Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Britain has left the European Union in all but name
The Telegraph ^ | 10/23/2012 | Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Posted on 10/23/2012 3:05:12 PM PDT by bruinbirdman

To all intents and purposes, the UK is already out. We stayed still. Europe galloped away without us.

No doubt we can find some elegant formula to paper over the split. As my friend Daniel Hannan puts it, we could devise a Swiss arrangement while pretending that we are still EU members. No point frightening the horses.

For those readers who missed it, the UK is preparing to pull out of almost all areas of "Justice and Home Affairs", the so-called Pillar III of EU jurisdiction. (Pillar I is the single market, and Pillar II is foreign affairs)

This is revolutionary. We are withdrawing from 130 directives, covering everything from the European Arrest Warrant, the European Public Prosecutor, to the European justice department (Eurojust).

Luckily, Tony Blair negotiated the right to a mass opt-out on this Pillar III corpus to be exercised before it all becomes justiciable at the European Court (ECJ) in 2014, a move that would transform the ECJ into Britain's supreme court. (The same ECJ that rubber-stamped the rights violations of Connolly, Andreasen and Tillack, and against which there is no further appeal.)

We did so on the grounds that the UK's Common Law foundation requires special treatment, but nobody really thought at the time that we would use the opt-out. It was a sop to placate people like us at The Daily Telegraph until the Lisbon storm had passed.

Well, it turns out that Theresa May is opting out. Some say she will have to opt back in immediately to almost all of it. We will see about that.

The withdrawal from the insidious arrest warrant gives me particular pleasure. I covered the legislation as it rolled through the Brussels and Strasbourg machine years ago.

We were told categorically that it was to

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/23/2012 3:05:13 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

They are better off without the EUssr


2 posted on 10/23/2012 3:08:13 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

I’ve always wanted to run my UK cousins through Infantry Training Regiment at Camp Pendleton and send each one back with an M-14, a selector switch and 10,000 rounds of ammo. (M-14 would be the proper tool due to the lengthy fields of fire common on the English countryside.) My bet is that 100,000 armed Brit patriots landing in London would send the PC Labor and Tory wimps running for the hills, followed closely by Red Ken’s goat-humper allies.

Are you Britons ready for a revolution yet?


3 posted on 10/23/2012 3:20:34 PM PDT by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Oh, Say Can EU See..."

Which symbol is on top of the new EU poster?


4 posted on 10/23/2012 3:28:45 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

The UK is always pushing for more influence as a member of the EU, except when we “Yanks” are looking.


5 posted on 10/23/2012 3:53:29 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

I wonder if Nigel Farage (UKIP party) has issued a statement yet? If this is legit, he must be doing a happy dance.


6 posted on 10/23/2012 4:09:47 PM PDT by Kolath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Of course, we don't to want lose the EU single market – Margaret Thatcher's bittersweet triumph, 20 years old this month – and Europe does not want to lose our market. We will have to work it out.

That was always the big lie: We need the EU so we can continue selling our stuff to them. Well, if Britain still makes any stuff worth buying, they'll sell it just fine without membership in Club EU.

7 posted on 10/23/2012 5:04:24 PM PDT by BfloGuy (Teach a man to fish and you lose a Democratic voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

“Are you Britons ready for a revolution yet?”

The British are subjects, not citizens. They don’t have revolution in their blood.


8 posted on 10/23/2012 5:15:25 PM PDT by risen_feenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kolath

The latest from Nigel

Nigel Farage On The Total Subjugation Of Europe

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/nigel-farage-total-subjugation-europe


9 posted on 10/23/2012 5:31:43 PM PDT by Zeneta (Why are so many people searching for something that has already found us ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
"They are better off without the EUssr"

Cameron promised the UK would have a referendum on EU, also. That was, of course, an election ploy.

yitbos

10 posted on 10/23/2012 5:56:25 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Good news for the Dollar and the Yen ... bad news for the Euro supporters.

