Drareg
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 4,772
So it turns out the brexit deal for trade is a success, what isn’t a success is the EU have a clause within that can cancel the Brexit trade deal, this clause covers UK public policy which the EU term as "essential elements" which are, not upholding democracy, rule of law and human rights, deviating from the fight against climate change and not countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (It’s ok for some countries to have weapons of mass destruction but not others, is this not discrimination under the logic of wokism?)
Basically the EU still have control of the culture war, the UK must maintain woke politics, as we know already most of what the EU define as human rights is dictated by the UN which is filled with unelected officials, no democracy whatsoever, generally what is defined by said organizations as "human rights" benefits big business like unskilled migration for cheap labor who birth kids destined for the lower social class to become consumers and cheap labor for big business once again, it’s a human Ponzi scheme by its actions but labeled with verbose terminology like humanitarianism and human rights. Some tokens of success will be put under the media lens and hyped to create the illusion of success to attract more future cheap labor, millions however will be destined to the new digital lower class. If they are not happy I’m sure big pharma will have an antidepressant in the making generating billions.
As mentioned in this article control of public policy is essential for any democracy to survive, when we consider all over Europe the electorate is continually being ignored while select ideologues within the EU push forward with their woke agendas on behalf of big business and banks guided by the UN, Switzerland have direct democracy, the EU has created an indirect democracy, it’s a token illusion of electorate power by voting in EU politicians from member states, it’s totally detached from the electorate and we witnessed this with their delusional asylum seeking processes.
Public policy is what creates meaning in a society, meaning drives behavior, meanings reflect the metabolic rate and it’s coherency, even with a coherent metabolic state within a society/context/environment your being can be corrupted because said environment is feedback to your system, when a society allows 5 year olds to receive hormone blockers we can assume the metabolic rate and coherency is declining into a hibernation pattern.
Those at the top however are maximizing their energetic resources via absolute control of human capital, they control the meaning bubbles the multitude of identity movements in the public domain, when organic bubbles pop up they infiltrate it or pop it.
Is this a temporary ploy by the UK government to strengthen their hand for now while they develop a strategy to finally get away from the ongoing global wokism taking over? It’s doubtful because the politicians are are pretty much from the elite class and stand to benefit financially.
Notice also how the so called alt-right and Nigel Farage were celebrating this deal as success and full control back to the UK, it clearly isn’t, interesting the woke pseudo left were relatively quite about this deal and is it any surprise, it’s clearly a win for the woke brigade here, their agenda is all about distorting information to form meanings and control of public policy is how you do this, you then flood migrants from cultures with different meanings and belief systems to shift the electorate demographic power to those more accepting of authoritarian policies that reflect wokism on behalf of big business and banks, mainly migrants who are used to draconian authoritarian regimes, these folks are proven to be easily controlled and will feel free and be happy consumers in what we construe as an authoritarian system.
So let’s see if more media outlets will cover this fraud as the weeks pass, if not we know it was a ploy all along with fake agents on all sides blowing their circus trumpets to distract the clowns of normieville.
Please the share the article linked if you can.
This really is a great article-
thecritic.co.uk
"Trade is about buying and selling goods. It is not about broader issues of public policy which, in a democracy, ought to be the sole domain of electors and their representatives. The central problem with Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal is that it should have been merely a trade treaty, but it has become a trade and cooperation treaty. Unsurprisingly, for a European Union premised on constraining democracy, the EU is only prepared to cooperate with the UK on the basis that it has influence over UK public policy. This objective is secured by one of the most important articles in the treaty that empowers the EU to “terminate or suspend the operation of this Agreement … in whole or in part”. (Article INST.35, p400)
"The termination provision can be triggered if the EU “considers that there has been a serious and substantial failure” by the UK “to fulfil any of the obligations that are described as essential elements” in the treaty. (Article INST.35, p400) There are three essential elements that can trigger the treaty’s termination or suspension: not upholding democracy, rule of law and human rights; deviating from the fight against climate change; and not countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (Article COMPROV.12, p400)
"On human rights, there is a body of rulings that regulate public policies on abortion, adoption, asylum, criminal sentencing, deportation, extradition, homosexuality, immigration, marriage, military discipline, policing, pollution, prison discipline, social security, suicide, transgenderism and much else besides. So, any public policy that challenges any of these human rights laws could, depending on the gravity of challenge, cause the sword of Damocles to fall".
"For example, human rights laws on transgenderism have had a considerable impact on domestic policy. In 2002 the European Court of Human Rights ruledthat there is a human right that requires the nation state to recognise when an individual changes gender. The UK passed the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in response, to allow acquired gender to be recorded on birth and marriage certificates. If the UK sought to repeal this Act it is almost certain that those seeking to preserve the status quo would use the sword of Damocles argument to claim that such a policy would jeopardise the EU-UK treaty"
"Other policy proposals will leave little doubt that the termination provision could be triggered. In 2005 the Tory Party manifesto promised to take the UK out of the Refugee Convention. That policy would probably breach human rights laws which establish that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14). In recent years, some politicians have argued that the UK should withdraw from the European Convention on Human rights (ECHR). As recently as 2016, the then home secretary, Theresa May, advocated it. Yet such a policy would, when the trade treaty becomes law, almost inevitably give the EU cause to terminate the trade treaty. The EU-UK treaty will put a force field around the Refugee Convention, the ECHR, numerous UN treaties and the laws derived from them by judges – usually foreign judges with little understanding of the English common law (Article COMPROV.4, p397).
"In recent years, international treaties have become a powerful weapon against democratic decision making. The Belfast Agreement of 1998, for example, was frequently weaponised against Brexiteers over the last five years. And it is regularly deployed against those who argue for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR. Neither of these anti-democratic implications was draw to the attention of the British people at the time".
Treaties that have a limited and specific focus should not constrain democracy. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 that created NATO, is concerned to bolster collective security. It contains just 14 articles and covers three pages. There is no devil in any beguiling language: its signatory states – and their citizens – know clearly what it means. Signing the treaty is an expression of democratic will, a case of sovereignty being willingly pooled.
On the other hand, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Treaty covers 1,246 pages (plus numerous lengthy supporting documents). Its language is designedly opaque so that the internationalists who drafted it can hoodwink the UK’s citizens into believing that democratic decision making is preserved. But once signed, those who will rule on the true ambit of its provisions will ensure that democratic decision making is not preserved.
We have been hoodwinked by the EU before. In 2007, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was given legal force by the Lisbon Treaty. To allay domestic concern, the Labour government obtained a written assurance from the EU that Britain had opted out of the Charter. Tony Blair assured the Commons that, “it is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from … the Charter.” The foreign secretary, David Miliband, claimed the Charter would not “extend the reach of European courts into British law”. In 2011, the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, said the Charter was of more presentational importance and did “not actually change anything”.
"Subsequent case law decided that the three Europhiles (Blair, Miliband and Clarke) were wrong. In 2013, a British judge noted that the assertion “that no new rights are created seems to me to be a misleading product of political compromise because on any view the Charter enunciates a host of new rights”. And he noted that despite “the endeavours of our political representatives at Lisbon it would seem that the much wider Charter of Rights is now part of our domestic law”. It took six years for the truth to be unearthed about the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. It ought to take just six minutes for the truth to be unearthed about the EU’s trade deal since it only requires the person with a nose for the truth to read pages 397 and 400 of the treaty before reaching the conclusions explained above.
As parliament assembles to debate the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, our representatives should face up to the fact that the treaty is a political compromise that was entered into to ensure an orderly exit from the EU. They should be honest about pages 397 and 400 and the problems that they pose. They should prepare the British people for the difficult task that lies ahead if Britain is to do more to take back control.
Britain will only be able to call itself a true democracy when it has a trade deal with the EU that deals solely with trade. Issues of broader public policy should be no concern of the EU whether under the Lisbon Treaty (as EU members) or under the new treaty (as non-EU members). A democracy that requires its people to decide in fear that a sword of Damocles may fall is a constrained democracy.
