FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Brexit and EU Referendum = EU impose 'no Brexit'?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2363
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

David Davis discussing different preferred types of possible Brexit deals: the Norway + and Canada ++ deals;
Canada+++ deal would be best for Britain. Why total silence about it on the BBC? David Davis MP speaks in the debate on the Brexit Draft Withdrawal Agreement


Link


https://youtu.be/oKtF_q5M5H0

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16287
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Secession from the European Union
by Thierry Meyssan
http://www.voltairenet.org/article203998.html

For Thierry Meyssan, the way in which Germany and France are refusing the right of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union demonstrates the fact that the EU is not simply a straight-jacket - it also goes to show that the Europeans still care as little about their neighbours as they did during the two World Wars. Manifestly, they have forgotten that governing a country means more than simply defending its interests in the short term, but also thinking in the long term and avoiding conflicts with its neighbours.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 20 NOVEMBER 2018

The member states of the European Union seem unaware of the clouds that are gathering above their heads. They have identified the most serious problems of the EU, but are treating them with nonchalance, and fail to understand what the British secession (Brexit) implies. They are slowly sinking into a crisis which may only be resolved by violence.

The origin of the problem

During the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the members of the European Community accepted to bow to the decisions of the United States and to integrate the states of Central Europe, even though these states did not correspond in any way to the logical criteria of adhesion. With this momentum, they adopted the Maastricht Treaty, which transformed the European project of economic coordination between European States into that of a supra-national State. The idea was to create a vast political bloc which, under the military protection of the United States, was intended to engage with the USA on the road to prosperity.

This super-State has nothing democratic about it. It is administered by a collegiate of senior civil servants, the Commission, whose members are designated one at a time by the heads of state and government. Never before in History has an Empire functioned in this way. Very quickly, the paritarian model of the Commission spawned a gigantic paritarian bureaucracy in which some states are « more equal than others ».

This supra-national project turned out to be inadaptable to a unipolar world. The European Community sprang from the the civil chapter of the Marshall plan - NATO being the military chapter. The Western European bourgeoisies, frightened by the Soviet model, had been supporting the European Community since the Congress convened by Winston Churchill in The Hague in 1948. However, after the disappearance of the USSR, they no longer had any interest in continuing along this road.

The ex-States of the Warsaw Pact could not decide whether to engage in the Union or form a direct alliance with the United States. For example, Poland bought US war planes which it used in Iraq with the money granted by the Union for the modernisation of its agriculture.

Apart from the development of police and legal cooperation, the Maastricht Treaty created a single currency and foreign policy. All the member states were obliged to adopt the Euro as soon as their national economy would allow it. Only Denmark and the United Kingdom, catching the scent of impending problems, stayed out of it. As for the foreign policy, it seemed to make sense in a unipolar world dominated by the United States.

Taking into account the differences within the Euro zone, the small fry were destined to become the prey of the biggest of the sharks, Germany. The single currency which, at the moment it was put into circulation, had been adjusted to the dollar, transformed itself progressively into an internationalised version of the German Mark. Incapable of competing, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain were symbolically qualified as PIGS by the financiers. While Berlin pillaged their economies, it offered Athens a restoration of its wealth - if Greece would hand over a part of its territory.

It so happened that the European Union, while pursuing its global economic growth, was overtaken by other states whose economic growth was several times faster. While adhesion to the European Union was an advantage for the ex-members of the Warsaw Pact, it had become a millstone for the Western Europeans.

Drawing lessons from this failure, the United Kingdom decided to retire from the super-State (Brexit) in order to reconnect with its historic allies from the Commonwealth and, if possible, with China. The Commission panicked, fearing that the British example would open the door for other departures, for the maintenance of the Common Market but the end of the Union. It therefore decided to set conditions which would be dissuasive for leavers.

The internal problems of the United Kingdom

Since the European Union serves the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor, the British workers and rural citizens voted to leave, while the tertiary sector voted to stay.

