. Yes, I know for non-Catholics such sounds a bit flowery but bear with me. Boy, as the Catholic Church tried to do such; alas never fully succeeding verbatim. Too many political problems, it would insult Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. Besides, no Catholic is obliged to listen to any revelation. Scripture is canonical and nothing else. Speaking as a Catholic, The Vatican is still faced with the prophecies of Fatima, which is now an approved devotion. Still, a more sceptical naturalistic scientific explanation is given here: http://www.livescience.com/29290-fatima-miracle.html Nevertheless, ref, “An Eyewitness Account by Dr José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal:” http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp There are many others. The content of the message is here http://www.rosary-center.org/fatimams.htm However, concerning Fatima, and the messages given to three children in Portugal, seems a done deal: “The Church has stated the consecration has taken place and Lucia who died age 97 in 2005 confirmed it. The following are extracts from Tarcisio Bertone, SDB, Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” “Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (Sim, està feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Março de 1984: “Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984”: Letter of 8 November 1989). Hence any further discussion or request is without basis.” Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith, The Message Of Fatima, Introduction (2000), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html Yet, Pope Benedict XVI said on 13th May 2010, before 500,000 pilgrims at Fatima: “Whoever thinks that the prophetic mission of Fatima is over is deceiving himself.” (Lawyer, John Salza, Pope Benedict Reverses Vatican’s “Party Line” on Fatima), http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Pope%20on%20Fatima.htm And, perhaps the uncertainty is reflected in Pope Frances recent consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart. But why is that needed if Russia was allegedly consecrated for world peace? Has the smoke of Satan covered the request? According to one expert, there is indeed a “basis” for concluding the Church has not complied with the Holy Mother’s request - Russia has not been consecrated. Precariously, in this case, God's time will be the judge. The world is not gaining peace, the world, Christianity, and the Catholic Church is more and more divided. Vast numbers of unborn children continue to die - a seventh of the world’s potential population. This next bit seems as distasteful to read as it is to write. Apparently, Satan uses abortion as a means of a blood sacrifice. Satan is justified by the beguiled slaughter of the innocents and gains power from such. Dallas is from where the signal to abort legally was placed under starters orders, spreading death. As for Fatima, a small problem remains: next year is 2017, a hundred years after the request. And later, when allegedly Jesus spoke to Sr Lucia: http://www.fatima.org/essentials/message/msgtohier.asp To put it simply: Jesus is alleged to have referred to the King of France, pointing out the following similar request “to have the Royal Court of France participate in a special ceremony consecrating France to the Sacred Heart, and to put the emblem of the Sacred Heart on the flag of France;” the King of France was given 100 years. A king was beheaded 104 years later. The hundred years for Fatima is up in 2017. The Church and people can lose heads in many ways, but oh for world peace under the Prince of Peace. We shall see. Darwin, an Englishman, surely pressed button hell when he unleashed his degrading theory. Still, people slowly warmed to such unseen spiritual captivity. Of course, the gates of hell will not prevail. What then does it mean, “in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph” for Catholics and world peace? Christianity is a little flock, it has not world domination. But a little rump without a little flock is far worse than some would paint the outcome of the EU referendum. That is possible, as mentioned, 2067 is the projected end of significant Christianity. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/ In my opinion, the Christian movement will be given another chance. England in time will recover, rebuild and prosper. Worry will not build or add anything to England; pulling together in a strong faith will. mw

More from Moncton:

The necessity to protect the flagile flower of democracy from the scythe of Socialism is now surely self-evident. Here are two modest proposals to ensure that the will of the people prevails over the power of the politicians, the Press, and the profiteers. First, every new treaty, and as many pre-existing treaties as possible, should be made subject to repeal by a national referendum – and not just by a referendum called by the governing party because it thinks it can win it but by the people via the initiative procedure. Britain would have left the EU long before now if we, the people, and not those who govern us, had had the right to put referendum questions on the ballot. Secondly, the governing bodies of all new supranational or global bodies exercising real sovereign power or spending taxpayers’ money from the states parties to the treaty that establishes them should be elected at frequent intervals by the peoples of those states parties. Otherwise every international treaty, being a transfer of power from elected to unelected hands, diminishes democracy. Britain’s membership of the European Union effectively took away our democracy altogether, so that three new laws in five (according to the researchers of the House of Commons Library) or five in six (according to the German Government in a submission some years ago to the German Constitutional Court) are inflicted upon us solely because the unelected Kommissars require it. Till now, our obligation has been to obey, on pain of unlimited fines. The vote by the people of Britain to break free from this stifling, sclerotic tyranny has sent a shock-wave through every major international governing entity. It was no accident that the the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Corruption and Devastation, and various world “leaders” including Mr Obama, broke with democratic convention by openly promoting a “Remain” vote in a flagrant attempt to interfere in Britain’s decision.