If we quit printing dollars we might be able to pull out of the flat spin and regain control

TT

Drill Here... Drill Now ... made sense then, makes even more sense now... WE MUST DEFEAT OBAMA and by a large margin


11 posted on 10/23/2012 5:58:37 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (Radical islam is islam. Moderate islam is the Trojan Horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: risen_feenix

Dear oh dear.

Firstly, the British ARE citizens, and have been since 1981 and the Nationality Act. In fact, really since the Nationality Act of 1948.

Secondly, if you think the British dont have revolution in their blood, you are so sadly ignorant of British history.

The Magna Carta of 1215, the English peasant uprising of Wat Tyler in 1381, the Scottish Wars of Independence (1296-1328), the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the political revolutions of 19th C Britain such as the Chartists......

The ‘Brits’ were doing revolution and even republicanism long before America existed.


12 posted on 10/23/2012 6:05:58 PM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
The ‘Brits’ were doing revolution and even republicanism long before America existed.

Then in the late 1700's they got their asses whipped and everything changed.

13 posted on 10/23/2012 6:09:28 PM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
Given the Vortigern regime's assault on the English Defense League and arrest of British Freedom Party head Paul Weston for asking why EDL members were arrested, you are not citizens or subjects. You are serfs.

The Scottish Nationalist Party are a bunch of sissy socialists whose ersatz nationalism is a call for a province in the EU with the name "Scotland". But they are right to want to leave.

14 posted on 10/23/2012 7:31:19 PM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
"The ‘Brits’ were doing revolution and even republicanism long before America existed."

Aren't some of those Irishers still revolting?

yitbos

15 posted on 10/23/2012 9:07:11 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rmlew; Eaker; the scotsman; risen_feenix; bruinbirdman
Well, t_s is correct that the Brits have been having revolution for centuries -- in 1066 they were conquered by the Normans, then invited in a French Dauphin to rule them, then were fighting between Queen Maud and King Stephen, then replaced the Anglo-Norman kings with the Welsh Tudors, then replaced them with Scottish Stuarts, then replaced them with the Dutch King William, then replaced them with the German House of Hanover -- and the German house of Saxe-coburg-gotha has been ruling them since then

Without the Magna Carta, without the Brits standing against slavery, without them deciding to trade with the USA in the 1800s after Napoleon's defeat instead of perpetual war, this world would be different

Present day Brits (most, but not all) are very socialist, but not all

Eaker -- in the late 1700s remember that they were fighting not only us colonialists but also Irish and French and then when they could have taken over the States, we were lucky that they were more bothered with their backyard (the French Revolution and then the Napoleonic wars) -- the Brits spent nearly 700 million pounds in 1800s money to fight revolutionary france for 20 years

The English Defence League has a problem that they have bad press as racists - which they have tried to reverse with Jewish and Pakistani Christian divisions

The SNP are socialists who would want Scotland to be more integrated int he EU

And to bruin -- the Northern Irish are not revolting - they do bathe often :) -- but seriously the troubles are over.

16 posted on 10/23/2012 10:26:38 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

And what’s in the middle.


17 posted on 10/23/2012 10:34:41 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ( "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
". . . . but seriously the troubles are over"

The chronology was of civil wars and revolutions. I didn't see N. Ireland on any list.

yitbos

18 posted on 10/23/2012 10:53:44 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

Erm, no.


19 posted on 10/24/2012 3:23:07 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

Erm, no.


20 posted on 10/24/2012 3:23:24 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Um, yes.


21 posted on 10/24/2012 5:38:40 AM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

You honestly think Britain vacated its position as world superpower because of 1776-83?. You think winning that war made America a world power or THE world power?.

If you do, think again.

Britain’s Empire would expand from 1783 to 1939. After the war in America, British power would never be greater than it would be in the next century and beyond. The British Empire was the greatest power on earth until the Second World War.

To be blunt, overall losing America was just a blip.


22 posted on 10/24/2012 7:17:27 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Feel free to believe that.


23 posted on 10/24/2012 7:24:29 AM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman; Eaker

You lost and we won. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


24 posted on 10/24/2012 7:27:36 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The Pravda Press has gone from 'biased' straight on through to 'utterly bizarre'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; Lazmataz

Its not belief, its fact.