Although British society, like other European countries, has an upper middle class which owes its enrichment to the European Union, unlike the other great European countries, it also has a powerful aristocracy. Before the Second World War, this class enjoyed all the advantages offered by the European Union, but also a prosperity that it can no longer expect from Brussels. The aristocracy therefore decided to vote for the Brexit against the upper middle class, which sparked a crisis within the ruling class.

Finally, the choice of Theresa May as Prime Minister was intended to preserve the interests of people from all walks of life (« Global Britain »). But things did not go as intended.
- First of all, Mrs. May was unable to conclude a preferential agreement with China, and experienced difficulties with the Commonwealth, with whom the bonds had been loosened over time.
- Next, she encountered problems with the Scottish and Irish minorities, particularly since her majority includes Irish Protestants who cling to their privileges.
- Besides that, she ran into the blind intransigence of Berlin and Brussels.
- Finally, she will have to face up to challenges and questions about the « special relationship » which links her country to the United States.

The problem revealed by the application of the Brexit

After having tried in vain several readjustments of the treaties, the United Kingdom democratically voted for the Brexit on 23 June 2016. The upper middle class, who did not believe this could happen, immediately attempted to invalidate their choice. There was talk about organising a second referendum, as had been done in Denmark for the Maastricht Treaty. This did not seem possible, so a distinction was made between a « hard Brexit » (without new agreements with the EU) and a « soft Brexit » (with the maintenance of various pre-existing agreements). The Press claimed that the Brexit would be an economic catastrophe for the British people. In reality, studies carried out before the referendum, and therefore before this debate, all attest that the first two years after the British exit from the Union would be recessive, but that the United Kingdom would quickly recover and overtake the Union. The opposition to the result of the referendum – and therefore opposition to the popular vote – managed to hinder its application. The notification of the British exit was delivered by the government to the Commission with a delay of nine months, on 29 March 2017.

On 14 November 2018 – two years and four months after the referendum - Theresa May capitulated and accepted an unfavourable agreement with the European Commission. However, when she presented this deal to her government, seven of her ministers resigned, including the minister in charge of the Brexit. Clearly he had overlooked the elements of the text that the Prime Minister had assigned to him.

This document includes a disposition which is absolutely unacceptable for a sovereign state, whatever it may be. It institutes an unstated period of transition, during which the United Kingdom will no longer be considered as a member of the Union, but will nonetheless be obliged to follow its rules, including those which are still to be adopted.

Behind this devious plot hide Germany and France.

As soon as the result of the British referendum was known, Germany realised that the Brexit would provoke the loss of several tens of billions of Euros from its own GDP. Merkel’s government therefore got busy – not at adapting its own economy, but at sabotaging the United Kingdom’s departure from the Union.

As for French President Emmanuel Macron, he represents the European upper middle class, and is therefore by nature opposed to the Brexit.

The men behind the politicians

Chancellor Merkel knew she could count on the President of the Union, Polish Donald Tusk. In fact this man is not at his current post because he is the ex-Prime Minister of his country, but for two different reasons – during the Cold War, his family, members of the Cachoube minority, chose the United States over the Soviet Union, and besides that, Tusk is a childhood friend of Angela Merkel.

Tusk began by questioning British engagement in the multi-annual programmes adopted by the Union. If London were to pay the sums to which it had agreed, it would not be able to leave the Union without paying an exit tax of between 55 and 60 billion pounds.

French ex- minister and commissioner Michel Barnier was nominated as head negotiator for dealings with the United Kingdom. Barnier had already stirred up a number of solid enmities in the City, which he treated badly during the crisis of 2008. Furthermore, British financiers dream of handling the convertibility of the Chinese yuan into Euros.

Barnier accepted to take the German Sabine Wey as his assistant. It is in reality Ms. Wey who is leading the negotiations, tasked with the mission of guaranteeing their failure.

At the same time, the man who « made » the career of Emmanuel Macron, ex-head of the Inspectorate General of Finances, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, was named as the French ambassador in London. He is a friend of Barnier, with whom he handled the financial crisis of 2008. To kill the Brexit, Jouyet is relying on the Conservative leader of the opposition to Theresa May, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee to the House of Commons, Colonel Tom Tugendhat.

Jouyet chose Tugendshat’s wife Anissia Tugendhat as his assistant at the French embassy in London. She is a graduate of the elite École Nationale d’Administration.

The crisis came to a head during the the summit of the European Council in Salzbourg, in September 2018. Theresa May presented the consensus that she had managed to establish in her country, and that many others would be well advised to use as an example – the Chequers plan (to maintain only the Common Market ties between the two entities, but not the free circulation of citizens, services and capital, and no longer to be ruled by Luxembourg’s European administrative and legal system). Donald Tusk brutally rejected this plan.

At this point, we have to take a step back. The agreements that put an end to the revolt of the IRA against English colonialism did not resolve the causes of the conflict. Peace was only found because the European Union allowed the abrogation of the frontier between the two Irelands. Tusk demanded that in order to prevent the resurgence of this war of national liberation, Northern Ireland be maintained in the Union’s Customs sector. This implies the creation of a frontier controlled by the Union, cutting the United Kingdom in two, and separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the country.

During the second session of the Council, before the heads of state and government, Tusk slammed the door in Mrs. May’s face, leaving her alone. A public humiliation which could not remain without consequence.

JPEG - 21.8 kb
Reflections on secession from the European Union

All this fiddling attests to the skill of the European leaders at political sleight of hand. They appear to respect the rules of impartiality, and to take their decisions collectively with the sole aim of serving the general interest (even though this declared motive is refuted only by the British). In reality, certain of these leaders defend the interests of their country to the detriment of their partners, while others defend the interests of their social class to the detriment of everybody else. The worst is obviously the threat brought to bear on the United Kingdom – it must submit to the economic conditions of Brussels, or there will be another instalment of the war of Independence in Northern Ireland.

Such behaviour can only lead to the re-awakening of the intra-European conflicts which triggered two World Wars - conflicts that the Union has masked within its own territory, but which remain unresolved and persist outside of the Union.

Conscious that they are playing with fire, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel suddenly evoked the creation of a common army which would include the United Kingdom. It is true, of course, that if the three major European powers should agree to form a military alliance, the problem would be resolved. But this alliance is impossible, because it is unfeasible to build an army without first deciding who will command it.

The authoritarianism of the supra-national State has swelled to the point where, during the negotiations on the Brexit, it created three other fronts. The Commission opened two procedures for sanctions to be instituted against Poland and Hungary, (at the request of the European Parliament), accused of systemic violations of the values of the Union - procedures whose objective is to place these two states in the same situation as the United Kingdom during the period of transition – being constrained to respect the rules of the Union without having any say in their determination. Besides which, hampered by the reforms currently under way in Italy which are working against its ideology, the supra-national State refuses to allow Rome the right to build a budget in order to implement its own politics.

The Common Market of the European Community enabled the establishment of peace in Western Europe. Its successor, the European Union, is destroying this inheritance, and is setting its own members one against the other.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16287
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seamless Irish border not specified in Belfast Agreement: DUP
Prime Minister Theresa May during her speech at the Waterfront Hall in Belfast on Friday
Prime Minister Theresa May during her speech at the Waterfront Hall in STEPHEN GAMBLE Published: 07:30 Monday 23 July 2018
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/seamless-irish-border-not-specified- in-belfast-agreement-dup-1-8575833

A senior DUP figure has backed former Ulster Unionist leader Reg Empey’s assertion that there is nothing in the Belfast Agreement which demands a “seamless” Irish border.

Lord Empey made the comments after Prime Minister Theresa May, in a visit to Belfast on Friday, stated that a “seamless” border is a critical element of the agreement.

In a speech at Belfast’s Waterfront Hall, the PM claimed a seamless border is “a foundation stone on which the Belfast Agreement rests, allowing for the just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities”.

But hours after Mrs May’s speech, Lord Empey – one of the key UUP negotiators of the agreement – said: “There’s nothing in the agreement that references any of that.”

And yesterday, the DUP’s Sir Jeffrey Donaldson told the News Letter: “That would be our view as well.”

The Lagan Valley MP said that while his party does not want to see a hard Irish border after Brexit, he added: “Let’s be clear, this is not specified anywhere in the Belfast Agreement.

“We are anxious to get a pragmatic outcome that benefits all of the UK and at the same time enables free trade arrangements between the UK and EU.”

Sir Jeffrey added that any attempt to “hive off” Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK by putting a customs border in the Irish Sea would be “a fundamental breach” of the 1998 agreement.

He added: “Our bottom line remains that Northern Ireland will not be separated off from the UK, which is a key principle of the Belfast Agreement.”

The PM’s comments, made at the end of her two-day visit to Northern Ireland, have profound implications for the shape of Brexit because both the EU and the UK have agreed that it must respect the agreement.

But Lord Empey said that Mrs May’s comments about the “seamless border” – which are informing her entire Brexit policy – were founded on a false premise.

Sir Reg said that the agreement explicitly recognised the border.

“The whole point is that the Irish government changed its constitution, removing its claim – which would have meant there was no border – to a situation where it recognises the border.”

A member of the public who is against Theresa May's deal pictured outside the Houses of Parliament. (Photo: P.A. Wire).
FOLLOW LIVE: Theresa May postpones Brexit vote
He said that the agreement “actually for first time persuaded the Irish government to recognise the border”.

The former Ulster Unionist leader stressed that he was not advocating a reinstatement of a hard border, saying that to “erect and put in a physical border would undoubtedly inflame people’s sensitivities”.

He said: “There is no doubt that the whole question of identity is important and we understand that – that’s the rationale behind cross-border bodies.

“I would fully understand and accept that the Irish national identity is best recognised by the situation we currently have.”

However, he stressed that there was nothing in the agreement which specifically precluded a hardening of the border.

He highlighted that the Irish government recognised the border by regularly stopping people crossing the border for either immigration purposes or in an attempt to detect criminality.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16287
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tim Morris: Ignore the scaremongering. Britain’s ports can thrive after Brexit.

http://www.twitter.com/TimJMorris By Tim Morris
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/05/tim-morris-ignore-th e-scaremongering-britains-ports-can-thrive-after-brexit.html

Tim Morris is the Chief Executive of the UK Major Ports Group.

You wouldn’t be able to without major UK ports. Pretty much every screen you look at – phone, tablet monitor, television – has been handled by one of the UK’s largest ports on its way to your hand or home. And that’s just one example of the fundamental role that ports, and particularly major ports, have on our lives and the UK economy.

Ninety-five per cent of the UK’s physical trade with the world arrives or departs the nation by sea. Sevent-five per cent of this trade – worth £585 billion in 2017 – is handled by members of the organisation that I represent: the UK Major Ports Group. This includes the export of seven out of every ten cars made in the UK and the import of nearly half the UK’s food and feed requirements.

It is clear that UK’s major ports are already substantial and successful examples of Global Britain in action, today. They are Britain’s main gateways to the world, enabling trade and jobs. They have also been highly successful in attracting significant overseas capital – contributing to the more than half a billion pounds of investment that UK Major Ports Group members collectively make in the UK each year. This investment has helped create a major ports sector in the UK which is able to serve the world’s largest merchant vessels, providing British consumers and manufacturers with the most efficient access to global markets – fundamental in delivering a successful Brexit for the UK.