Basically the EU still have control of the culture war, the UK must maintain woke politics, as we know already most of what the EU define as human rights is dictated by the UN which is filled with unelected officials, no democracy whatsoever, generally what is defined by said organizations as "human rights" benefits big business like unskilled migration for cheap labor who birth kids destined for the lower social class to become consumers and cheap labor for big business once again, it’s a human Ponzi scheme by its actions but labeled with verbose terminology like humanitarianism and human rights. Some tokens of success will be put under the media lens and hyped to create the illusion of success to attract more future cheap labor, millions however will be destined to the new digital lower class. If they are not happy I’m sure big pharma will have an antidepressant in the making generating billions.
As mentioned in this article control of public policy is essential for any democracy to survive, when we consider all over Europe the electorate is continually being ignored while select ideologues within the EU push forward with their woke agendas on behalf of big business and banks guided by the UN, Switzerland have direct democracy, the EU has created an indirect democracy, it’s a token illusion of electorate power by voting in EU politicians from member states, it’s totally detached from the electorate and we witnessed this with their delusional asylum seeking processes.
Public policy is what creates meaning in a society, meaning drives behavior, meanings reflect the metabolic rate and it’s coherency, even with a coherent metabolic state within a society/context/environment your being can be corrupted because said environment is feedback to your system, when a society allows 5 year olds to receive hormone blockers we can assume the metabolic rate and coherency is declining into a hibernation pattern.
Those at the top however are maximizing their energetic resources via absolute control of human capital, they control the meaning bubbles the multitude of identity movements in the public domain, when organic bubbles pop up they infiltrate it or pop it.
Is this a temporary ploy by the UK government to strengthen their hand for now while they develop a strategy to finally get away from the ongoing global wokism taking over? It’s doubtful because the politicians are are pretty much from the elite class and stand to benefit financially.
Notice also how the so called alt-right and Nigel Farage were celebrating this deal as success and full control back to the UK, it clearly isn’t, interesting the woke pseudo left were relatively quite about this deal and is it any surprise, it’s clearly a win for the woke brigade here, their agenda is all about distorting information to form meanings and control of public policy is how you do this, you then flood migrants from cultures with different meanings and belief systems to shift the electorate demographic power to those more accepting of authoritarian policies that reflect wokism on behalf of big business and banks, mainly migrants who are used to draconian authoritarian regimes, these folks are proven to be easily controlled and will feel free and be happy consumers in what we construe as an authoritarian system.
So let’s see if more media outlets will cover this fraud as the weeks pass, if not we know it was a ploy all along with fake agents on all sides blowing their circus trumpets to distract the clowns of normieville.
Please the share the article linked if you can.
This really is a great article-
Taking back control? | Jon Holbrook | The Critic Magazine
You would not know it from the effusive commentary that Boris Johnson’s trade treaty has received from most conservative commentators, but the deal that is intended to take back control will…
"Trade is about buying and selling goods. It is not about broader issues of public policy which, in a democracy, ought to be the sole domain of electors and their representatives. The central problem with Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal is that it should have been merely a trade treaty, but it has become a trade and cooperation treaty. Unsurprisingly, for a European Union premised on constraining democracy, the EU is only prepared to cooperate with the UK on the basis that it has influence over UK public policy. This objective is secured by one of the most important articles in the treaty that empowers the EU to “terminate or suspend the operation of this Agreement … in whole or in part”. (Article INST.35, p400)
"The termination provision can be triggered if the EU “considers that there has been a serious and substantial failure” by the UK “to fulfil any of the obligations that are described as essential elements” in the treaty. (Article INST.35, p400) There are three essential elements that can trigger the treaty’s termination or suspension: not upholding democracy, rule of law and human rights; deviating from the fight against climate change; and not countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (Article COMPROV.12, p400)
"On human rights, there is a body of rulings that regulate public policies on abortion, adoption, asylum, criminal sentencing, deportation, extradition, homosexuality, immigration, marriage, military discipline, policing, pollution, prison discipline, social security, suicide, transgenderism and much else besides. So, any public policy that challenges any of these human rights laws could, depending on the gravity of challenge, cause the sword of Damocles to fall".