Muy interesante. I wonder if that is why power of the people by initiative forcing a referendum seems to be most unpopular in halls of power? kairosfocus

Moncton of Bretchley on Brexit: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/24/thank-you-america/ Point to ponder:

For my final broadcast to the nation on the eve of Britain’s Independence Day, the BBC asked me to imagine myself as one of the courtiers to whom Her Majesty had recently asked the question, “In one minute, give three reasons for your opinion on whether my United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union.” My three reasons for departure, in strict order of precedence, were Democracy, Democracy, and Democracy. For the so-called “European Parliament” is no Parliament. It is a mere duma. It lacks even the power to bring forward a bill, and the 28 faceless, unelected, omnipotent Kommissars – the official German name for the shadowy Commissioners who exercise the supreme lawmaking power that was once vested in our elected Parliament – have the power, under the Treaty of Maastricht, to meet behind closed doors to override in secret any decision of that “Parliament” at will, and even to issue “Commission Regulations” that bypass it altogether. Worse, the treaty that established the European Stability Pact gives its governing body of absolute bankers the power, at will and without consultation, to demand any sum of money, however large, from any member state, and every member of that governing body, personally as well as collectively, is held entirely immune not only from any civil suit but also from any criminal prosecution. That is dictatorship in the formal sense. Good riddance to it. I concluded my one-minute broadcast with these words: “Your Majesty, with my humble duty, I was born in a democracy; I do not live in one; but I am determined to die in one.”

Is this perception well grounded, why or why not? Are we being exposed to sobering geostrategic risks because of blunders in the organised governance structures of the de facto European Federation central government that seem to have forced a walkaway option? Or, is there a better warranted explanation? And, what about Scotland? kairosfocus

F/N: NATO vs Warsaw Pact, to further illustrate. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Second study above, by Peter van Ham:

An impressive number of thorough reports have been published over the past few years, analysing the economic, financial, trade and political costs and benefits regarding Britain’s membership of the EU, as well as the process and consequences of Britain seceding from the EU. 9 Given the polarizing nature of the Brexit debate, the ‘Leave’ campaign tends to portray the EU as a fossilized relic of the past, with Brussels as its bureaucratic Moloch, whereas the ‘Remain’ campaign argues that without EU membership, the United Kingdom’s prosperity and safety are at risk. Despite these contrasting positions, there is remarkable bipartisan consensus that the EU needs reform. But whereas the ‘Remain’ campaign suggests that the United Kingdom ‘can influence [the EU] far better from inside than outside’, 10 the ‘Leave’ campaign seems to have lost all hope that Britain can halt the EU’s development towards a United States of Europe, mainly since the Eurozone now makes all of the key decisions. The rules of this high-stakes’ EU poker game dictate that all of the players keep their cards close to their chests, upping the ante for the future of Europe. The United Kingdom’s 27 EU partners will be tempted to compromise just enough to convince the majority of the British electorate to tick the ‘Remain’ box. For the United Kingdom, the coming months will be decisive for its role and place in Europe, as well as the world.

Not enough. We now face consequences. KF kairosfocus

Some strategic context: http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2016/01/brexit-and-defence-where-is-the-strategy/ (bit short on the Scotland exit front). More: https://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/Brexit%20Report%20February%202016.pdf and http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/A-EU-without-the-UK-LSE-IDEAS-Strategic-Update.pdf kairosfocus

PS: I added an insert in the OP, to give a bit more flavour to geostrategic concerns. kairosfocus

EZ, The geostrategic threats are identified, and Africa seems to be the continental resource base open for taking (unfortunately) -- cf Mackinder on the significance of such, or the implications of Latin America for Spain, India for the UK and North America for the US over the past 500 years of a truly global world stitched together in the main by seaborne trade and then by continent spanning rail, telecommunications and highways. C 1904, Mackinder and others after him saw rail and new comms tech as opening up essentially E Europe and Siberia as a continental resource base. They thought in terms of German and Russian states dominating that zone and through this the world. The history of C20 has been shaped by two German and one Russian grab for just that base. Not mere coincidence. Look up, Lebensraum. Septemberprogramm is also illuminating. In context, the recent developments of the UK may well lead not merely to destabilisation but dismemberment of UK, leaving just a rump state. UK is of course a major power in the Western alliance, and especially as a guiding power (as retired from directly ruling the world order -- Pax Britannica -- through the Royal Navy 100+ years past). That alone makes me take sobering pause as I look at the matches being played with. (To get an idea, look at who is happy to see UK possibly being taken off the global board, and who are concerned or outright worried. It heartens me to see Germany in the latter column.) Where maritime powers, though prone to colonial games, on the whole have been less of a globally threatening aggressive threat than continental ones. I suspect it is connected to requisites of trade and keeping sea lanes open. Of course, historically, being colonised has been a decidedly mixed blessing and slavery was a crime. However, it is to be noted that many peoples in the British empire saw beyond the evils and willingly stood to help hold the line in two world wars. We treasure many aspects of British heritage to this day, starting with parliamentary democracy and cricket. (Not necessarily in that order!) So, yes, I am sketching an outline, but this is a serious matter. And yes, I expect Africa to become a centre of major geostrategic confrontation in coming decades. With the Nile corridor (think, update to Cairo to Cape) and the land bridge of the Levant also coming into serious play. Notice, it is not a coincidence that these are exactly the loci of much of what is grabbing headlines. And, it sure looks like the Persian Empire is back (and back on the Syrian coast), with nukes or about to have nukes. (The Sunni-Shia contention for leading the IslamIST march is a secondary conflict in this.) KF kairosfocus