But there has been a lot of talk that Brexit will cripple our ports, clogging them up with paperwork and bureaucracy, with queues backing up on roads around them all over Britain’s coastlines. In fact, the opposite is true: Britain’s ports can thrive after we leave the European Union.

To understand why, you first need to understand that Britain’s ports are unique in Europe. The UK’s major ports are privately owned and operated, both as regular companies or as ‘trusts’, competing fiercely with each other. This is in contrast to their large port peers in Europe which are government owned, either at a national or regional level, and often based on a national monopoly with little competition.

Secondly, huge volumes of our trade is already non-EU. Yes, port traffic through Dover is 98 per cent with the EU. However, the large ports that handle container mega carriers – bringing products like the device you’re reading this article on – can in fact be as much as 95 per cent non-EU. UK ports already have the systems and processes in place to handle global trade highly efficiently and effectively. This shouldn’t sound complacent – particular types of port traffic have real challenges, and all ports need clarity on what is required from them and a pragmatic approach to implementation. But those challenges are concentrated. We need to see the bigger picture.

And part of that bigger picture is to recognise those opportunities from Brexit. It is vital that the UK captures these opportunities, as well as fixing the technical challenges. The UK can set regulation that is right for our competitive, private sector-led national context, rather than being lumbered with rules written for the statist monopolies elsewhere in Europe. The greater recognition of trade as an essential priority for the UK can only be positive, and a pro-trade approach must be hard-wired into policy making and regulation. Greater self-determination gives more freedom to adopt policies that boost UK growth.

A case in point is the wholly inappropriate EU-mandated Port Services Directive or ‘PSR’. The PSR is a ham-fisted attempt by Brussels bureaucrats to force competition onto a sector that is largely state run. But vigorous competition is already a hall mark of the UK major ports sector, producing benefits to consumers and exporters and delivering jobs and investment. So the PSR only succeeds in tying UK port operators in unnecessary red tape just as they should be – and the country needs them to be – redoubling their efforts to provide the best gateways possible for an independent trading Britain post Brexit. And, to add insult to injury, the PSR only comes into force in the UK on March 24th next year, a matter of days before Brexit happens.

So what’s the three-point plan from the UK’s major ports to make a success of Brexit for the long term?

Hardwire ‘trade’ as a priority into Government and regulation – for example by establishing a Cabinet Committee and incorporating trade benefits more strongly into infrastructure assessments;
Use the UK’s new flexibility to set a policy and regulatory landscape that’s appropriate for its unique major ports sector – for example by exploring the potential of ‘free ports’ to drive investment and jobs around our coast and by setting environmental standards which remain high but are streamlined and reflect the specific circumstances of the UK; and
On a last in, first out principle, repeal the completely inappropriate EU-mandated Port Services Directive at the earliest possible opportunity.
Whilst there are some challenges from Brexit, there are also notable opportunities. Britain is at its best when it is an open, trading nation. Brexit can allow us to get rid of some of the unnecessary regulation and focus on hard-wiring a pro-trade approach into every aspect of policy-making.

Britain’s major ports have been foundations of the nation’s economic success and prosperity for hundreds of years. With the right, pragmatic approach to Brexit implementation, the courage to grasp the opportunities that Brexit offers and with an infrastructure-led approach to growth, major ports are confident that they will continue to play this foundation role for centuries to come.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16287
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Warnings of no-deal ports chaos are 'misleading', industry boss says
Anna Mikhailova, political correspondent 07 DECEMBER 2018 • 10:22PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/07/warnings-no-deal-ports -chaos-misleading-industry-boss-says/

The boss of UK Major Ports Group has challenged Chancellor Philip Hammond's warnings of a “logjam” at Britain’s ports in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Warnings of a “logjam” at Britain’s ports as a result of a no-deal Brexit are misleading, a senior representative of the industry has said.

It comes after Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, said that ports would face chaos if the UK left the EU without a deal and would take “years” to adapt.

