Democracy

Hard Brexit in a Tweet

Sometimes perspective on a No Deal Brexit is this simple. Nary a Leave voter wanted to have any political ties or rules set in Brussels. That’s kind of what “Leave the EU” on a ballot means. There were no other interpretations.

Despite PM May’s warning that changing Conservative leaders would “put our country’s future at risk and create uncertainty when we can least afford it given the deal she has managed to achieve many Brits would welcome it all the same. CM has been a huge seller of May since she called an early election.

Time to put a leader in charge that will throw it back at Brussels. No Deal for the EU is a disastrous outcome for the continent. It is the deal they least want because it would reveal how impotent Juncker and Tusk are. Time to find a spine and tell the hostage takers their ransom demands won’t be met.

Unconditional Surrender

There is absolutely no way on earth that the 17mn who voted ‘Leave’ envisaged a Brexit plan that gave away money, took away voting rights, kept the country tied up in all current and future EU red tape, open borders and laws they’ll have no say over. On every level it’s a lose-lose. May’s plan virtually guarantees Britain will be worse off. No deal would make way more sense.

The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world. It should have been enough reason to negotiate FTA’s with anyone. Obama might have threatened that Brits would go to the back of the line, but who was he fooling? 17mn Brits thought otherwise. The people spoke.

Of course the Remainers will crow about their foresighted wisdom. Leavers will wonder why the Tory party room are prepared to back a deal that just looks so ridiculous. It doesn’t look like a negotiation took place. Unconditional surrenders have come with more  favourable T’s & C’s. If May is such good mates with Trump, why didn’t she take a leaf out of his negotiation tactics with the EU? EC President  Jean-Claude Juncker stumbled on the White House lawn after agreeing to sign an FTA with America in one day. Of course the Europhiles will argue the fine print will overwhelmingly protect EU rights, but the point is May never went into bat for her constituents. She sold her countrymen and women down the Thames.

Boris Johnson correctly summed up,

I really can’t believe it but this Government seems to be on the verge of total surrender. With every day that passes we seem to be getting more craven. We have already agreed to hand over £40bn for nothing – and certainly not a trade deal – in return.

We have agreed to become the punk of Brussels, signing up not just to their existing rulebook but to huge chunks of future regulation – even though we will have no say in drafting that legislation. We have agreed against all promises that the European Court of Justice will have a say in the enforcement of that regulation in the UK.

We have been so feeble in our preparations to leave the EU on WTO terms, and so unnaturally terrified of the consequences (greatly exaggerated by the scaremongers) that we have now said we will remain in the so-called customs union.

Which means that our trade policy will be run by Brussels at least until 2022, and – at this rate – long beyond that date. We will not be able to do free trade deals of any great value. We will not be able to take back control of our tariffs, our borders, our money, our laws. It is not even clear whether we will be able to set our own VAT rates – and yet we will have no one round the table to argue the UK case…”

With any luck, the bill will be blocked by Parliament. Leave Rebel MPs should vote against this travesty and look to file a no confidence motion to boot May. This is not what the people voted for. Regardless of whether people may or may not have changed their minds, everyone knew what was on the table and what the expected  outcomes. The ticket stated clearly in black and white,

8ACF3EB8-D354-4504-B721-30D632392D7B.jpeg

So May’s plan technically keeps the UK in the EU without being a member.  No doubt she has been promised a fat cat advisory role in Brussels when she is turfed, which she surely deserves to be.

We should not overlook the behaviour or Brussels with unruly members in the past. Austria, Poland, Hungary, Greece, Ireland etc. You can take it to the bank that the EU will go out of its way to punish the Brits. Easier to bully the UK which may yet sign  away their own rights as if they were the vanquished army in war.  This isn’t a negotiation but a total capitulation.

So much for protecting democracy and respecting the results of a referendum. Why bother holding it in the first place?

 

Feinstein’s timing truly defending the rights of a sexual assault victim?

FFC44C27-733C-40EB-B3C9-D45A89939278.jpeg

There is absolutely nothing right about sexual harassment of any kind. CM wrote extensively here on the subject last year. CM also warned of the dangers of #MeToo turning into baseless witch hunts that could permanently stain the character of otherwise innocent people. CM contends that false claims should be equally punishable under the law to prevent false claims getting air.

Whether Supreme Court Justice-in waiting Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of harassment 36 years ago is nothing more than an allegation at this stage. All claims should be heard under the legal framework. However studying the timeline of events, there is a touch of convenience in Senator Diane Feinstein’s use of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation letter.