Ell My point is that the MEP's have no power. The European Parliament cannot initiate legislation, propose legislation or repeal legislation. The power to legislate does not reside with Parliament rather unelected EU officials. Of course it is heaven to be an EU official, who wouldn't want to get on board the Brussels Gravy Train? They have their own shopping mall closed to the public. There are 10,000 EU officials 1/5 that make more money than David Cameron. EU officials get a moving allowance, a household allowance, an entertainment allowance, a healthcare allowance and a private education allowance for their children. No public schools for them. As for MEPs they earn an extra 250 pounds a day, 41,000 pounds per year for phone bills,225,000 pounds for staffing and of course they charge themselves a special low tax rate. What's not to like? I won't get started on the regulations like the 26,000 words of regulation for cabbage or the 12,000 regulations for milk and the 625 for coffee. Vivid vividbleau

Thank goodness the failed socialist experiment called the EU has stared collapsing. Andre

KF

EZ, to see what I mean on a dangerous world, please cf the illustration of geopolitical concerns in the OP.

I see you making lots of vague and grandiose statements that are not very specific. But you seem to dodge and dance without making specific predictions. Please, tell us, SPECIFICALLY, what it is you are worried about. Not just 'destabilisation'. Not just 'a shift of power'. In particular what is it you fear? The UK leaving the EU is having predicted and predictable effects on the global economic market but I don't see that as a harbinger of the fall of Western civilisation. I suspect you're worried about Germany but will not explicitly say so. If I'm wrong then please tell me off. ellazimm

vividbleau

The EU is anti democratic.

And yet the UK had elected members of the EU. And the UK had veto powers over many things. And yet the UK could chose to leave.

The MEPs have no power. Also since the late 80’s Britian has voted 70 times against EU legislation and are 0 for 70.

And how many times did they agree with the majority and vote on the winning side? A lot more times. Look it up. And it would be childish to ask that the UK always get its way. So please, look up the whole record and then decide. The fact that the UK has affected EU legislation outside of their MEPs belies your statements. Famously Margaret Thatcher negotiated a special rebate. If the UK doesn't want to be part of the club then they are allowed to leave. And there is a procedure to follow as stipulated by rules of the club. This is not some arch-evil empire. ellazimm

F/N: Boris Johnson speaks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/ More than 17 million people voted to leave the EU – more than have ever assented to any proposition in our democratic history. Some now cast doubt on their motives, or even on their understanding of what was at stake. It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so. After meeting thousands of people in the course of the campaign, I can tell you that the number one issue was control – a sense that British democracy was being undermined by the EU system, and that we should restore to the people that vital power: to kick out their rulers at elections, and to choose new ones. I believe that millions of people who voted Leave were also inspired by the belief that Britain is a great country, and that outside the job-destroying coils of EU bureaucracy we can survive and thrive as never before. I think that they are right in their analysis, and right in their choice. And yet we who agreed with this majority verdict must accept that it was not entirely overwhelming. There were more than 16 million who wanted to remain. They are our neighbours, brothers and sisters who did what they passionately believe was right. In a democracy majorities may decide but everyone is of equal value. We who are part of this narrow majority must do everything we can to reassure the Remainers. We must reach out, we must heal, we must build bridges – because it is clear that some have feelings of dismay, and of loss, and confusion . . .

I gather, man to beat for follow-on Prime Minister. This part does not give me much comfort:

At home and abroad, the negative consequences are being wildly overdone, and the upside is being ignored. The stock market is way above its level of last autumn; the pound remains higher than it was in 2013 and 2014 . . .

I thought, lowest level in 31 years against US$??? [Cf. 20 year trend added to PS, OP.] $1.34 overnight, now 1.32, 1.36 Fri? And:

We had one Scotland referendum in 2014, and I do not detect any real appetite to have another one soon; and it goes without saying that we are much better together in forging a new and better relationship with the EU – based on free trade and partnership, rather than a federal system.

Really? The SNP has already announced they are going for a second referendum -- as warned in advance. KF kairosfocus

Vivid, point. Sobering. KF kairosfocus

EZ, to see what I mean on a dangerous world, please cf the illustration of geopolitical concerns in the OP. KF kairosfocus

Ell "That is just untrue. Not only did Britain have elected MEPs (Members of the European Parliament, one of who is one of the ring leaders for the ‘leave’ campaign, Nigel Ferage) but the UK had lots of veto privileges " The MEPs have no power. Also since the late 80's Britian has voted 70 times against EU legislation and are 0 for 70. Vivid vividbleau