But Tim Morris, the chief executive of UK Major Ports Group, the trade body, said: “The UK’s port sector is a resilient, adaptable and highly competitive one, offering customers a range of options.

"We will work through the challenges of Brexit as we have done with huge changes throughout the centuries.”

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph on behalf of port operators responsible for 75 per cent of the UK’s seaborne trade, Mr Morris challenged the Chancellor’s warnings, which used Dover port as an example.

He said: “Dover, which handles around 6 per cent of total UK port volumes, faces a unique combination of Brexit risk factors that are not faced by most UK major ports.

“These ports already have the capacity and the infrastructure to handle large volumes of both EU and non-EU trade today without ‘logjam’.”

He suggests planning restrictions pose the bigger long-term issue: “A challenge faced by all ports is the constraints on growth and job creation applied by the current planning system.”

Revised Brexit assessments published on Friday warned that access through Dover and Folkestone could be reduced for significantly longer than first feared.

Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, has written to health and care providers setting out contingency plans for medicine plans, in which he warns that there would be "significantly reduced access across the short straits, for up to six months."

Separately, he also confirmed that his department was exploring plans to give pharmacists the authority to overrule GPs and ration drugs to mitigate shortages.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16287
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Europaische
WirtschaftsGemeinschaft
BEING in Translation:
EUropean Economic
Community
http://www.jar2.com/Files/Nazism/The_Europeische_Wirtschaftsgemeinchaf t_Berlin_1942.pdf

