Why, really, did he do that? Yes, there are written explanations … which imo if you buy it you will be charmed by the lovely Mojave acreage I have for sale, or perhaps by stock I hold in a certain famous Bridge. In common parlance, it was simply crazy … as presented.

My suspicion is that PM May & Co are engaged in same sorts of Byzantine (large-scale, geo) politics. They say they’re globalists, but they are not acting in globalism’s big-picture interests. Au contraire.

Indeed, the EU project itself has always seemed sub-believable. The Soviet Union collapsed, and Europe proposes to create one of their own. “Closer and closer union, like the U.S.A”? Wrong acronym.

If they had a long time in which to slowly boil the frog … but the USSR clamped down on national identities for 70 years, and the day after it closed shop, all those nations came roaring back.

And Europe watched this object-lesson play-out live, even as they – supposedly – planned to stomp out even-stronger national cultures, in a fraction of the time.

In fact, I don’t own any Mojave Desert or Bridge Stock, because you have to be a nitwit to buy the EU’s explanation of what they’re doing, and to what end. And the whole Brexit dance-of-veils is part & parcel of it.

At one point he showed us where he and Winston had stood the morning after Parliament was bombed in the Blitz. He also commented that he did not conduct Germans on tours. He said that they had finally got here but he was not going to help them.

What’s wrong with “It’s not clear that May is committed to Brexit…”?

In order to regularize a crash-out Brexit, there’d have to be a rapid succession of “little deals” — What’s it worth to protect “cheddar”? What are fishing rights in British territorial waters worth? Will the EU allow the sale of “EU ale” alongside “British ale” when the standards are different?

The sum of such “little deals” is likely to be quite a bit different from the May proposal. I’d suspect that it’d be different by a ratio of roughly 432:202. May’s fault was to suppose that she must clutch tightly when every indication showed a deal could be fairly made for each particular on a more fair basis.

WTO, like most other nations.

And I speak for most Anericans, we would LOVE to include you in our new trade org with Mexico and Canada.

I’m astonished at the arrogant ignorance of EU leadership. They are amateur tyrants.

Olinser | January 16, 2019 at 3:32 pm
People have been warning about this for YEARS.

Politicians from all parties in the UK didn’t actually expect it to pass. They just did it as a PR stunt to shut up the Brexiters because they believed their own bullshit and biased polls.

Just like Trump, they were WOEFULLY unprepared when Brexit passed.

From the very start their goal has been to try and artificially force enough pain so that they could throw up their hands and demand another vote ‘now that people understand how difficult it would be’.

This was their goal from the very start.

Socratease | January 16, 2019 at 9:12 pm
The Left always wants repeated votes until they win, then declare any further votes are prohibited.

* * *
Leftist definition of democracy: one man, one vote, one time.
Or as another ideological leader- not leftist, but just as tyrannical — put it: democracy is a train you ride until you reach your destination, and then you get off.

If ANOTHER referendum…. yes, exactly. Like Democrats here, the British status-quo’ers apparently consider elections meaningful only when their side wins.

That would be one of the greatest provocations of this revolutionary period, IMO. A re-vote renders all future elections meaningless, in principle — and in practice, if they are close. Cross that river once, there is no coming back.

Then democracy is only a façade. Many think that’s the case now, of course. I answered one of those fundraising “surveys” just the other day and Steve Scalise asked me what I considered this nation’s single biggest problem. Surprised myself a little when I answered election integrity.

But that is what all of this is about, really.
* * *
I feel much the same way about the incessant recalls of politicians, even if the result follows the policies I favor.
We had a local school board brouhaha a couple of years ago; a conservative slate won handily. Then the Unions sent people and money, instigated a mid-election-cycle recall, outspent the incumbents literally 10 to 1, and got their tax-and-spend board cronies re-installed.
*Spit*
Recall, like impeachment, should be limited to manifestly unethical conduct, not just implementing policies the losers don’t like.

And don’t forget that a fair number of EU members are in the union because their leaders wouldn’t take NO for an answer the first couple of times the people voted.