BREXIT! — initial concerns and impacts

_{kairosfocus

June 24, 2016

General interest, Geo-strategic issues, governance, News, Off Topic, Politics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

. . . including, regarding major trends of our civilisation vis a vis the IslamISTS, also as a civilisation, we face “seven mountains of influence” issues.

Drudge headline:

The initial fall of the Pound off the cliff on the announcement from Sunderland that was the first clear indicator of which way the referendum would go:

Sky News live:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg

Key initial impacts:

UK Prime Minister, David Cameron has resigned, staying on as a three-month caretaker
Former Mayor of London Boris Johnson (leader of the Brexit campaign) is tipped a likely successor
A 2 – 4 year estimated Lisbon Article 50 leave process is likely to begin under Cameron’s successor.
The Governor of the Bank of England has promised liquidity in Pounds and key foreign currencies to ease pressure on UK markets and the currency.
Key stocks, starting with leading banks are off by up to 1/5.
FTSE initially has dived 6.95% though as of this writing it has clawed its way back above the 6,000 threshold,
the GBP dived 5.77% against the Euro (which is itself falling), and up to 8.46% against the US$, hitting as low as $1.36 down from $1.50 on the eve of the vote. The Yen is rising.
Gold is surging, oil is falling.
The Scots have long since warned that a Brexit would re-open the independence question, which would have major consequences for the UK’s geostrategic stance in the world, and knock-on effects for the global economy and stability.
And much more . . .

Geostrategic issues are of sobering concern when we consider the global geostrategic situation:

_____________

[U/D Jun 28:] Let me add some illustrations to give geostrategic/ geopolitical background:

1: The classic heartland-rimland context:

. . . note a Cold war era-esque, rimlands oriented view of conflict lines:

. . . and a map of NATO vs the Warsaw Pact:

2: The practical Lebensraum goal c 1941 (expanding on Septemberprogramm 1914):

3: A Picture of today’s Euronetwork (Germany focussed):

4: Africa

5: Cecil B Rhodes as a Cape to Cairo Colossus (they had rail in mind then):

____________________

We must also ponder civilisation level trends, for which the (generic) seven mountains of influence approach may be helpful:

One obvious implication is this is a sign of rising nationalism in the midst of an unsettling and utterly atypical US Election year that just saw an assassination attempt — directly parallel to the murder of a UK Member of Parliament. (If anything, that would tend to favour Mr Trump; providing, he does in fact become the Republican nominee.)

As touching origins debates and linked concerns relevant to Intelligent Design and to the historic heritage of our civilisation, the key issue will be the power moves made during a time of uncertainties and instabilities. For, we deal with those of the Marxian type view that a “crisis” must not go to “waste.”

Vigilance, is eternally the price of liberty. END

PS: Pound, pounded

pound_poundedx — Yahoo news on the 5-day pound trend.

Here is 20 year context:

Comments

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_{October 20, 2016
October
10
Oct
20
20
2016
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PST}

PPS: Then, there is Libya: https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/libya/articles/20160623.aspxkairosfocus_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PST}

PS: Chaos in the general Congo region: https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/congo/articles/20160630.aspxkairosfocus_{July 7, 2016
July
07
Jul
7
07
2016
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{July 6, 2016
July
07
Jul
6
06
2016
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{July 4, 2016
July
07
Jul
4
04
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PST}

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_Historykairosfocus_{July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PST}

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_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PST}

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_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PST}

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_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST}

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_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PST}

BREAKING: Boris Johnson pulls out of the UK leadership race http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120kairosfocus_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PST}

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_{June 30, 2016
June
06
Jun
30
30
2016
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PST}

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_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PST}

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_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PST}

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_{June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PST}

F/N: NATO vs Warsaw Pact, to further illustrate. KFkairosfocus_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PST}

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.pdfkairosfocus_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST}

PS: I added an insert in the OP, to give a bit more flavour to geostrategic concerns.kairosfocus_{June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PST}

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.) KFkairosfocus_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PST}

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. Vividvividbleau_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PST}

Thank goodness the failed socialist experiment called the EU has stared collapsing.Andre_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PST}

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_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PST}

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_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PST}

Vivid, point. Sobering. KFkairosfocus_{June 27, 2016
June
06
Jun
27
27
2016
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply