web analytics

“IT’S JUST A TRADING CLUB”

By Pete Moore On April 15th, 2019

These don’t look like sovereign nations to me. Sovereignty pooled is sovereignty lost.

@WiredUK

“After last month’s vote, the European Council has formally approved Article 13. Six countries – Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden – voted against approving the legislation but their efforts to halt the copyright changes failed”

13 Responses to ““IT’S JUST A TRADING CLUB””

  1. There are (at least) two seperate drivers or motives in the push for real Brexit. The first is “who MAKES the laws?” One might readily agree with he substance and direction of every EU directive and yet one might desire that these laws must come from OUR legislature as an independent nation, so that if we don’t like them WE can vote accordingly.
    The second is “what ARE these laws?” Speaking for myself, I detest and despise both the fact of these laws being made abroad, outside of our control, AND equally the substance of these laws. I don’t want them and I refuse to recognise their authority.
    Brexit to me means not only leaving the EU, but that the UK should demonstrably set a course in opposition to the general direction of the EU and to that of globalism.
    That “Labour” and the alleged “Conservatives” are now working together to thwart the referendum result is proof positive that the mainstream parties are merely EU-infiltrated puppets, allowed by the EU to keep their names so as to fool people into thinking that our own parliament is still in charge. They’ve learned from the mistakes of the Nazis who made their occupied countries fly Nazi flags openly; no, this time the occupation is covert and rendered slowly, slice by slice so that the masses don’t notice. Except now we do notice.

  2. //are now working together to thwart the referendum result is proof positive that the mainstream parties are merely EU-infiltrated puppets, allowed by the EU to keep //

    Brexitannia, just last week the EU was threatening to kick the UK out of the union.

    Is that also Nazi jackboot stuff?

  3. Mere pantomime, Noel, please do learn to sing along.

  4. Your Parliament is in charge. That it is ballsing things up is entirely their fault.

  5. No our “parliament” is not in charge. Oh it LOOKS as if it is, but it’s filled with EU officials posing as our government, but at least now they’re being forced into spinning an ever-entangling spin of lies and deceit to keep their cover intact. They work for the EU and they rubber-stamp each and all of its laws without so much as a squeak of dissent. BOLLOCKS is it “our Parliament”, that’s just a complete deception.

  6. Whoever would have thought they’d see the day that a “conservative” PM would ally themselves with Labour, a party supposedly fundamentally opposed idelogically and practically to everything the former are supposed to stand for? What a pantomime, what a joke. We see right through it.

  7. Brexitannia

    It’s perfectly fine to be against the UKs membership of the EU and to campaign for us to withdraw, but don’t be dishonest in joining the lies of so many in the pro Brexit camp that claim the EU is holding us in and we can’t escape their clutches. It is entirely the U.K. alone that is responsible for leaving or staying in the EU. We could have left on 29th March and there is nothing the EU could have done or would have done to stop us. By all means attack British politicians if you wish but Brussels is in no way our jailers.

  8. Colm, that’s all I am doing, attacking “British” politicians (I put it in quotes because I don’t think they really ARE British, ie loyal to the UK). Don’t you know that in acting almost as a President, Theresa May has acted illegally in extending the date of Brexit? She needed to get legislation passed in order to override 29 Mar as the leave date, and she has just brushed that whole requirement aside as if she were the Queen! If that alone doesn’t show you that the EU appointed her and is in charge, then nothing will.

  9. Brex

    I am pro EU so God Bless our appointed President 🇪🇺😉

  10. They are doing what is best for their constituents. Which is staying in the EU. They aren’t EU officials. They’re just not morons either.

  11. That’s very good and I am happy for you, Colm, that you are pro-EU. Things are going your way right now, even though the laws you like are made in Bruxells. I hope you have a very happy and peaceful ride, sincerely I do. But what happens when the EU starts making laws and banning things which actually DO infringe your freedoms? And you can’t vote them down? Perhaps then you will wih you had fought for freedom from this socialist dictatorship, but it’ll be too late then.

  12. Colm, that’s all I am doing, attacking “British” politicians (I put it in quotes because I don’t think they really ARE British, ie loyal to the UK).

    The above is demonstrably true – let’s have a look……

    Allan@Aberdeen, on May 14th, 2016 at 11:07 AM Said:

    The ATW article below from 2008 shows how the positions of those opposed way back then have been affirmed by events since:

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=6053

    Let’s look at some of the comments:

    Peter Mandelson, the Labour politicians forced to resign TWICE, has hit the jackpot.

    “The new Business Secretary will receive a £104,000 salary as a minister in the
    House of Lords, and qualifies for a total of £234,000 in “transitional
    payments” over the next three years to help him readjust to life
    outside the European Commission.

    But he is also guaranteed an EU pension when he reaches 65 – in 2018 –
    starting at £31,000 a year and rising in line with the cost of living. The
    overall cost of funding such a pension is put at £750,000.

    allan@aberdeen, on October 12th, 2008 at 12:17 PM Said:

    Like Lord Kinnock (anybody can be a Lord nowadays), Mandelson’s EU pension is tied to his furthering the EU at all opportunity. This means that in the House, he is beholden not to the interests of the UK but to those of the EU. That is treason.

    Pete Moore, on October 12th, 2008 at 12:36 PM Said:

    Allan@Aberdeen –

    Good point. Mandelson was a Privy Councillor when in the Cabinet and would have taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, a requirement on all Privy Councillors.

    He would have committed treason on becoming a Commissioner for the foreign power in Brussels and is still bound by that power’s strictures to always promote its interests.

    As you say, his foreign payments will be withdrawn if he does not.

    allan@aberdeen, on October 12th, 2008 at 3:23 PM Said:

    From Hansard last year:

    Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I cannot disguise my disappointment that noble Lords in receipt of an EU pension did not, with the notable and honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, see fit to declare that interest in all our debates. I refer your Lordships to our debate on 19 July 2007 when we debated why they should have done so.
    In summary, the reason why I and my Eurosceptic friends believe that noble EU pensioners should declare that interest in our debates is that EU pensions are perhaps unique in that holders can lose them if they fail to uphold the EU’s interests or bring the EU into disrepute……..

    Lord Kinnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may ask him as a point of honour, since I have been listening to him from beyond the Bar, that when he expresses a desire to ensure that future students have an accurate understanding of what is going on, it is necessary to record, first, that I thought that he was a man of honour and would not give himself to sentiments such as those he has just expressed; and, secondly, that there is nothing that I have ever taken from anyone that would begin to influence the judgment that I exercise as a parliamentarian.
    Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord would say that, wouldn’t he?
    Noble Lords: Shame!
    Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, he may well believe it.
    Noble Lords: Withdraw!
    Lord Pearson of Rannoch: No, my Lords; I do not withdraw the fact that if one is in receipt of a pension that one can lose, it must influence the way in which one thinks and speaks.

    Let me expand on Lord Pearson’s last remark:

    When one is paid by a body to say something, one shall take the money and say whatever need be said to get the money. It is corruption at best, and could be treason.

  13. “She needed to get legislation passed in order to override 29 Mar as the leave date, and she has just brushed that whole requirement aside as if she were the Queen!”

    She didn’t. Parliament passed a law amending the date.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.