"Vivid "No it’s not over, when you don’t like the vote, vote until you get the result you want. Actually I think something like this was said by a top EU leader. I will try to locate it if I can." Found them. Here is what the former PM of Belgium said regarding a referendum on the EU constitution " If the answer is no, we will probably will have to vote again because the answer must absolutely be a yes" Jean Claude Juncker regarding the French referendum on the EU constitution "If it's a yes we will say" on we go "if it's a no we will say "we continue" Look how the EU responds when people reject their mandate. The people voted to reject the Mastricht Treaty, The Nice Treaty,the French referendum on the constitution , the Netherlands referendum on the EU constitution,the Lisbon Treaty,the Euro bailout. All rejected .Every time the EU either made them vote again to get the result they wanted or just ignored the vote altogether! The most outrageous statement made by Juncker is this little ditty. "When it becomes serious we have to lie" He also said "There can be no democratic choice against the European Treaties" The EU is anti democratic. Vivid vividbleau

Robert Byers

it really was about who is the boss. THe EU was taking over Britain by imposing conclusions without British support or ability to discuss things.

That is just untrue. Not only did Britain have elected MEPs (Members of the European Parliament, one of who is one of the ring leaders for the 'leave' campaign, Nigel Ferage) but the UK had lots of veto priviledges.

True Englishman voted out. It was the others and dumber young people who voted stay in.

Clearly you are ill informed as to the nature of the debate and who supported what side. There were lots and lots of businessmen, senior conservative politicians, the governor of the bank of England (who is Canadian), etc who wanted to stay in the EU.

It was the leftwing elite that lost. Congrats to the people to strike at them.

Again, don't talk about stuff you haven't bothered to learn about.

When so many people want out of a unnatural union then they should be respected. in fact the STAY IN vote should of been needing say 70% to represent a united nation. THe pro EU folks are the ones causing the trouble.

You don't live here and you are pretty clueless regarding the issue and who supported which side. ellazimm

KF

Ponder the historical relationships between the two, the resources and synergy brought to the table and to the wider world (for all the sins, doing a literal world of good) from the days of the Stuarts on. (And yes, I can feel the ancestral tug of the vision of Scotland, but there are days such that “Those days are past now, And in the past they must remain.”) Then ponder a weakened, polarised, rump Britain in an increasingly dangerous age. And that is before we get to the issues of economics etc.

I completely agree with the danger to world-wide economics. And it has been destabilising already. But you've not very specific about anything else. Are you afraid of a resurgent Germany then? ellazimm

I'm Canadian and welcome a vote here about living with our NATIONS. FIrst, Quebec, Multicultural, ana a few others. anyways. Not everyone voted and so they voted for the winner too. I think 25%. They matter too. it really was about who is the boss. THe EU was taking over Britain by imposing conclusions without British support or ability to discuss things. If a nation is going to exist then exist without other nations controlling you. Immigration, religious, gay, feminist, etc issues were all being decided by the EU. Never mind the wicked human rights tyranny attempts. True Englishman voted out. It was the others and dumber young people who voted stay in. The good guys won this time. By the way. The stock market reaction shows how its not related to real economy but instead impressions of the economy. A lesson there too. It was the leftwing elite that lost. Congrats to the people to strike at them. When so many people want out of a unnatural union then they should be respected. in fact the STAY IN vote should of been needing say 70% to represent a united nation. THe pro EU folks are the ones causing the trouble. Robert Byers

The European Union once adopted a resolution against creationism / intelligent design. The dangers of creationism in education http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=17592&lang=en Creationism is the philosophical foundation of democracy. Opinion is a creationist concept, and choosing is the mechanism of creationism. Now the EU is punished for being undemocratic and out of touch with people's emotions. Justice is served on the EU. mohammadnursyamsu

Splatter, I am quite concerned. KF kairosfocus

Update, Yahoo News: >>NEW YORK (Reuters) - The $2.08 trillion wiped off global equity markets on Friday after Britain voted to leave the European Union was the biggest daily loss ever, trumping the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy during the 2008 financial crisis and the Black Monday stock market crash of 1987, according to Standard & Poor's Dow Jones Indices. Global markets skidded following the unexpected result from the June 23 referendum, in which Britons voted to withdraw from the EU by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin. Markets in mainland Europe were hit the worst, with Milan and Madrid each down more than 12 percent for their biggest losses ever. Britain's benchmark FTSE 100 was down nearly 9 percent at one point on Friday, but rallied to close down 3.15 percent. The route started in Asia, with the Nikkei down 7.9 percent, and carried over into Wall Street as the S&P 500 fell 3.6 percent. Mohit Bajaj, director of ETF trading solutions at WallachBeth Capital LLC in New York, said the severity of the sell-off was partly due to investors misreading the outcome and betting the wrong way. "People positioned themselves longer because they thought the market was going to pop," he said. "We knew that we were going to sell off pretty hard and people were kind of shocked by the market.">> KF kairosfocus

Interesting piece, mw. But I would guess that Christians or those influenced by it won it for Brexit, because there is little for the establishment to frighten them with. As for "end of statistical Christianity": I'll trust in God's purposes not census data, thanks. Pollsters can't even get the outcome of a referendum right one night before the vote. Already those whom DOL refers to as "asshats" have staged a faux protest based on a jimmied "petition" which had many 1000s of bent signatories. The people now rejecting democracy are those that try and win by whingeing with hashtags, shaming, no platforming etc. Most constitutional experts find it laughable: 100000 signatures from a website vs 17M votes to leave collected and counted under electoral law? Please. The much vaunted Bregret photos are also staged nonsense. Not hard to find a flimflam voter who took a punt on something without knowing what they wanted now caving under social media pressure, wailing "I've changed my mind!"---as if it was reality TV. The truth is, none of my leave friends have changed their minds. Shared the pain of the last few days (and months to come), sure. But this is the long game. Both our major political parties have collapsed with infighting, laying bare their lack of principles and collegial respect. Most people here just want to pull the plaster off and get on with it. There are alright signs of some stoic optimism amongst the grownup element, and sensibility returning to the markets. Splatter

Apologies KF, "out" should read "in." mw

It seems KF would have voted out. Is dwindling Christian England afraid of being a little flock? Over half did not vote to stay, money or no money. It is an outrage that a democratic decision cannot be respected. We all voted as one! Note: as one! Not for some to spit their dummy out of the pram. It is odds on, that Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, would have found a pretext to leave England irrespective, that is why she is where she is following her loss in the Scottish English referendum a while ago! Sour grapes again! As for initial good of the EU, Robert Schuman, a Catholic French minister of Foreign Affairs, in 1950, proposed that France and Germany should pool their production of coal and steel, the cause of centuries of enmity between France and Germany. The first European Community was born and from it, the European Union. Closed was the process for his beatification in 2004. He had worked for a Christian Europe. However, in England, June 2014, ‘coincidently’ following a similar European Council resolution of 2007, the secularist British Humanist Association was triumphant after lobbying when new educational laws were quietly introduced which, “prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.” Evidence, interpretation, and “truth” come in many forms. Irrespective; in Europe, ISIS had judged Paris a ‘justifiable’ target. Award winning reporter Iben Thranholm for the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, reported their murderous statement: “a blessed battle whose causes of success were enabled by Allah;” targeted because it is “a capital of prostitution and vice” and “the lead carrier of the cross in Europe.” She mentions posted images were taken moments before the concert massacre showing people making a sign for horns (Black Sabbath first copied the sign into heavy metal) in preparation for a song from the Eagles of Death Metal; “Who’ll love the Devil? Who’ll sing his song? … I will love the Devil and his song.” http://creation.com/terrorism-europe-spiritual-vacuum After Brixit, it seems that the banking giant HSBC, is pulling out of London 1000 employees and going to Paris. However, no worries, in a letter, Darwin dismissed hell, and Christianity as divinely religion, and Jesus as divine. Ironic, Darwin made a God in the image of war and death to give his theory some religious front. Darwin certainly died to the Judaeo-Christian God, which speaks volumes for his theory. He wrote: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.” (Origin, 1859, p 490) What; Jesus/God evolves life by natural war, famine and death; IS exterminating Christians, abortion crushing babies, and casting out divine law and Gospel teaching, when Jesus fulfilled six day Sinai law as God-Man (Jn 8:58) & (Matt 5:17-18)! Where are we Brits heading if we carry on as we are? In 2015, The Spectator reported that by extrapolating the National Census (2001 & 2011) — the end of statistical Christianity in Britain is 2067. Big changes are needed. mw

My own thoughts: http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2016/06/brexit-will-scotland-leave-uk-after-300.html kairosfocus

More on the potential dismembering of the UK: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/world/europe/after-brexit-3-centuries-of-unity-in-britain-are-in-danger.html?action=click&contentCollection=Style&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article kairosfocus

The EU is a bloated bureaucracy and not accountable to those they govern. It favors large international corporations over small business as only the large ones can afford to navigate the regulatory burdens. It is a tool of the moneyed interest. Desperate all their public whining multinational corporations love heavy regulation because it is a barrier to competition. No it's not over, when you don't like the vote, vote until you get the result you want. Actually I think something like this was said by a top EU leader. I will try to locate it if I can. The stakes are so large for the moneyed interests that somehow someway this will probably be reversed by hook or crook. Vivid vividbleau

The EU ia an unprecedented (never happened in our human history) achievement. The union of the US was the first example of differences uniting, but the EU was the uniting of ancient hatreds dating back centuries; it will survive these early rumblings just as the US (the Federalist Papers) survived its birth: They have the advantages of knowing the US example, and being the home of enlightenment thought Article 50 which must be acted upon hasn't been tabled in the British parliament yet. Already the 'exiters' are distancing themselves from their 'success'. Scotland will leave unless there is extreme backtracking. "Be careful for what you wish for you may actually get it!" This is by no means over. rvb8