You cannot seriously argue that the British Empire stopped being no 1 because of one defeat. Especially when British power and the British Empire got much BIGGER and stronger in the years after that defeat.

When the Empire lost America, it has barely conquered India, hadnt conquered Asia (Hong Kong, Burma etc), and Africa

50 years after the American victory, Britain ruled India, SE Asia, Afghanistan, most of Asia. 100 years later, it ruled almost all of the Middle East and most of Africa as well.

Britain was THE political and financial powerhouse, the only superpower on earth, had the world’s largest navy, produced most of the great Western culture (esp. literature)

By comparison, America was a relatively minor power. Certainly not comparable to either Britain or France. Even the Dutch had more power, with their Empire stretching to Java and Sumatra.

Are you aware that even as late as 1917, half of all American troops carried to Europe for WW1 had to be carried on ROYAL NAVY ships?. And all American troops carried from Britain to France were carried on RN ships.

Are you aware that in 1917-18, American forces in France had no tanks, airplanes and heavy artillery of their own?. A fact even superpatriotic historians like the late Stephen Ambrose admitted. The Doughboys relied on British and French tanks, planes and heavy artillery. And US troops were given combat training in France by British and French officers.

Until WW2, Britain was still THE major world power, in every sense. Militarally, politically, culturally and most of all financially. ONLY with WW2, and the near bankruptcy of Britain due to the war, did the torch pass to America.

You dont honestly think that because America won the war in 1783, that that automatically made America THE world superpower and more powerful than the British?.

By that logic, because the Romans occasionally got mauled, the Roman Empire stopped and never ruled for hundreds of years.


25 posted on 10/24/2012 11:10:22 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman; Lazmataz

I hope you have protested enough to convince yourself as my mind remains unchanged.

It was damn sure the beginning of the end and if America hadn’t ramped up in a fashion that Britain could only dream about you would be speaking German had your ancestors survived.


26 posted on 10/24/2012 1:42:57 PM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

Oh dear, the youd be speaking German crap.

You should take up comedy.


27 posted on 10/24/2012 2:14:55 PM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Comedy works best with an audience which possess both a sense of humor and intelligence,

This certainly isn’t the thread for it.


28 posted on 10/24/2012 3:56:03 PM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; the scotsman
Britain was THE superpower right up until the late 1800s, then it was challenged by the US, Germany, Russia to some extent

It was only knocked off top position by the US as a result of WWI (though this would have probably happened in any case over time as the UK stagnated from the Edwardian age)

29 posted on 10/30/2012 7:50:58 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; the scotsman
losing the American colonies wasn't the beginning of the end. Rather it was the end of the beginning :)

The Brits first expanded into North America

This ended partially in the late 1700s (Canada was still retained)

They also looked on the American colonies as a place for Brits to migrate to, not to have Germans etc. coming in. So the chances of the expansion to the west were lesser as they were challenged by the French and Spanish (remember the Louisiana purchase was really because Napoleon conquered Spain -- in fact in the Treaty of Vienna, there was talk of it being handed back to Spain)

you, Eaker, on the other hand are talking about WWI. the US involvement was critical more for it's significance rather than with its actuality -- by this I mean that the number of US soldiers and involvement was useful, but more than useful was it's impact -- it told the Germans that though they had bled the French and the Brits, there was more available fresh manpower from the US

The German military realized this and sued for peace even though German soldiers were all outside Germany (which led to the "stab-in-the-back" theory

Here's a controversial idea -- if the US didn't join in, the war would have ended in 1918 with German borders on the west the same, but expanded on the east, with a collapsed austro-hungary and an expanded Turkey (into Russia, not the Balkans)

There is no way that the Germans would have invaded Britain -- their natural leibensraum and what they wanted was in the east or at best against France

30 posted on 10/30/2012 9:32:45 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; the scotsman

That’s not fair — the scotsman is correct about your post exaggerating about “speaking German” — in neither I nor II was that a definite possibility — in I, as I described above, the Germans dind’t have the means and in II, they stupidly took on the Soviets in ‘41


31 posted on 10/30/2012 9:36:24 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson