It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The EU will have a big hole in its budget after we leave, perhaps Greece can help out ? :D
Doesn't bother me,as long as we don't contribute.
Be able to pay more, and I doubt given the support to leave in France, the French
Government will be willing to pay more, so the EU will be depending on Germany...... So
Interesting times ahead for us all.
I'm filled with renewed confidence that Brexit will be a roaring success given this pessimism comes from a bloke who came out with this unbelievable quote:
‘I became a Christian because the evidence for Christianity is staggeringly compelling'
I'm not making that up.
https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Tim-Farron-is-our-first-openly-evangelical-party-leader-in-a-century.-Will-he-survive
What is staggering is not the evidence but the fact that someone stating that is permitted to hold public office in a civilised western democracy.
I am sorry, but I find that first bit hilarious! Nice one, @stag.
<font size=6>BREXIT</font> is the best thing happening to Britain in our lifetime. Short term it may be hurtful to some industries, yes. Middle term it may be a challenge.
But ultimately Britain will be seen as wise and visionary once 5 to 10 years have passed. If the EU in its current form even still exists then, we will see. And I am not saying I would be glad if the EU would not survive. What I personally want is the EU to wake up and to reform and be there not only for the 1% of the population that is the new aristocracy but for all the people and especially for the middle and lower classes.
Look at Switzerland, we never joined the EU and we are "fighting" the EU bureaucracy since 25 years now, successfully. We are in bilateral talks constantly with Brussels.
*Look at us, look how we are the country with the best living standard in Europe, we have the wealthiest middle class, the best social security, the lowest criminal rate (even if our population is 25% foreigners!!!) and we still are multicultural in all of this! It can work, if you are not under the thumb of a bureaucratic monster like the EU.
*should by any chance my statement be incorrect and Norway, Sweden or Denmark have the best living standard then I apologise, but you get my point.
Here's to you my beloved United Kingdom, I am proud of you today. After all I have my origins in Southbourne (Bournemouth) as my father was British.
<font size=5>Be proud Britains! You do well.
</font>
Let me share this, it seems fitting today.
I am a proud Swiss and not afraid to show I'm a patriot too.
Photo: some days ago, Chief Warrant Officer Jason Stephen Bond saluting the Swiss flag.
I think some of the joy felt by Brexit’s supporters is based on a particular view of what the European project was/is about. The European Commission was originally set up as part of a recognition that the competitive nation-state system had twice led Europe to widespread destruction in the previous half century, that European countries had more common values than differences and that economic integration would produce more growth within countries and more equitable living standards between countries. Whether or not we agree or disagree with individual decisions or not along the way (such as whether it was too early to introduce a common currency or who gets EU membership), these were essentially the objectives of the project.
I think it also makes sense that in our contemporary world, authority does not lie purely within a nation-state, but that regional/provincial governments have some autonomy or local issues, that national governments have authority in many issues and that international or global organisations have sovereignty for those issues where a common problem exists or a common solution is required. I think that by and large this is how the EU worked/works (and thus why Scottish independence and Scottish membership of the EU are not contradictory – each would have different powers of jurisdiction).
I personally don’t believe that the EU project can be reduced to a handful of bureaucrats in Brussels trying to strip countries of their national sovereignty, although I would concede that there are some cases where better decisions could have been made (but this is not an argument to scrap the entire project).
I also don’t believe that the pro-Brexit vote can be entirely or even mainly attributed to nativism/xenophobia, but I do believe that it is extremely naïve not to consider immigration as one of the most important factors. My interpretation of the Brexit vote, as with the Trump vote in the US and the Hanson/One Nation vote in Australia, is that many people feel increasingly insecure about their own cultural identity and about their own economic prospects. They see a world changing very quickly, feel that many of the comfortable day to day certainties are disappearing and feel that they are being left behind (in many cases quite correctly). I think most 'ordinary people' including myself have much sympathy for this view.
Where I differ with these people is in the explanation of why it is happening and who is to blame. While immigrants are the obvious, visible and easy targets, immigration – even mass immigration – is overwhelmingly a positive factor in developed countries. Immigration drives much of the economic growth in developed countries, it will help us from losing our social security systems entirely once the baby boomers retire, it enriches the social and cultural life of those societies (think: US, UK, Canada, Israel, Australia) and it produces innovation and creativity.
In my view, the real reason that people are left behind is that governments have been, since the 1970s, slowly abdicating their social responsibilities (public health, education, infrastructure) and slowly dismantling the protections for the most vulnerable in our society in order to greatly increase corporate power and privilege. Many people will no doubt disagree with this view (and it is anathema to many Americans), but I believe that government exists to protect the vulnerable and weak from exploitation by the rich and privileged few. Government exists to provide the most level playing field possible for each citizen without encroaching unduly on the rights of the individual (thus there is a balance between freedom and equality). This is social democracy, and many of the world’s most successful developed societies – Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, the Low Countries – have been at their most prosperous under precisely this model. So, in a nutshell, it is ‘neoliberalism’ and not immigration/multiculturalism/’globalism’ that is largely to blame for so many people being left behind over the past 20 years, and it could be useful to take a more balanced view about the role of government in our society.
Totally wrong.