It now looks like there is a "Regrexit" backlash. It's noteworthy that the petition to hold a second referendum now has over two million signatures in support. One other point, for all its faults, people underestimate just what an achievement the EU is. Think about it, the states of Europe fought each other for centuries for various reasons, culminating in two devastating world wars in the twentieth century which left much of the continent in ruins. Yet, within three decades, a group of disparate nations with different languages and cultures had managed to co-operate and build a prosperous and successful common market and were trying to move it towards a federal state. When has that ever happened before? The United States had the immense advantages of a common language and culture and even they fought a bloody civil war. The other groupings, such as the old Soviet Union or Communist China, were vassal states held in thrall by the brute force of a military dictatorship. Seversky

Arrogance and unaccountability having painful consequences, where the election is an institutionalised potential revolution. Message: do not corner the ordinary man. kairosfocus

This was a good thing. The British people had almost given everything up. Polls ahead of the referendum said that people were responding 50:50. But many more people, when asked "What do you think the effect on the UKs finances would be?" ticked something to the effect of "Bad. I'll be poorer." They voted out in the full knowledge our economy would hit the rocks. I was one of them. I have never been prouder to be British. My children live in a parliamentary democracy and will get to keep their history and culture. All foreigners welcome, any time. We are out of the EUSSR! The American people need to see we are hard working, honest and do the right thing. You can trust us with your investment because we are toughened industrialists with a fine history. If you are getting peddled "it was the white working class xenophobia" load of balls out there, that's what it is. Balls. A large chunk of voters were the elderly who fought in the war and rebuilt Britain. I know tonnes of Brexiters. Racist, they are not. Many here voted Remain, and they had good reasons too. My family was spkit down the middle. But their priorities were not mine. Splatter

As an English Brexit voter, a few thoughts on why I voted out. First, to take back our sovereignty. To be able to remove a single government, not a faceless multitude of people representing governments we never elected. To control our own laws, not silly law making laws like what shapes bananas should conform to. To be able as an island, able to control our borders; something like Australia. We have been under the economic cosh for ages, some a lot more than wealthy others, and as a result of Bankers getting it wrong. Yet it was taxpayers who bailed them out. Why should we bother if we suffer a little longer, cuts are still increasing to pay for the banker debt? Economically, in the long term, to take back our own law making sovereignty is priceless. Then there is the Council of Europe, who long ago placed their 12 stars around the teaching of their beloved Darwin, detesting any challenge. The Council of Europe declared “It is impossible to reconcile faith and science” meaning faith based on Sinai and God’s word personally; as evolutionism is, “the central theory for our understanding of life on earth and for the reassessment of the foundations of our societies,” and “absurd” is evolutionary theories that included God. (Article 18, Resolution 1580, 2007) http://creation.com/resisting-the-secular-slide (“The European Union is the Council of Europe’s most important institutional partner at both political and technical levels. Co-operation embraces all sectors of the Council of Europe and a wide spectrum of activities, making the European Union an ‘across the board’ partner.”) http://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/south-programme2/themes In Judaeo-Christian terms, such resolution intellectually places a crown of ignorance on Jesus, making Him and the “Saviour” Father Yahweh (Isa. 43:11) to live in the past. Jesus then is tarred as an unworthy saviour, because He is not ‘scientific,’ not a truly knowledgeable saviour for all times. Evolutionism means His judgement is seriously flawed on origins. If the evolutionistic Council is true, then such scripture from Sinai, containing a clear cut divine law, becomes totally unrecognisable nonsense. The Council of Europe went further, “Creationism, if we are not careful may be a threat to human rights, which are at the heart of the concerns of the Council of Europe, firmly oppose the teaching of creationism.” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe_2007_resolution_on_the_teaching_of_creationism Surely it is not against teaching the flaws in Darwinism? The Council of Europe has plenty to say about ID - it is dangerous: “Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.” The Father teaches creationism and as a divine law from Sinai; the Son upholds what the Father teaches, who are one in essence. The Council of Europe have made The Judaeo-Christian God a threat to education and hence, ‘human rights’: meaning, secularist education. Such is agnostic/atheistic captivity; the errors of Russia. However, yes, the UK economy will pay initially, but all those in the UK now have to make the new British system work. Yes, there are challenges ahead, including Scotland. Help is also needed from America, not putting us to the back of the cue! Then again, Americans may vote Trump! He seems to like taking things back! mw

This is why the founding fathers of the US established a federalist union of smaller "nation-states" and intended to keep the power and influence of the federal government to a minimum: they recognized the nature of humans to collect into and strongly identify with more local, tribal (community) groups; and they recognized the inherent problem of large, overbearing powerful governments removed by distance and characteristics from wide swathes of the citizenry. The Nation-State is, IMO, about as large as an effective government can be (depending on the geographical size and diversity of population of the nation in question). Globalism is a utopian pipe-dream for the foolish and a tool for tyrannical self-empowerment for the unscrupulous. IMO, the USA may be headed for a similar break-up as the entrenched global elitists try to force the rest of us down a path they sell as utopian but turns out to be a third world hell. Perhaps the nationalist/populist backlash currently going on will take a lesson from history and avoid extremist mistakes. William J Murray

Let us ponder how our civilisation is heading for a cliff . . . kairosfocus

F/N: I added a chart showing how the Pound went over a cliff and has been pounded. KF kairosfocus

Both, resist reform. kairosfocus

Barry Arrington @ 5

I see the Brexit vote as mainly a rebuke of rule by unaccountable bureaucrats.

