Congratulations UK
- Thread starter Ciao
- Start date
-immortal-
Active member
Awards
It has been three years since I was last drunk and a year since I've touched any alcohol.
Even though I despise the taste of alcohol and care not an iota about drunkenness - just for this occasion I am going to an English pub and will drink myself to inebriation to celebrate with my fellows our people-hood, which the English people have with this decision shown that they do remember and care for after-all.
And that - England as the sacred ancestral land of the English people - is, fundamentally, what this is about for our nation.
If the Scots and the Irish now wish to leave us - the condition of whose states, by the way, are not comparable to ours in that Scotland and Ireland are still comprised of Scottish and Irish people - then so be it!
I'll tell you something folks - as an Englishman I don't give an arse's arse for whatever economic repercussions this will result in.
Let there be a great depression, we welcome it!
Death to the European Union!
Long live England!
Edit: Thanks for the advice that someone who replied and deleted their post, I decided it wasn't worth wasting money to poison myself for this kind of social occasion, however celebratory.
Even though I despise the taste of alcohol and care not an iota about drunkenness - just for this occasion I am going to an English pub and will drink myself to inebriation to celebrate with my fellows our people-hood, which the English people have with this decision shown that they do remember and care for after-all.
And that - England as the sacred ancestral land of the English people - is, fundamentally, what this is about for our nation.
If the Scots and the Irish now wish to leave us - the condition of whose states, by the way, are not comparable to ours in that Scotland and Ireland are still comprised of Scottish and Irish people - then so be it!
I'll tell you something folks - as an Englishman I don't give an arse's arse for whatever economic repercussions this will result in.
Let there be a great depression, we welcome it!
Death to the European Union!
Long live England!
Edit: Thanks for the advice that someone who replied and deleted their post, I decided it wasn't worth wasting money to poison myself for this kind of social occasion, however celebratory.
Last edited:
VongolaLegacy
Member
I love those guys who think that the brexit is the end of the world.
They should calm their internet boobs.
We live in a time of changes, i am looking forward to it!
They should calm their internet boobs.
We live in a time of changes, i am looking forward to it!
Mad Titan Thanos
Banned
Basically some where doing it because of immigration and complaints about how said immigrant/s are taking their jobs (even the complainer doesn't have the skills or qualifications for said jobs.
And the others where doing it because of the promises the leave campaign made, for example they said that they would put the money that they usually give to the EU yearly (which is 3 million if not more), to the NHS and other businesses and companies that the UK citizens need. i think that did the trick and everyone started voting leave.
But as I've seen today in an interview with the racist and fascist Nigel Farrage that's not going to be happening either and all the promises where just false promises (video is below)
[video=youtube_share;cA3XTYfzd1I]https://youtu.be/cA3XTYfzd1I[/video]
Legendary Saiyan
Active member
Bad Touch Yakushi
Active member
Yeah bit more to it than that hun.
I think it's tragic we're gonna be that strange little island on the wrong side of history. The truth is that a large quantity of Leave influence WAS caused by xenophobia. That's what one of the major parties capitalised on, when really border control is barely even relevant when talking about the EU. We can't necessarily control our borders regardless if we want this amazing dreamy 'Improved EU trade deal' we claim exists.
Funny how the Right wing have been the wide-eyed dreamy idealists this time around.
Donald J Trump
Active member
Awards
We're out. Now only time will tell if my life becomes easier or harder. My guess is it will stay the same.
Any money not gone to the EU will not go to the people either. The goverment is still corrupt.
Any money not gone to the EU will not go to the people either. The goverment is still corrupt.
I'll help you out:
Immigration: The Brexit point out that because they're in the EU, they can't control how many immigrants they let in. They claim the immigrants, specifically from countries of freedom of movement, are taking advantage of British welfare system and jobs. Now some of it is true, but it has proven statistically that immigrants contribute to the economy and immigration is controlled. This is because I'm a student in the UK, and I went through the process of border checks and seen the same thing happen to EU nationals.
Currency: I don't think currency was one of the big points of Brexit.
Anti-elitism: Brexit say that EU politicians hold greater power over British politics than British politicians themselves, which they consider to be bureaucratic because they are not elected by the British public.
On topic: Unless you follow British politics, don't make stupid things. I think the UK was better off in the EU than outside it. Now they are leaving the EU, expect these things: lesser jobs, weaker economy and lesser standing on global politics. Oh, for British nationalists out there: don't blame immigrants for the downfall of the UK.
Darth AniCetuS
Active member
Awards
Put as simply as possible, two main and closely linked reasons: the displacement of our sovereignty in virtually every sense of that word by the rule of pin-headed bureaucrats most closely aligned to the Neocon and globalist leftist movements in Washington, and the demographic displacement of the native peoples of western Europe with the dross of the Islamic world.
