Saturday, 25 February 2017

THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE


Mel Cooper writes:

John

BREXIT

What precisely did David Cameron ask?  How clearly did he ask it?  what precisely do you have against the EU and are you really confident that leaving before making a severance agreement is not both premature and dangerous? 

My impression of Cameron is of a political lightweight with no real vision and little appetite really to understand or explain either our relationship with the EU, what it does for us, what essentially needs reforming or what benefits us enough already to outweigh our quibbles and dissatisfactions. I think the referendum was premature and both sides never entered into an intelligent debate. I feel both sides cheated but that Brexit was astonishingly dishonest in its NHS promises and several other things. I also believe that the rush to Brexit No Matter What is a potential disaster and that it is not only a betrayal but also gives permission to xenophobic, racist and economically divisive attitudes. 

Marine Le Pen is feeding off Brexit and seemingly legitimised for many because of Brexit. Are you really pleased by that or simply refusing to see the connection? 

Brexit is good news for Trump and Putin too. To me that seems obvious. How can that in itself not give you pause?  

I do despise Cameron for not taking the time to run a positive Remain campaign to educate everyone, myself included, as to why we should vote Remain; and as for Jeremy Quisling Corbyn, that miserable self-righteous and smug Fifth Columnist, he has a lot to answer for. 

Maybe I am wrong but I firmly believe we have been propelled prematurely into abandoning virtually the only hopeful economic and political experiment since WWII. It may have been flawed but it was not broken and many of the things it is accused of are actually the faults of our own governments or are misunderstandings of a wider picture or flat lies promoted by the likes of Nigel Farage. If it is working, essentially, and you (we Brits) have the best deal of anyone in the club, why abandon this for what is bound to be a lesser deal and so much dangerous uncertainty?  

And you are gloating like a Donald Trump. You are crowing that by leaving we win and they lose and may collapse. Even if they are mistaken about some things, would it not be better to remain and work for a Win-Win solution? Maybe in the light of intransigence or stupidity you could consider leaving in 5 years or so but not by a whirlwind Referendum. This is a Parliamentary democracy and, frankly, it is Parliament that should debate this properly, transparently, intellectually and as unemotionally as possible. The Referendum should be advisory and not binding on an issue that is so complex and has successfully a long-term impact unless there is a much, much larger majority. 

Frankly, even if you think Brexit is expedient, at this time and in this way, I perceive it also as unethical. And it is also a major distraction from more urgent and far more troubling problems and very likely to give licence not only for more narrow nationalism and bigotry but for undoing positive progress in all kinds of socially sensitive legislation that was not actually imposed upon us but agreed to. 

I grew up in Canada where Quebec threatened a kind of Brexit scenario on a regular basis. It was always a very bad idea. And if you are being consistent then you have to let Scotland and Northern Ireland go independent too. And yes, logically if you do leave the EU only a hard Brexit makes sense because otherwise you are still in the single market but with a worse deal. But if you prefer Isolationism to working for Reform and think the exhilaration of a clean break outweighs the ideal of the EU, then let's just see how that plays out over the next five years. I foresee a hell of a mess and I think you are promoting an act of self-harm for the UK morally, economically and politically. 

Yours, 

Mel  

More Mel Cooper:

BREXIT - BE VERY AFRAID

ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE






---- John wrote:

Mel

In what way do you think we have a responsibility to the EU when we asked them to change the way they did things and they refused. 

The EU had its chance and did not take it. Wilfully refused to change. The saying is, you've made your bed now lie on it. 

Many other European countries also seeing the light.

Best

John



On 23 Feb 2017, at 14:30, Mel Cooper  wrote:

Hey! I have a better idea. The whole world is falling apart and not fulfilling our dreams so just get into bed, pull the covers over your head and leave that too. After all, what possible responsibility could you have to anyone else? Mel




---- John wrote ----





...and if the link does not allow you to see the whole article here it is:



We must leave the EU quickly – it is falling apart faster than I thought



    Allister Heath



22 February 2017 • 8:37pm



The EU is at its weakest, most vulnerable since its creation, and it is now touch and go whether it survives 2017 or whether it is swept away in a catastrophic populist revolt



Hand over a €60 billion ransom or we won’t even start to discuss a trade deal: that, if Jean-Claude Juncker is to be believed, will be the European Union’s opening gambit ahead of Brexit. Bring it on, I say: the best way to expose a very weak adversary who is pretending to be very strong is to call their bluff. Yet it may never even get to that. At this rate, what is left of the EU could soon be begging us for a trade deal, not the other way around.



The reality is that the EU is edging ever-closer to the abyss: it is at its weakest, most vulnerable since its creation, and it is now touch and go whether it survives 2017 or whether it is swept away in a catastrophic populist revolt.