I agree. Brussels has come to be seen as remote, unaccountable, complacent, arrogant and probably corrupt. Much as Washington is seen in the US. Both need reform. Seversky

Mung @ 22

What’s next? Canada declares independence from England?

Be our guest. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Seversky

What's next? Canada declares independence from England? Mung

Vivid, I suggest the UN is largely an irrelevant sideshow on Turtle Bay. The EU-NATO and its connexions in a network is much more closely the heir of the League. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Vanity Fair, of all sources, has thoughts worth pondering:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/how-britain-was-broken In the first hours of the strange new world, Prime Minister David Cameron, a broken man, announced that he would be stepping down, implicitly acknowledging that referendum was entirely of his making, and that he was responsible for losing it. Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, announced that the country, which had voted overwhelmingly to remain, would likely be seeking a new independence referendum in order to join the E.U. as an independent nation. In Northern Ireland, where a majority had also voted to remain, Martin McGuinness, the deputy first minister and member of nationalist Sinn Fein, called for a poll on a united Ireland. Nearly a century after the Irish Civil War, and only decades removed form incomprehensible atrocities of the Troubles, it is indeed conceivable that the border between Ulster and the Republic could be vanquished. If these things happen, and there is no reason why they shouldn’t, the United Kingdom, once a great power and still the world’s fifth-largest economy, will be reduced to a rump state of England and Wales. It would have a vastly diminished presence on the international stage—the victim, as Der Spiegel noted, of “an act of deliberate self mutilation” that bears the “emblem of a country in retreat.”

BBC, on the SNP announcement -- which prolongs the period of uncertainty and turmoil:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36621030 Scotland's first minister has said a second independence referendum is "highly likely" after the UK voted to leave the EU. Nicola Sturgeon said it was "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faced the prospect of being taken out of the EU against its will. She said the Scottish government would begin preparing legislation to enable another independence vote. Scotland voted in favour of the UK staying in the EU by 62% to 38%. The UK as a whole has voted to leave, by a margin of 52% to 48%

I am not so sure visceral hostility among "right wing parties" is the right locus of blame, noting for just one instance the role played by Labour supporters in the result. The fundamental concern seems to be out of touch, unaccountable unresponsive elites and bureaucrats. KF kairosfocus

News, this is completely off topic but I thought that you might find some enjoyment in a FB group "Runnymede Remembered". It is run by an ex student and teacher. magna charta

Dion @10 "How" It won't work but it is the next step in the progression.It can't be the people running things so the argument is its the system. Vivid vividbleau

Vivid, very good summary at 12. I think that the European Union has done wonders for peace in the area. This is not because of the governing itself, but because of the free and easy movement of people between "countries". The more that this occurs, the more that cultural/racial/religious stereotypes break down. We all have far more in common than we differ. We all want what is best for ourselves, our family and our friends. Besides, there is no better feeling than to socialize with people when you don't share a language. I have had the luxury to travel to all of the continents but Antarctica, 50+ Different countries, hand have been able to community cate in every one. magna charta

vividbleau @12

Thus we need to to get rid of nationalism, sovereign borders, etc. in order to have economic security and the abolition of war, it’s inevitable.

How? Dionisio

Haha! If only it was something truly British. I have lived in the UK for a long time and it is frightening how the attitude towards immigration and the mild racist lies that are being fed to the natives are being lapped up. Dr JDD

JDD I heard , not sure if it's true, that the regulations of their teapots was the last straw:) You don't mess with the Brits tea!! LOL Vivid vividbleau

They asked the British public to name a new important boat and they came up with "Boaty McBoatface". So why are we surprised when they vote to leave the EU when their is deceit on both sides? Humans are easily led by emotions and when people in power support selfishness and promote it what do we expect? This was decided largely on the arguments around immigration. The timing was awful for the remain campaign. Terrorism, fleeing refugees, times of economic stagnation - all of this led to people believing change in state membership would make these things better. This is all part of a plan though,... Dr JDD

KF Truth be told economics belongs in the philosophy department. "History may not always repeat itself but it does rhyme" In one form or another the history of mankind is a struggle for power between those that rule and those ruled. Every bit of power the Govt takes it removes a liberty to the governed. Our founders (USA) recognized this having broke away from the monarchy. They knew what tryanny resulted in. Over the years more power rests in Govt. It has been a slow steady march which always drifts towards more power by the ruling class and less power for the people. The struggle for liberty is always ongoing. I think it is inevitable that it is the people that will always get the short end of the stick. Today we have the United Nations, the off spring of the League. It is important I think that those who most hold to individual liberty are those that recognize that man is deeply flawed thus Governments are deeply flawed and need to be restrained. Like the evolution of City States to Nation States, the next form is Super Regional States. Note the criticism that Nation States are part of the problem not the people that run them. Thus we need to to get rid of nationalism, sovereign borders, etc. in order to have economic security and the abolition of war, it's inevitable. It all comes down to ones view of the basic goodness or lack of goodness of man. If man is basically good then it is the system that is the problem. PS you get to Super Regional Staes either by war or massive economic turmoil. Vivid vividbleau