Von:
ReichsWirtschaftMinister u. President der Deutschen
ReichsBank Funk;
Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin; Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle;
Dr. Reithinger, Berlin; MinisterialDirektor Dr. Benning, Berlin;
Gesandter Dr. Clodius, Berlin, und GauWirtschaftsBerater
Professor
Dr. Hunke, Berlin
Mit einer EinFuhrung von:
GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke
President des Vereins Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller
HerausGeGeben von dem
Verein Berliner Kaufleute und der Wirtschafts –
HochSchule
Und Industrieller
Berlin
Published
BERLIN 1942
Second edition 1943
Haude & Spenesche VerlagsBuchHandlung Max Paschke
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
-----------
To assist non Germans, reading the above, certain letters have been capitalised for convenience
ONLYThe European Economic Community
Mr. Funk, the Reich’s Economic Minister and President of the German
Reichsbank
Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin
Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle
Dr. Reithinger, Berlin, Ministerial Director
Dr. Beisiegel, Berlin
Secretary of State Königs, Berlin
Director Dr. Benning, Berlin
Ambassador Dr. Clodius, Berlin and Economics Committee Advisor
Professor Dr. Hunke, Berlin
With an introduction by
Economics Committee Advisor, Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, President of
the Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce
Issued by
The Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce and the Berlin School of
Economics
Published BERLIN 1942
Second Revised Edition (Berlin 1943)
Haude and Spenersche Publishing House Max PaschkePreface to the First and Second Edition
This text contains the lectures presented under the title “The European
Economic Community” by the Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce
at the start of 1942 in conjunction with the Economic Advisor to the
Berlin Committee of the NSDAP and The Chamber of Trade and
Industry. The order of lectures was as follows:
• Walter Funk, Reichs Economic Minister and President of the Reichsbank:
“The Economic Face of the New Europe”
• Dr. Horst Jecht, Professor at The Berlin School of Economics:
“Developments towards the European Economic
Community”
• Dr. Emil Woermann, Professor at Halle University:
“European Agriculture”
• Dr. Anton Reithinger, Director of the Economics Department of I.G.
Farbenindustrie A.G., Berlin:
“The European Industrial Economy”
• Dr. Philipp Beisiegel, Ministerial Director of the Reich’s Labour Ministry:
“The Deployment of Labour in Europe”
• Gustav Koenigs, Secretary of State, Berlin:
“Questions About European Transport”
• Dr. Bernhard Benning, Director of the Reich’s Credit Company, Berlin:
“Questions About Europe’s Currency”
• Dr. Carl Clodius, Ambassador of the Foreign Office:
“European Trade and Economic Agreements’’
• Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Economic Committee Advisor of the NSDAP,
President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency and the Berlin Society of
Industry and Commerce:
“The Basic Question: Europe - Geographical Concept or
Political Fact?”
The lectures met with considerable interest and very strong agreement. On
account of this, we feel we should make them available to a wider circle of
people. Berlin, September 1942
The Society of Berlin’s Trade and Industry - The President: Professor Dr.
Heinrich Hunke, Advisor to the Economics Committee
The Berlin School of Economics - The Rector: Dr. Edwin Fels, Professor of
GeographyPreface 2Hunke Introduction 8
The Discussion So Far and its Results 8
Economic Practice 9
Problems Related to Economic Community of Continental
Europe
10
PAMPHLET
#01
Funk The Economic Face of the New Europe 15
Real and False Economic Freedom 15
Co-operation in Continental Europe 18
Europe’s Resources and Completion 20
Directing of the Economy by the State and Work
between the States of the Community
22
The Movement of Payments between the States and European
Currency Issues
24
Securing the Area and Economy of Europe 27
The Will for Co-operation in the Economic Community 28
PAMPHLET
Jecht Developments towards the European Economic Community 30
The European Economic Community and its Enlargement 30
The Problem of the European Economic Area in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages
31
Recent Changes to the Problem of the Area of Europe 33
The Formation of the Nations and Independent Economies 33
Overseas Expansion and its Consequences for Europe 34
The Release of England from the Continent and the Formation
of the “Free Global Economy”
35
Europe’s Economic New Order: The Present Task 37
Collapse of the Previous World Economy 38
Means and Objectives of the European Economic Community 39
Outlook 41
PAMPHLET
Woermann European Agriculture 42
The Development of Agricultural Enterprises and
the Structure of Europe’s Food Economy
42
The Formation of the Division of Labour in World
Agriculture
47
Production Increase in Germany and Italy 49
The Supply Situation under the Influence of Economic
Restrictions and Change
50
Political Consequences for Production 52
Possibilities of Increasing Europe’s Food Production 53
PAMPHLET
#04
Reithinger The European Industrial Economy 59
The Development of Industry in the 19th Century 59
Stages of Technical and Economic Development 60
Socio-Political Effects 60
The Loss of Europe’s Hegemony in the World War 61
The Transition to State Direction and Planning 62
New Europe and its Shared Features 64
Regional Differences in Europe 66The Major Powers at War - A Comparison of their
Capabilities
68
PAMPHLET
#05
Beisiegel The Deployment of Labour in Europe 71
Population Density, Number and Structure of the Employed 71
People - The Wealth of Europe 72
Worker Exchange on the Basis of Inter-State Agreements 75
Adaptation of the Organisation for Labour Deployment 78
Employer Action and Order Switching 79
PAMPHLET
#06
Koenigs Questions about European Transport 81
“Technical Unity” in the Railway System 82
The Magna Carta of Europe’s Internal Riverboat Traffic 84
Motorways’ Contribution to the European Transport
Community
87
Community Work in Shipping 88
Joint Work in Air Traffic 89
PAMPHLET
#07
Benning Questions about Europe’s Currency 91
Currency’s Two Sides 91
The Internal Economic Situation of Europe’s Currencies 92
Managing Foreign Exchange and Bilateral Settlements 92
Development of Multi-Lateral Settlements 94
The Problem of the Clearing Balances 95
Adjustment of Europe’s Exchange Rates 96
Future Formation of the European Currency System 97
Europe’s Future Currency Relationship to the Currencies of
Other Major Nations
99
What about Gold? 100
The European Currency Bloc 101
PAMPHLET
#08
Clodius European Trade and Economic Treaties 102
The Period of the Old Trade Policy 102
German Economic and Trade Policy since 1933 103
Changes to Trade Policy Caused by the War 105
The Reversal of the Law of Supply and Demand 106
The Question of Labour Deployment in Europe 106
The Problem of Traffic 106
Effects of the English Blockade on Europe 106
Principles of European Co-operation 107
The European Regional Principle 107
Europe’s Economic Independence 107
Europe and the Global Economy 108
Internal Preconditions of a European Economic Community 109
Ways to Achieve European Co-operation 111PAMPHLET
#09
Hunke The Basic Question: Europe – Geographical Concept or
Political Fact?
113
New Learning and Thought 113
Starting Point for European Task 114
Three Eras 114
The Character of the Global Economy 114
Political Weakness of Continental Europe due to the Idea of
English World Superiority
116
Britain’s Dominant Theory about the Modern National
Economy
117
The Foundation of the European Economic Community 118
Categories within the European Economic Community 119
Three Principles 119
A New Era 121
Taking a Look Back to the Past and to the Future 123Pamphlet #01
Introduction - by Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Economic Committee
Adviser to the NSDAP, President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency

TonyGosling wrote:
What the BBC won't tell you about Brexit I
Decline of Britain since 1973 EEC - EU as Financial Warfare machine - Tony Gosling

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM

What the BBC won't tell you about #Brexit II
Documentary evidence the EEC and EU was designed in 1942 in Berlin by the Nazis - Tony Gosling

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rXoxJSpYk8



The_Europesche_Wirtschaftsgemeinchaft_Berlin_1942.pdf
 Description:
The Europesche Wirtschaftsgemeinchaft Berlin 1942

Download
 Filename:  The_Europesche_Wirtschaftsgemeinchaft_Berlin_1942.pdf
 Filesize:  773.26 KB
 Downloaded:  15 Time(s)


_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16287
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'Canada plus or you don't get the £39bn' David Davis on Norway and Canada plus

Link

https://youtu.be/T7bcB9stVOc

David Davis: We can easily switch to a Canada plus
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1028036/david-davis-we-can-swi tch-to-canada-plus


_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 16287
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brexit dates

Brexit key dates
2019

January 7 - MPs come back from Christmas recess.

Week of January 14 - The Commons will vote on Theresa May’s Brexit plan in the week starting January 14.

The vote was first scheduled to take place on December 11, but Mrs May called off the vote amid near-unanimous predictions she would lose.

Brexit key dates 2019

Brexit key dates 2019: Parliament will vote on Mrs May's Brexit deal in January (Image: GETTY)
This vote is potentially the biggest threat to the Prime Minister’s plans.

The vote has been presented as a decision between approving the Government’s withdrawal agreement and "no deal".

January 21 - If the government has not presented its withdrawal agreement by this date, MPs will gain influence on the prime ministers' next steps.

March 21-22 - The final summit the UK is expected to attend as a member state of the EU.

Before 29 March - Parliament will have to pass the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement, assuming it was approved by Parliament beforehand.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1064715/Brexit-key-dates-2019- Brexit-New-Year-when-is-Brexit

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2363
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brexit - There is no Alternative... Here's Why!
We broke their star


Link

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1diXYAFmtoI

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2363
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My understanding is the UK will actually be leaving on 29th March and that the chaos & confusion is to trick the remainers into revealing everything about how they work by getting them to fight hard for something they can't have.

Jeremy Corbyn is hamstrung, surrounded by Blairite MPs who are making sure he fights like crazy to remain.

If we leave on schedule expect a financial tsunami like you've never even imagined.

The NATO oligarchy will likely hit us with everything they have.



The EU is being revealed as simply a gigantic wealth farming (for the super rich) and chaos generating machine for the international mafia.

Governments are being dismantled, bankrupted and pliable barrow boys have been appointed to administer the bankruptcy. Think Libya :-/

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group