Trouble is not only brewing in France, where Marine Le Pen keeps gaining ground, but also in the Netherlands, in Greece, in Italy and in eastern Europe. Even if the dissidents fail, for now, the EU will soon be crippled by Britain’s departure, robbing it of its financial centre and billions of pounds a year in net contributions.
"The reality is that the EU is edging ever-closer to the abyss: it is at its weakest, most vulnerable since its creation, and it is now touch and go whether it survives 2017 or whether it is swept away in a catastrophic populist revolt"




The EU’s modus operandi has always been to buy support with German and British money, especially in poorer regions and in France’s agricultural heartlands: when the cash runs out, or is replaced by some euro-tax, tensions will flare up again.



We keep worrying about how Brexit will affect Britain. But the real question is how Brexit will debilitate Brussels, shift the balance of power and ideology on the continent, with smaller, more pro-market nations losing their British champion, and trigger a new dash to yet more unpopular centralising treaties, fuelling more range and anger. Yet the Eurocrats in Brussels and some Remainers in Britain keep on talking as if nothing has changed, as if the UK were leaving some powerful, eternal, economically successful superpower. The status quo is gone, forever, and what is left could be smashed further in just three months’ time.
Marine Le Pen
Marine Le Pen: her election would detonate a neutron bomb under all post-war institutions and the global economic order



The most urgent threat to the EU system comes from Le Pen. Her rise, the extent of which has confounded everybody, is the most important story of the year. Her hard-Left views on big companies, capital and trade are incompatible with EU membership, as are her views on immigration; and she wants to quit the euro.



France’s current, already broken constitutional arrangements and “social contract” wouldn’t survive. Le Pen’s election would detonate a neutron bomb under all post-war institutions and the global economic order; a disorderly French withdrawal from the euro, which would also lead to others such as Italy following suit, would wipe trillions off asset values and trigger another global financial crisis.



Le Pen is now polling around 27 per cent in the first round and while she would still be defeated in the second, surveys suggest she would grab an unprecedented 42 per cent of the electorate. Given that this is a rise of around five percentage points in just a few weeks, anything is now possible, and it reflects the extreme, explosive disenchantment among the French public with decades of economic, social, immigration and crime policies. Even if she loses, the genie will be well and truly out of the bottle.



The likes of Juncker, a Marie Antoinette figure if ever there were one, are now so firmly ensconced in a parallel reality, replete with alternative facts and constructs, that they no longer understand what is happening. They still look at the shiny new Europa building in Brussels, which cost €321 million, and see a powerful, purposeful force for progress, rather than an increasingly loathed, soon-to-be bankrupt bureaucracy whose demise threatens the peace and prosperity of our civilisation.



They labour over their preposterous economic models, telling us how impoverished the UK will become as a result of us loosening our ties with an imaginary fast-growing European economy, not realising that they are the victim of an extraordinary case of cognitive dissonance. They look at the world, but only see what they want to see, rather than what exists.
"Le Pen’s election would detonate a neutron bomb under all post-war institutions and the global economic order; a disorderly French withdrawal from the euro, which would also lead to others such as Italy following suit, would wipe trillions off asset values and trigger another global financial crisis"



One of the reasons why I backed Brexit was because the UK is the only major European country able and willing to extricate itself from the doomed project in a rational, pro-trade, pro-market way. Brexit allows us to show the world that there is a better, more sustainable way to embrace real globalisation without having to hand over power to corrupt, unelected technocrats, and that wanting self-government doesn’t necessitate voting for extreme, destructive National Front-style parties. So far, it looks even better than I hoped, thanks to Theresa May’s enthusiasm for free trade and her commitment to keep the country open to capital and talent.



But where I may have been over-optimistic was that I was hoping that the EU would survive for at least another five years to 2022, giving Britain more time to build new institutions, diversify our trade and show the rest of Europe how it could be done. I was counting on the cyclical economic upturn, which will give all European economies a boost, as well as on an assumption that someone other than Le Pen would win in May, before going on to fail to reform France and thus delivering the country into her hands the next time around. Jacques Chirac failed to reform France, as did Nicolas Sarkozy; one must hope that Francois Fillon would pull it off, but that’s unlikely. Emmanuel Macron, a fashionable neo-Blairite with no party backing, would fail disastrously.




I’m no longer so sure that we have so much time. It still seems likely that the EU will stagger on for a few more years, just as it survived earlier crises, but the day of reckoning is getting ever closer. We need to leave, urgently, to insulate ourselves as best we can from the fallout.



Given the gravity of the situation in France, the House of Lords should be debating how to accelerate our withdrawal from the EU, not how to delay it. Big banks should be planning on shifting bankers to Britain from France, not (in one case) the other way around. Remainers should stop producing anti-Brexit reports that massively exaggerate all of the difficulties caused by leaving, and turn their attention instead to ways of mitigating the fallout from the EU’s implosion.



It is in Britain’s interest that the EU’s demise be carefully managed. Unfortunately, it increasingly looks like the opposite will be true. The Government should be hoping for the best, but planning ever-harder for the worst

Monday, 6 February 2017

PRESIDENT DONALD - LOCK HIM UP!


Dear John,

The Republicans openly vowed for 8 years to stop any Obama policies, regardless of merit – and to reverse them when he retired. It is now the Democrats duty to check Trump’s amateur and sinister team.

It will be a disaster for the world if Trump stays in power. He is following Hitler’s strategy – including re-arming to create employment – regardless of the fiscal deficit. He is tied to the KKK, the NY Mafia and other US and EU Nazis. He is trying to shut down free-speech by attacking the media and is pedalling hate against minorities. His tax budgets are barmy. His isolationism will bust the world system and impoverish us all. He is old, demented and out of his depth. He is so self-deluded that he believes he can move from building tin-pot casinos (that go bust) to wielding high-political executive power – without political experience or understanding. He might have committed treason vis-à-vis his Russian pals. What has happened to the Moscow Hotel bed-wetting orgy scandal? 

All good-men have a duty to depose him – before he does enormous damage. We must hope that he keeps taking his calming medication - as he did yesterday before addressing Congress. 

Lock-him-up!

Noel

TO NOEL
Subject: RE: The Trump Administration

Noel

It will be a disaster for the left, Democrats, if Trump makes a success of his presidency so they are doing everything they can do try to prevent that happening.

Includes left wing news media, quoting other left wing news media.

The Dems should cooperate with the new administration and put America first not themselves first.

The position of Soros funding in all this should be investigated.

It is deliberately divisive for Obama to be going back into politics with a states wide office network which is part Soros funded. Not normal for an ex Pres.

You can see how desperate they are to stop this admin being a success.

At least Trump IS putting America first. People who say he is a liar should reflect on the fact that he is putting his campaign promises into action.

How often does that happen, one commentator said never before.

Best

John

Subject: FW: Trump Team's Ties To Russia Face Sharper Scrutiny Amid New House Probe And Explosive Report

TO John

TRUE-NEWS : This is what the Huffington Post makes of it. - Noel


3 FEB 2017 - TO John – All bantering aside, your incontinent hero, Mr Trump is this week (6 Feb 17) dismantling the EPA which he sees as shackling industry that will “Make America Great Again”.

The EPA was founded to tackle lead in petrol. Free market Big-Oil industry in 1923 waged a disinformation campaign for 25 years – while people died. “Mad as a Hatter”, Mercury poisoning, and lead poisoning from water pipes, had been known since early Victorian times – but Alt-Truth swept that common-sense knowledge aside. This is the “freedom” that Trump wants to restore. Now that we are told to reject “experts”, only one man, the intergalactic Brexit genius, Michael Gove, can judge the real science behind these events.

"The discovery of the anti-knock effect of tetraethyl lead in gasoline is among the most celebrated achievements of automotive engineering in the 20th century. It is often portrayed as the result of genius, luck and a great deal of hard work. Leaded gasoline allowed an increase in engine power and efficiency by raising fuel anti-knock quality — what is today called the “octane rating” based on iso-octane reference fuel.
The discovery has also been one of the most controversial. The 1970s – 1990s controversy over public health impacts of leaded gasoline is well known, but the 1920s controversy is not. When five men died in a New Jersey refinery in October, 1924, a storm of protest and scientific dispute surrounded General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and E.I. du Pont de Nemours Corp., the three principal developers of leaded gasoline. G.M. and Standard together had formed the Ethyl Gasoline Corp., and du Pont participated as a one-third owner of G.M. and as the largest tetraethyl lead manufacturer.
The refinery workers went suddenly insane from the cumulative effects of intense exposure to concentrated tetraethyl lead. To some scientists, this indicated a potential public health problem even when the additive was diluted 1000-to-one in gasoline. Experts in lead toxicology, such as Alice Hamilton of Harvard University, and respiratory physiology, such as Yandell Henderson of Yale, insisted that allowing the introduction of lead on a widespread basis would be a catastrophic mistake in public health policy"

1923 Sept - workers started dying in the DuPont TEL works… “sickening deaths and illnesses of hundreds of TEL workers… Gripped by violent bursts of insanity, the afflicted would imagine they were being persecuted by butterflies and other winged insects before expiring, their bodies having turned black and blue.” (Kitman 2000a)

Maybe Trump’s lead based gold-paint on his Trump Tower doors caused his insanity.

SEA  RISES THROUGH MIAMI BEDROCK 
And… to return to Mar A Lago where smart Mr Trump has invested $200M – the sea is rising through the porous bedrock. It cannot be stopped by sea-walls. So, much as Tony admires The President’s beachside retreat – do be cautious about buying into that particular American dream. Trump is probably stuck with it – until a major, major sucker turns up. This photo in Fort Lauderdale is now a common occurrence – fun for a day, but what does it do to property values.  Noel



"Florida and the Rising Sea

Note: First published in the Miami Herald

Friday, 3 February 2017

TRUMP BANS THOUGHT



New Scientist - 4 February 2017 US scientists can look to Canada for ways to fight a crackdown, just as Canada did until recently – and it's there we should look for lessons in fighting back.  (see article below)


He has banned scientists from speaking to the press or Congress; and banned lines of research. These orders have been imposed on:

The Environmental Protection Agency
Department of the Interior
National Park Service
The Department of Health & Human Services
Department of Agriculture.

Scientists suddenly fear for their jobs if they publish or discuss their work, or speak out. Hitler sacked professors, teachers and scientists who disagreed with him. Trump is leaning on scientists to mould their findings and opinions to fit his crazed view of the world.

Why bother with all these expensive boffins and departments when Trump and his low IQ gangsters in the White House already have all the answers? The answers that his financial backers want to hear. 

This lunacy sits alongside the contributions from industry, made to Trump’s campaign, a campaign which was based on 560 lies. Lies which convinced his ignorant, misguided and impoverished voters that he would transform their miserable lives.

He will not do that. The poor saps who voted for him are in his world, all LOSERS – they failed to inherit $200 million of New York property from their parents. Trump does not believe in charity. He has never donated to charity – it is one of the many reasons for concealing his tax-returns – and he says he has never paid tax (I'M SMART), to avoid supporting his country and all those Rust Belt LOSERS.

BURNING  ANTI-NAZI  BOOKS - ACROSS GERMANY
Gagging science and the media and intellectuals, is what the Nazis did before Hitler went to war. The infamous book-burning was the public face of this evil repression of intelligence. Demented Donald is a very dangerous madman.


When will Congress find him to be incompetent and put him into a secure home where he can be treated for his Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Trump has the emotional maturity of a three-year-old. As a trust-fund-babe, he has never been crossed or denied, in his life. God help the world when he has an infant's temper-tantrum. 


Freedom, said the British writer George Orwell, is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear – such as, he suggested, that two plus two makes four. Empirical facts can be especially unwelcome to political establishments that want to provide their own “alternative” facts.
During his first week in office, President Trump launched orders to gag scientists in federal agencies, and raised the possibility that political officials may now need to clear empirical findings before they can be published. Canadian scientists, who endured a decade of repression under an ideologically similar government, could usefully advise their American colleagues.
The Trump crackdown became apparent last week, when the new administration hit the Environmental Protection Agency with a freeze on all contracts and grants. According to Trump staffers, all existing information published by the EPA would also be examined, and the release of new work put on hold pending possible case-by-case scrutiny. Agency staff have also been barred from updating its social media accounts or talking to the press without clearance from the top.

.

The EPA isn’t the only target. The Department of the Interior’s Twitter accounts were shut down after its National Park Service retweeted a comparison of Obama’s and Trump’s inauguration crowds. The Department of Health and Human Services was ordered not to communicate with external officials – including members of Congress – and cancelled a major meeting on health and climate, apparently to avoid trouble. Similar caution may have led the Department of Agriculture to remind staff to get clearance before talking to the press, and its research division was briefly told not to issue public statements.
“Researchers in Canada reported being leaned on to alter politically sensitive conclusions”
This pattern of gagging and censoring scientists will have a familiar ring in Canada. Between 2006 and 2015, the conservative government of Stephen Harper sacked more than 2000 fisheries and environmental scientists, and cut climate, Arctic and air pollution research.
In the course of this, dubbed the “war on science”, libraries’ journal collections were trashed and researchers reported being leaned on to alter politically sensitive conclusions. Federally employed scientists were banned from speaking in public or to the press without permission – which was often denied or delayed. Government chaperones sat in on press interviews. Some scientists learned not to speak up at all; climate stories nearly vanished from the press.
“The lesson from the Canadian war on science for US scientists is: speak out now, organise, stand in solidarity, be an activist, and resist,” says Michael Oman-Reagan of Memorial University in St John’s, Canada.
Some are already doing that. After warnings from Canadian data archivists, US scientists have started making additional precautionary backups of publicly funded environmental data sets. A scientists’ march on Washington is in the works. An action group is trying to get more scientists to run for political office.
But political action moves slowly, and scientists face more immediate battles. The first job might simply be to resist self-censored silence and, as Orwell also said, keep restating the empirically obvious – because “the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it”.

Leader: “Speak up for science, however you can