The most powerful testament to this is the fact that the Brexit side of the debate outside of Britain has been full of anti-establishment figures like Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Eamonn Fingleton etc etc.
Meanwhile the remain group consists of the political class and other elites like the financial class, Neocons and leftist globalists a la George Soros, and parasitic groups like Muslims who care more for maintaining the gravy train of the welfare state and bringing in their married cousins from the third world so they can have those benefits propped up prolific in-bred families they so love.
You must be registered for see links
"If you read the presstitute media, Brexit—the referendum tomorrow on the UK’s exit from the EU— is about racism. According to the story line, angry rightwing racists of violent inclinations want to leave the EU to avoid having to accept more dark-skinned immigrants into England.
Despite the constant propaganda against exit, polls indicated that more favored leaving the EU than remaining until a female member of Parliament, Jo Cox, was killed by a man that a witness said shouted “Brexit.” Cox was an opponent of leaving the EU.
The UK government and presstitute media used Cox’s murder to drive home the propaganda that violent racists were behind Brexit. However, other witnesses gave a different report. The Guardian, which led with the propaganda line, did report later in its account that “Other witnesses said the attack was launched after the MP became involved in an altercation involving two men near where she held her weekly surgery.” Of course, we will never know, because Cox’s murder is too valuable of a weapon against Brexit.
There is no doubt that many in the UK are disturbed at the transformation of their country. One doesn’t have to be a racist to feel that one’s country is being stolen from them by people of alien cultures. The British have a long history of fighting off invaders, and many believe they are experiencing an invasion, although not an armed one. An armed one, of course, would not have the government’s and media’s support.
When British people hear pundits pronounce that immigrants contribute more to the UK than they absorb in social payments, what they hear is inconsistent with their experience. Moreover, many British are tired of having to avoid entire sections of their cities, including London, because of safety concerns.
It is a propaganda choice to call these concerns racism rather than cultural defense, and the UK political establishment has made that propaganda choice. Little wonder so many British citizens no longer believe that the British Establishment represents Britain.
But let’s give the propagandists the benefit of the doubt and for sake of argument assume that Brexit is about racism. What is the opposition to Brexit really about? Most certainly it is not about helping the refugees from Washington’s wars that the UK government has enabled. If the British establishment cared so much for the Muslims seeking refuge from America’s invasions, bombs, and drones, the British establishment would not have supported Washington’s attacks on these people.
Opposition to Brexit is based on two powerful interests of Washington.
One is the interests of the New York banks and Wall Street to eliminate the UK as a financial center competitor. This blatant fact has escaped the notice of the City and the Bank of England.
The British have forgotten that they only have one foot in the EU, because the UK was permitted to keep its own currency. The UK does not use the euro and, thus, retains the power to finance the British government. Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, etc., do not have this capability. They are dependent on private banks for financing.
In order to trick the UK into joining the EU, the British were given special privileges. However, these privileges cannot last forever. The EU process is one of political integration. As I reported years ago, Jean-Claude Trichet, at that time the president of the European Central Bank, said that to complete the political integration of Europe, the fiscal policies of member states would be centralized. It is impossible to centralize fiscal policies if the UK is an independent financial center with its own central bank and currency.
Wall Street understands that the defeat of Brexit means a shortened lifespan for London as a financial center, as it is impossible to be a financial center unless a country has its own currency and central bank. As it is impossible for the UK to be a member of the EU and not operate under the European Central Bank, once the Brexit referendum is defeated, the process of gradually forcing the UK into the euro will begin.
The other powerful interest is the interest of Washington to prevent one country’s exit from leading to the exit of other countries. As CIA documents found in the US National Archives make clear, the EU was a CIA initiative, the purpose of which is to make it easy for Washington to exercise political control over Europe. It is much easier for Washington to control the EU than 28 separate countries. Moreover, if the EU unravels, so likely would NATO, which is the necessary cover for Washington’s aggression.
The EU serves Washington and the One Percent. It serves no one else. The EU is a murderer of sovereignty and peoples. The intent is for the British, French, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Spanish, and all the rest to disappear as peoples. Brexit is the last chance to defeat this hidden agenda, and apparently the British will vote tomorrow without having a clue as to what is at stake and what the vote is about."
You must be registered for see links
"Mark Carney is a globalist’s globalist. To say the least, this seems never to have held him back in the past. His luck may be changing.
Born in Canada and educated at Harvard and Oxford, he worked for Goldman Sachs in London, Tokyo, New York, and Toronto, before going into public service. His wife is British and his children have both Canadian and British passports. Reflecting his Irish ancestry, he himself holds Irish as well as Canadian citizenship. After a brief spell as governor of the Bank of Canada, he was appointed governor of the Bank of England in 2013 – the first non-Briton to hold the post in the bank’s more than 300-year history.