You do realize that no country can escape a future population stagnation or decline as long as humanity is bound to this planet, right? What will happen when those immigrants retire? Even more immigrants? What will happen when they retire?
aboriginal people ? or the Native Americans ? ...... somehow I don't think
they'd agree it was a "Positive Factor" ;)
Britain has begun to take back control from Brussels as David Davis announced that the first EU law to be scrapped after Brexit will be a charter that helps criminals avoid deportation.
Revealing details of the forthcoming Great Repeal Bill, Mr Davis told MPs that the controversial EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will be dropped on the day Britain leaves Europe.
MPs cheered in the House of Commons as the Brexit Secretary told them Britain would be regaining the sovereignty it last enjoyed in 1972.
He said: “A strong, independent country needs control of its own laws. That process starts now.”
A day after Theresa May began the Brexit process by invoking Article 50, European leaders entrenched their positions on their refusal to discuss a trade deal until the UK has paid its “divorce bill”.
Francois Hollande, the French president, told Mrs May in a phone call that Britain must agree to meet its “obligations” first. Senior EU officials said it was “highly unlikely” that the other 27 member states would give ground on the contentious point.
Meanwhile Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, came up with a new tactic to frustrate Brexit by threatening to veto the Great Repeal Bill in the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Davis published a 37-page white paper setting out the objectives of the Bill, the legislation that will convert EU laws into UK laws on the day Britain quits Europe in 2019.
Parliament will then be able to choose which laws to keep and which to revoke. Mr Davis said the Bill will “provide clarity and certainty for businesses, workers and consumers across the United Kingdom on the day we leave the EU”.
It will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 - which provides the legal underpinning of Britain’s EU membership - on the day Brexit happens in March 2019.
Mr Davis said that doing so “enables the return to this Parliament of the sovereignty we ceded in 1972 and ends the supremacy of EU law in this country,” which would ensure that “power sits closer to the people of the United Kingdom than ever before”.
While the Bill will provide for around 19,000 pieces of EU legislation to be brought onto Britain’s statute books, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be one of them.
Sir Bill Cash MP, chairman of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, said Britain would immediately benefit when the Charter was dropped because “it provides protection for people who have no right to be protected”.
He said: “There is a disproportionate number of those in prison convicted of crimes which warrant deportation who, by virtue of human rights legislation, including and in particular the consequences of the Charter, are not able to be deported because of case law."
The Charter has also been used as the basis for a so-called “right to be forgotten”, with criminals using the courts to force Google to block searches about their past convictions.
Britain will still be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is not part of EU law. Writing in today’s Daily Telegraph, John Longworth, former director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, urged the Government to cut a swathe through EU red tape by setting up a “Star Chamber” of MPs, economists and businessmen who are “not frightened to think the unthinkable”.
He says the process needs to start now, so that EU laws can be revoked on Brexit day plus one. In the Scottish Parliament, Ms Sturgeon threatened to block the Great Repeal Bill - and delay Brexit - by refusing to pass a Legislative Consent Motion - the device by which devolved powers give Westminster permission to make laws on devolved matters.
She claimed Westminster was planning a “power grab” by refusing to hand over all responsibilities currently exercised by the EU in devolved policy areas such as fisheries and agriculture.
Mrs May has insisted Scotland will have more devolved powers after Brexit, but Ms Sturgeon’s official spokesman said that unless unless every power in these areas was transferred, the SNP would refuse to pass a consent motion.
In Westminster, there was confusion over whether a consent motion from Holyrood would be required to pass the Bill.
Mr Davis was unable to say whether it was needed or not, but David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, has previously said he thought it would be.
Adam Tomkins, the Scottish Conservative constitution spokesman, said: “The SNP is complaining about the return of substantial new powers which, under its plans, would remain in Brussels. If ever people needed to see their utter hypocrisy, this is it.”
It came as Gina Miller, the financier who forced Mrs May through the Supreme Court to get parliamentary approval before she triggered Article 50, said she would consider fresh legal action to clarify whether the Government could legally enact the Great Repeal Bill.
Mrs Miller said she wants to stop the Prime Minster using so-called “Henry VIII powers” to tweak existing EU laws before they are passed into UK law without parliament being able to vote on the changes.
Downing Street has insisted the use of secondary legislation - which allows the Government to amend Acts once they have been passed - is purely an administrative matter.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jean-claude-juncker-ohio-independence-donald-trump-brexit-eu-president-european-commision-a7659471.html
And it's not as if the US were always one single country (the Republic of Texas, anyone), or stayed one. "These things happened before, they will happen again".
The difference is Trump is the democratically elected leader of the the most influential country in the world with a mandate to speak given to him by the people.
Juncker was only 'elected' to his dubious position of 'power' by some similarly grey, self serving, charisma vacuums and the biggest public mandate he has ever had was from the mighty nation of Luxembourg, which even if we presume 100% of the population voted for him has less than the population of Albuquerque, NM.
The biggest joke though is the typically egotistical delusion of the EU elite that this nonentity of a man can influence any election outside Luxembourg and that a single person in the US has ever heard of him or has the slightest interest in his opinion on anything.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted
We never were.
eh?
I dont care if they are or are not..i only care about my country,matey.