"For example, human rights laws on transgenderism have had a considerable impact on domestic policy. In 2002 the European Court of Human Rights ruledthat there is a human right that requires the nation state to recognise when an individual changes gender. The UK passed the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in response, to allow acquired gender to be recorded on birth and marriage certificates. If the UK sought to repeal this Act it is almost certain that those seeking to preserve the status quo would use the sword of Damocles argument to claim that such a policy would jeopardise the EU-UK treaty"
"Other policy proposals will leave little doubt that the termination provision could be triggered. In 2005 the Tory Party manifesto promised to take the UK out of the Refugee Convention. That policy would probably breach human rights laws which establish that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14). In recent years, some politicians have argued that the UK should withdraw from the European Convention on Human rights (ECHR). As recently as 2016, the then home secretary, Theresa May, advocated it. Yet such a policy would, when the trade treaty becomes law, almost inevitably give the EU cause to terminate the trade treaty. The EU-UK treaty will put a force field around the Refugee Convention, the ECHR, numerous UN treaties and the laws derived from them by judges – usually foreign judges with little understanding of the English common law (Article COMPROV.4, p397).
"In recent years, international treaties have become a powerful weapon against democratic decision making. The Belfast Agreement of 1998, for example, was frequently weaponised against Brexiteers over the last five years. And it is regularly deployed against those who argue for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR. Neither of these anti-democratic implications was draw to the attention of the British people at the time".
Treaties that have a limited and specific focus should not constrain democracy. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 that created NATO, is concerned to bolster collective security. It contains just 14 articles and covers three pages. There is no devil in any beguiling language: its signatory states – and their citizens – know clearly what it means. Signing the treaty is an expression of democratic will, a case of sovereignty being willingly pooled.
On the other hand, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Treaty covers 1,246 pages (plus numerous lengthy supporting documents). Its language is designedly opaque so that the internationalists who drafted it can hoodwink the UK’s citizens into believing that democratic decision making is preserved. But once signed, those who will rule on the true ambit of its provisions will ensure that democratic decision making is not preserved.
We have been hoodwinked by the EU before. In 2007, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was given legal force by the Lisbon Treaty. To allay domestic concern, the Labour government obtained a written assurance from the EU that Britain had opted out of the Charter. Tony Blair assured the Commons that, “it is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from … the Charter.” The foreign secretary, David Miliband, claimed the Charter would not “extend the reach of European courts into British law”. In 2011, the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, said the Charter was of more presentational importance and did “not actually change anything”.
"Subsequent case law decided that the three Europhiles (Blair, Miliband and Clarke) were wrong. In 2013, a British judge noted that the assertion “that no new rights are created seems to me to be a misleading product of political compromise because on any view the Charter enunciates a host of new rights”. And he noted that despite “the endeavours of our political representatives at Lisbon it would seem that the much wider Charter of Rights is now part of our domestic law”. It took six years for the truth to be unearthed about the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. It ought to take just six minutes for the truth to be unearthed about the EU’s trade deal since it only requires the person with a nose for the truth to read pages 397 and 400 of the treaty before reaching the conclusions explained above.
As parliament assembles to debate the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, our representatives should face up to the fact that the treaty is a political compromise that was entered into to ensure an orderly exit from the EU. They should be honest about pages 397 and 400 and the problems that they pose. They should prepare the British people for the difficult task that lies ahead if Britain is to do more to take back control.
Britain will only be able to call itself a true democracy when it has a trade deal with the EU that deals solely with trade. Issues of broader public policy should be no concern of the EU whether under the Lisbon Treaty (as EU members) or under the new treaty (as non-EU members). A democracy that requires its people to decide in fear that a sword of Damocles may fall is a constrained democracy.