Kavanaugh’s announcement as SC nominee was made mid July, 2018. Ford documented her supposed harassment encounter in a letter to Feinstein two weeks later, dated July 30th. Yet it would appear Feinstein sat on this nugget til September in order to maximize its utility to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation if all other political stunts failed. With any luck she can drag an FBI investigation into the mid-terms (i.e. the real goal).

If Feinstein truly wanted to defend the rights of a supposed sexual harassment victim, surely she should have acted immediately? No doubt she would need a bit of time to discuss with lawyers to understand if this constituted substantial evidence but sexual harassment is a serious claim and crime. Surely the united forces within the Democratic Party could summon the resources to expedite the allegation and use its validity to block.

As the party of supposed social values, what better way to derail the candidate than to release a real claim ASAP after legal checks and balances, including meeting the openly Trump hating Democratic professor were completed. Provided the evidence was incontrovertible it would sell itself. Could it be that the evidence is so sketchy that Feinstein knew it only served as a stalling tactic, hence delaying it by 6 weeks? This says more about the moral compass of the Democrats than Ford.

It seems that Ford does not want to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee until the FBI investigation. Yet the FBI will investigate what? The crime scene is 36 years old. Her recollection is vague at best. Interviewing people who were likely underage kids who were drunk at a party

Alas, as all of the stunts from Democrats, including Cory Booker admitting he may lose his position for leaking certain documents which turned out to support Kavanaugh not being racist, they pull out claims of sexual misconduct, in the hope it drags the confirmation beyond the Novemeber elections whereby a potential blue wave will potentially allow them to block Trump’s choice. Tactically a shrewd move, but utterly disgusting to true victims if proved untrue.

There is no reason to fault the Democrats wish to block a Republican choice for a vacant SCJ seat (which by the way was on the 2016 ballot given the subject was raised in the presidential debates because it was the first time since Eisenhower that an SCJ seat was empty at election time) on the basis of supposed conflicts in convictions and beliefs. No doubt the Republicans would do likewise. Yet citizens were given the chance to vote on a SC judge with their presidential choice. The names were all out there.

Unfortunately, to use a sexual assault allegation based on sketchy information given by the accuser who admits she doesn’t remember much 36 years ago is utterly reprehensible if the claims turn out to be false. There will be no surprise if the Dems get their goal achieved that Ford will quietly withdraw her claims.

Let’s be perfectly clear. If Kavanaugh is guilty of such a serious crime then he is unfit to serve on a SC bench. Should Ford’s claim turn out to be completely baseless then the Dems will reveal themselves as morally bankrupt to use such a tactic to besmirch someone’s reputation. The timing of the letter is convenient to say the least.

Is this the way forward? Everything that doesn’t stand on its merits or via democratic process will somehow be stopped by claims of sexual impropriety?

In this battle the only thing everyone should be united behind is that “justice” is properly served for the right reasons. Certainly not to dish up political character assassinations for convenience.

True victims tend to bottle trauma for substantial periods, usually decades. Yet rarely would they openly come out on a whim and chuck around claims which don’t help their own healing process.

Hate speech?

FCF15B1F-4C6D-49BE-8980-9C6B66F6AD33

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau accused a Quebec woman of hate speech with respect to asking a question about whether the provinces would be reimbursed for the cost of illegal border crossers. Surely if his policy is so robust he should be able to comfortably defend its position without charging citizens of ‘racism,’ ‘intolerance,’ and having words which have “no place” in Canada. So much for defending the free speech of his peoplekind. Maybe Trudeau can amend Bill C-16 so she can be arrested and jailed for asking questions deemed unworthy by the state.

Yet more junk journalism from The Guardian

33ADFEE8-2402-4164-BECF-46D50C56A7FA.jpeg

No wonder The Guardian is begging for charity to stay alive when it publishes such a slanted narrative which essentially charges the Swiss of profiling against Muslims for something as trivial as a handshake.  CM wrote about this over two years ago.

Swiss authorities have denied the citizenship applications of two Muslim schoolgirls who refused to swim in a pool with boys based on religious grounds. Authorities cited the students’ refusal to comply with school curricula like all the other children of various races, backgrounds, and religions. Their refusal to assimilate to and respect the very culture they wanted to take them in and give them the privilege of citizenship was proof enough that they weren’t there to better Swiss society but to force its citizens to adopt their foreign beliefs.”

Stefan Wehrle, president of the naturalisation committee said, “Whoever doesn’t fulfil these conditions violates the law and therefore cannot be naturalised.”

Yet the Swiss are no easier on white immigrants they don’t think fit the bill as a desired citizen, even if resident for four decades.