KF, I can fully understand your warnings about the current situation, the parallel with past historical events (which we humans don't care to learn from), the potential consequences for the near future and beyond. Please, allow me to make a quick comment to let a Briton himself tell us (again) his known reflections on relatively recent history. Back in the 1970s a British citizen wrote the following brief historical analysis --which may sound kind of outdated because some things have changed-- but still worth pondering:

"We look back upon history, and what do we see? Empires rising and falling, revolutions and counterrevolutions, wealth accumulated and wealth disbursed. Shakespeare has written of the rise and fall of great ones, that ebb and flow with the moon. I look back upon my own fellow countrymen (Great Britain), once upon a time dominating a quarter of the world, most of them convinced, in the words of what is still a popular song, that ‘the God who made them mighty, shall make them mightier yet.’ I’ve heard a crazed, cracked Austrian (Hitler) announce to the world the establishment of a Reich that would last a thousand years. I have seen an Italian clown (Mussolini) say he was going to stop and restart the calendar with his own ascension to power. I’ve heard a murderous Georgian brigand in the Kremlin (Stalin), acclaimed by the intellectual elite of the world as being wiser than Solomon, more humane than Marcus Aurelius, more enlightened than Ashoka. I have seen America wealthier and, in terms of military weaponry, more powerful than the rest of the world put together–so that had the American people so desired, they could have outdone a Caesar, or an Alexander in the range and scale of their conquests. All in one lifetime, all in one lifetime, all gone. Gone with the wind. England, now part of a tiny island off the coast of Europe, threatened with dismemberment and even bankruptcy. Hitler and Mussolini dead, remembered only in infamy. Stalin a forbidden name in the regime he helped found and dominate for some three decades. America haunted by fears of running out of those precious fluids that keeps their motorways roaring, and the smog settling, with troubled memories of a disastrous campaign in Vietnam, and the victories of the Don Quixotes of the media as they charged the windmills of Watergate. All in one lifetime, all in one lifetime, all gone. Gone with the wind. Behind the debris of these solemn supermen, and self-styled imperial diplomatists, there stands the gigantic figure of one, because of whom, by whom, in whom and through whom alone, mankind may still have peace: the person of Jesus Christ. I present Him as the way, the truth, and the life."

Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-1990) Dionisio

Vivid, I keep thinking, League of Nations, as the 1930's come on full blown. And yes, short sighted elites and manipulated publics with bought in technicos all are part of the picture. An ugly one.KF kairosfocus

BA and KF Since I make my living trading the financial markets I think I can speak with some authority RE Brexit. For sure it is a sign of the rise of nationalism and a repudiation of the ruling class. Listening to some of the commentary on business channels you can hear the disdain the ruling class has for the common people. Cameron himself is under criticism for even allowing a vote. As one person stated "This is what happens when you throw cards up in the air" Basically saying that the people should never had a chance to speak for themselves. I've been trading the financial markets for more than 40 years and I can say that the economic world is a mirror of our society. That is the economic world of ZIRP and now NIRP is insane and is a perfect reflection of the division's we see on a societal level ( race, gender, class, income) and in our politics.Black Swans are everywhere. The middle class is getting economically screwed and they know it while the rich get richer. The EU with its 40k plus bureaucracy is suffocating their underlings, regulating everything from teapots to toilet paper. People have had enough. Unfortunately other forces are at work as well...times? well they are a changing, not necessarily for the good. Vivid vividbleau

EZ, Ponder the historical relationships between the two, the resources and synergy brought to the table and to the wider world (for all the sins, doing a literal world of good) from the days of the Stuarts on. (And yes, I can feel the ancestral tug of the vision of Scotland, but there are days such that "Those days are past now, And in the past they must remain.") Then ponder a weakened, polarised, rump Britain in an increasingly dangerous age. And that is before we get to the issues of economics etc. KF kairosfocus

KF

Yes, and Scotland’s 62 percent remain vs overall 52% leave speaks volumes given what the SNP has spoken. Serious geostrategic consequences potentially loom.

What kind of consequences could come from Scotland leaving the UK? ellazimm

News:

I’m Canadian. I’m glad they left. I want to live. I don’t care if Belgium wants euthanasia.

But don't we now have euthanasia in Canada? It passed both the house and the senate. magna charta

I see the Brexit vote as mainly a rebuke of rule by unaccountable bureaucrats. Barry Arrington

I'm Canadian. I'm glad they left. I want to live. I don't care if Belgium wants euthanasia. Euthanasia for unwanted sexual attraction and Euthanasia as treatment for mental illness News

Yes, and Scotland's 62 percent remain vs overall 52% leave speaks volumes given what the SNP has spoken. Serious geostrategic consequences potentially loom. kairosfocus

The biggest risk will be the breakup of the U.K. magna charta

BREXIT! -- initial impacts and concerns . . . kairosfocus