“The Worst Deal in History”: Theresa May’s Surrender

by David Brown

David Brown is based in the United Kingdom.
December 4, 2018 at 5:00 am

www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13360/brexit-no-deal

• This Brexit “deal” is anything but good for the nation.
• This “deal” will cost the British taxpayer £60 billion; require that the British still comply with EU rules without having any say in what those will be, and worst of all, it permits the British to leave the EU only if the EU agrees. It commits the British effectively to subjugation by the EU in perpetuity, with no recourse should the British change their mind. It is a prison. It is also the first step of the EU toward its dream of global governance: unaccountable, untransparent, unelected by the public, and with no way out.
• There is still a way out of this mess; an easy alternative. The solution is No Deal. Without any further action, the UK’s membership of the EU will lapse on March 29, 2019, and unless that majority can unite around a viable alternative, we will leave. Even better, according to a House of Lords report, there would be no legal obligation for the UK to make any payment as part of a financial settlement.

 

(Image source: iStock)

 

But, we have nearly left the EU haven’t we? After all, we keep hearing about this deal. We must be nearly there by now, surely?

(more…)

Angela Merkel defends UN migration pact, rejects ‘nationalism in its purest form’

German leader reaffirms support for UN compact as Australia joins list of nations opposed

A very realistic look at the possibility of a European Army.  Europe’s  dilemma is to continue the feeding of the socialistic beast (cradle to grave entitlements) or to increase its military so it can defend itself.  I highlighted the author’s description of President Trump’s behavior towards the Europeans regarding their military spending (“his diplomacy of rudeness” and his “insolence”).  Perhaps the Europeans would prefer that their  dependency on the U.S. for military protection not be so rudely and openly discussed.  Other presidents have complained (privately) and it got them nowhere with the Europeans.  Everyone politely ignored the elephant in the room but not Trump !  He says it like it is !!!   Nancy   

Military autonomy is unworkable. There are better ways to improve the Continent’s defenses.

218 Comments

By

Elisabeth Braw  Ms. Braw directs the Modern Deterrence project at the U.K.’s Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.

Nov. 19, 2018

French President Emmanuel Macron and U.S. President Donald Trump in Paris, Nov. 10.PHOTO: SAUL LOEB/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

‘We must protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia, and even the United States,” French President Emmanuel Macron said earlier this month, calling for European strategic autonomy from the U.S. That autonomy would, in Mr. Macron’s words, include a “true European army.” A few days later, German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed the call for a European force. The vision is gaining momentum, propelled in part by Donald Trump’s diplomacy of rudeness against America’s European allies.

(more…)

In a stern and defiant speech earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton made clear that the United States will not join the International Criminal Court, will not cooperate with it, nor provide it assistance.

What will the United States do instead? “We will let the ICC die on its own,” Mr. Bolton said. “After all, the ICC is already dead to us.”

Denunciations were soon flying from academics, “human rights” groups and the major media.

On the front page of The New York Times, a “news” story pronounced: “On War Crimes Court, U.S. Sides with Despots, Not Allies.” In an editorial, The Washington Post charged that Mr. Bolton was harping on a “pet peeve” and “personal bugaboo,” raising issues that are “essentially irrelevant.”

These elite opinions could not be more wrong-headed.

The Trump administration has had one consistent and overriding foreign policy theme: Defending American sovereignty. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly a year ago this month, President Trump used that word — as well as “sovereign” — more than two dozen times.

Sovereignty was succinctly defined by President Lincoln in 1861. He said it implies “a political community, without a political superior.” In other words, it’s central to the question that is — and always has been — at the heart of politics everywhere: Who rules?

There are those who consider it imperative that the United States remain a political community without a political superior, that Americans rule themselves, that no institutions wield power over them without their consent, and that the U.S. Constitution be regarded as the supreme law of the land.

There also are those who believe such ideas are outmoded. They hope for change, and they’re working hard to achieve it. A fancy term for them is “transnational progressives.” A less fancy term: Globalists — proponents of global governance.

(more…)

What Went Wrong With Human Rights

The conflation of ‘natural law’ with ‘positive law’ handed communism a philosophical victory after the end of the Cold War.

Delingpole: Brexit Is Dead – Strangled by Theresa May and Her Cabal of Remainer Cronies