“In Switzerland, unlike in the United States and many other countries, integration into society is more important for naturalization than knowledge of national history or politics. Candidates for citizenship must prove that they are well assimilated in their communities and respect local customs and traditions.

In Switzerland, local town or village councils make initial decisions on naturalization applications. If they decide a candidate is not an upstanding member of the community, the application will be denied and not forwarded to canton (state) and federal authorities for further processing.

DFE5E150-80C7-461C-8290-BF83ABE572F2.jpeg

That’s what happened in 2014 to Irving Dunn (pictured), an American who has lived in Switzerland for nearly 40 years. He was denied Swiss citizenship because he could not name any of his Swiss friends or neighbouring villages, authorities said. “The applicant’s answers have shown that his motive for naturalization is not about integration but about the personal advantages it offers,” the naturalization commission ruled.”

So if The Guardian wasn’t so busy painting narratives and did a bit of research on the Swiss immigration system they may win paying customers instead of pleading others to keep them afloat. Yes, the reason why you’re struggling is the quality of the journalism, not the bun fight over advertising revenue.

Who does this help?

00EF125A-75FE-47A8-9FB7-764A09508FA3.jpeg

The City of Victoria has removed a statue of Canada’s first Prime Minister John A. Macdonald from the steps of City Hall. As ever the left’s obsession with erasing history it doesn’t like continues around the globe. The main question is, who does this help? Macdonald did call Canada’s indigenous people “savages” but are these words remotely surprising for the times?  It isn’t to condone those sentiments but why not learn from them instead of bleaching things said 150 odd years ago? Embrace how we have changed and “progressed.” At the very least use the first PM as a yardstick for how far civilization has come.

Will the left go a step further and try to deny Macdonald was the 1st PM? Rewrite Canada’s confederation history  from 1867 to 1873 and make the country’s 2nd PM Alexander Mackenzie the first, because he turned down the offer of a knighthood. Sadly the left would have to discard the multiple times Macdonald served thereafter as PM?

Macdonald offered to resign in 1873 when the party was caught up in a bribery scandal over a rail contract. His party lost the general election but he still led in opposition until winning government again in 1878. Macdonald served for 19 years in the top job despite all of these issues. He can’t have been that bad or did Vladimir Putin’s predecessors interfere?

The biggest irony is that Macdonald is largely regarded as one of Canada’s best PMs, ranked 3rd by MacLean’s in 2016 out of 23. He was 2nd in 1997 and 2011. Those rankings take into account a variety of measures ranging from effectiveness, economic growth and legacy.

Which brings us back to what does removing statues achieve? How do we move forward as a society if some who weren’t alive at the time feel obliged to apologize to people that weren’t born nor directly affected by whatever words were used?

As an Australian, should CM flagellate for things that our First Fleet might have perpetrated 230 years ago? CM’s father emigrated to Australia in 1949, not 1788. CM’s great grandparents were of Norwegian, Polish and Austro-Hungarian stock. Perhaps CM should embark on a global apology tour for things that happened at the hands of those evil empires over the centuries?

Or do we just conclude that the radical left might be best to look in the mirror and reflect why conservatives don’t wish for history to be erased as the 100 million that have died at the hands of socialism’s own work serve as a stark reminder why we need to remind us of our past? Exactly. Wipe away all signs of supposed oppression and bring on the cultural Marxists to enlighten us on how we need to conform through compelled speech and laws to punish us if we choose to step out of line to their warped version of the world. So much easier to do with social media and facial recognition.

How much do Americans care about Russia?

56359DAA-0612-44EA-B680-7D2BC02360A6.jpeg

According to Gallup, in a list of concerns for Americans, Russia ranks less than 1% and has been falling. Regardless of the media noise on collusion, election meddling and treason these polls show how irrelevant the issue appears.  Over 40% see illegal immigration and draining the swamp as key issues. There is no question that Trump’s presser with Putin was a howler but despite the media’s constant negative coverage of the event, the MSM don’t seem to be hitting a nerve with Main Street.

Here is a classic 10 min video released before the election in the poorest county in West Virginia. The folk feel forgotten. Calling them uneducated, stupid, bigoted or any other insult is hardly the stuff of winning them over. They are not living the dream. One even called Trump a blow-hard and a buffoon but he will vote for him as he looks to provide his family a better way out of financial destitution he is in. One person, one vote. Still even if we wanted to think Russian collusion, CM applauds Putin for keeping 10s of millions of registered voters at home on Election Day.

For more details on the Gallup poll please refer to this link.