In the UK’s bitter so-called Brexit debate (about whether to exit the European Union), Carney has been doing Trojan work terrifying any voter who might vote Leave in Thursday’s referendum.He has warned, among things, that Brexit could tip the UK into recession, send the pound reeling, reawaken inflation, and throw countless workers on the dole. In so doing, he has provided invaluable “independent” support for an increasingly outrageous scaremongering campaign by Prime Minister David Cameron as well as finance minister George Osborne and other leaders of the so-called Remain camp (those who want to stay in the EU).Carney has even appeared on one of the big British Sunday current affairs programs to bring his Brexit warnings into every living room. This teed things up nicely for Osborne, who a few days later announced that, in the wake of a Leave vote, a punishing emergency budget would have to be enacted in a supposedly desperate attempt to shore up foreign confidence.
In pandering to the Remain camp, Carney has come in for a particularly bluntly worded – by British establishment standards – reprimand from four elders of Cameron’s own Conservative party. In a letter to the London Telegraph, former finance ministers Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont and former Conservative party leaders Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard wrote: “There has been startling dishonesty in the economic debate, with a woeful failure on the part of the Bank of England, the Treasury, and other official sources to present a fair and balanced analysis. They have been peddling phony forecasts and scare stories to back up the attempts of David Cameron and George Osborne to frighten the electorate into voting Remain.”
Irrespective of which way the vote goes, Carney looks dangerously exposed. Although he claims that the Bank of England has a duty to make itself clear on the alleged consequences of Brexit, the fact is that the bank has a long tradition of staying out of political debates. In particular in the run-up to general elections, it has scrupulously avoided offering any hint of its views on the merits – and sometimes alarming demerits – of the competing parties’ economic programs. In any case, as the prominent Brexit campaigner Bernard Jenkin has pointed out, Carney’s Sunday program appearance clearly crossed a line.
If the British do vote to leave, would this prove, on balance, as bad for the British economy as Carney seems to think? Any honest answer should be prefaced by a mention of the dangers of making forecasts – particularly about the future. Carney might also mention that the Bank of England’s own forecasting record has been spotty at best.
A reasonable guess is that the many economic pluses and minuses of a Brexit decision would broadly balance out. The fact is that a post-Brexit UK would enjoy enormous bargaining power to negotiate an even more favorable free-trade deal with Brussels than that already enjoyed by such super-prosperous non-EU nations as Switzerland and Norway. Thus the Brexit option is less a matter of economic consequences than political ones, and in particular the issue of national sovereignty (and such related matters as immigration from Eastern Europe, which is a hot topic for many Britons).
The irony is that some of Carney’s predictions may prove right – but just not in the baleful way he has suggested. Carney and his colleagues have warned, for instance, that a Brexit vote could precipitate a fall in house prices. There is less here than meets the eye. House prices in the London region are already grossly inflated and are evidently in the later stages of a giant bubble. Irrespective of which way the Brexit vote goes, they are likely to take a tumble in the years ahead – and such a development would be far from unwelcome for millions of ordinary would-be home buyers who have long been priced out of the market. An additional irony is that the main reason house prices have become so inflated is that the Bank of England has been remarkably lax in controlling home loan debt.
Carney has also forecast that the pound, which has already weakened considerably in recent weeks,could take a major hit in the event of Brexit decision. Again this may be proved right – but a drastically lower pound would, on balance, prove a blessing in disguise. After all it would provide a badly needed boost to exporters and help severely challenged domestic producers compete with imports.
The pound has had a long history of overvaluation and, as is obvious to anyone who has taken a look at the UK’s now disastrous trade trend, the problem has become particularly acute in recent years. The UK’s pattern of consistent deficits dates to as far back as the early 1980s and has long run even higher as a percentage of national income even than America’s.
According to economics commentator Liam Halligan, the current account deficit had already reached a shocking 3.5 percent of national income in 2012. It rose to 4.7 percent in 2013 and to no less than 5.9 percent in 2014. As Halligan points, this latter figure was the worst performance in the UK’s history. And with the exception of the desperate circumstances of war and the immediate aftermath of war, it was probably the worst of any major nation ever. Last year’s figure, at 4.7 percent, was a slight relief but in the larger context was still disastrous.
All the evidence is that the UK has become structurally dependent on an unsustainable level of imports. Not only has this exacerbated its chronically severe unemployment problem but a further alarming consequence is that more and more of the commanding heights of the British economy are coming under foreign ownership. The implications for British sovereignty are bleak. For a telling article on the extent to which the British economy had already come under foreign ownership by 2012, click here.
What has the Bank of England been doing to raise the alarm? And, even more to the point, what has it been doing to counter the trend? The answer in both cases is next to nothing. Whereas Carney and his institution have chosen to play a central role in the Brexit debate, they have been virtually invisible on the balance of payments problem and, if anything, they have helped enable the trend. Last summer Carney pronounced the current account deficits “not an immediate cause for alarm.” A month later, Ben Broadbent, the Bank’s deputy governor for monetary policy, further fed public complacency by suggesting the UK had been savvy in borrowing abroad to fund investments.
One interpretation of Carney’s approach is that he is a doctrinaire globalist – the sort of person who cares not a whit about national interests, not even the interests of the nation that now pays him more than $900,000 a year to oversee its central bank.
One thing is clear: various vested interests that have figured in his past – and may figure again in his future – can be well pleased with his performance. Certainly he has been singing their song.
Take Goldman Sachs. Carney’s notorious former employer has been in the forefront of the scaremongers, predicting that a Leave vote would not only trigger a 20 percent devaluation of sterling but threaten banks and house-builders. It may not be a coincidence that, as the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Goldman Sachs has a lot of skin in the game, not least because it is currently building a vast new $500 millionLondon headquarters for its European operations.
Then there is the Japanese establishment. Given that Carney’s early success dates in no small measure to a spell in Goldman’s Tokyo office, it is interesting to ask how his Japanese friends see the vote. The answer comes as no surprise to anyone with significant Japan watching experience (I worked in Tokyo for 27 years). The Japanese establishment is strongly pro-Remain. Though Japanese corporations couch their case in terms of what is supposed to be best for the UK, it is probably not a coincidence that Japanese mercantilists have found that the fractured and polyglot European Commission is a breeze to deal with. By contrast, a solidly led UK that was free to pursue its own independent trade diplomacy might not prove such a pushover. The fact is that though protectionism is integral to the Japanese economic system, Brussels never seems to have noticed. When did you last hear it protest even such an obvious scandal as Tokyo’s virtual total embargo on imports of foreign cars?
This is not, of course, to suggest that Carney has been consciously dancing to Tokyo’s tune. It is worth noting, however, that nothing is more revelatory of the depth of Japan’s commitment to mercantilism than a few years’ residence in the country. For a foreign investment banker to survive there, let alone to take his career to the next stage, it is necessary to hold tight to the mantra that “trade does not matter.” Even better, one should go around proclaiming that nations that protect their markets “hurt only themselves.” The fact that the success of the whole of the East Asian region – not only that of Japan, but of South Korea, Taiwan, and now China – stands in silent contradiction of this view must be studiously swept under the rug.
A further consideration is what the Germans think. Like Japan, Germany sees the virtues of one-way globalism: it insists that other nations open their markets to its exports while maintaining a tissue of unobtrusive barriers to imports. Although the EU was supposed to provide a level playing field, that playing field has long been quietly tipped in Germany’s favor. Thus while the UK has scrupulously opened its markets to other nations (not least to Germany), Brussels has turned a blind eye to German protectionism. Even as the UK has incurred ever greater trade deficits, Germany has racked up ever greater surpluses. So much so that Germany last year enjoyed a current account surplus equal to 8.5 percent of national income. This was one of the best performances of any major nation in history – actually little short of astounding (Germany’s surplus was nearly as high in money terms as that of China, a mercantilist nation with more than fifteen times Germany’s population).
Of course, this is not to suggest that Carney has been any more conscious of facilitating Germany’s agenda than Japan’s. But the Germans, like the Japanese, have an interest in promoting the rise to ultimate leadership of true globalists in other nations. In that regard, it is worth recalling that Carney attended the annual meetings of the pro-German Bilderberg Group in 2011 and 2012. A reasonable guess is that he would not have been invited had his views been considered problematical for German trade policy. (The Bilderberg Group was founded in the 1950s by, among others, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a German-born former executive of IG Farben who displayed notable Nazi sympathies in the 1930s.)
What we are left with is a remarkable dichotomy. On the one hand, there is Carney’s almost total silence on the concrete reality of a UK balance of payments problem that is unprecedented in the history of any major First World nation. By comparison the economic management of the Ottoman empire in its dissolute last decades seems a model of economic rectitude.
On the other hand, there is Carney’s straining at the leash to forestall a Brexit vote that, while it may engender some uncertainty in the short term, will come with major long term opportunities (in allowing the UK to negotiate its own made-to-measure trade deals with, for instance, China, India, and the United States).
What explains this dichotomy? For now, almost no one seems to be asking. It is, however, a question that may bulk large in Carney’s future."
Last edited:
This vote was about whites who were angry that immigrants who needed help from war torn countries were coming to the UK. It was not about independence or anything. This was pure right wing nationalism and extremism. A campaign of fear of the ''other''
For one I don't think everyone voted based on the promise of £350M(as stated in the video) going to the NHS or that even a majority did for the simple reason that they would revote when they realize the government lied to them. The majority most likely voted in the hopes of changing immigration policy among other things.