Authored by Douglas Murray via The Gatestone Institute, One of the most striking images from the night of the London Borough Market terror attack was of drinkers being marched out of the Market under police escort with their hands on their heads. The British public at that point looked not like stoical, pugnacious heroes, but like a defeated army being marched into captivity. Contrary to all our public statements, we have become terrorised, just as the terrorists want. It is a glimpse into the soul of a city; and like all such ugly glimpses, we will turn away from looking at it, rather than considering it and wondering what it truly suggests. Whenever Britain suffers a terrorist attack — and it has suffered four Islamist attacks this year alone — the British public responds the same way. Twelve years ago, when four suicide bombers detonated homemade bombs on the London underground and on a red-top bus in central London, there was much talk of “Blitz spirit”. After 7/7, the media erupted with boasts of wartime echoes. Some people who lived in London noticed a rather different atmosphere. Of course people “got on with their lives” (what else could they do?) but in the days and weeks after the attacks it was not really “business as usual”. Especially not after another four suicide bombers went onto the tube a fortnight later, on July 21, and attempted to repeat the exercise. Fortunately, on that occasion the bombs failed to detonate. But during the period that ensued, it was certainly easier than usual to get a seat on the London Underground. Of course, political leaders relish the opportunity to accentuate and exaggerate these echoes. If the British public are the citizens of London in the Blitz, then the politicians are Winston Churchill. After attacks like the 2013 daytime slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby on the streets of London, then-Prime Minister David Cameron stressed from the steps of Downing Street that “One of the best ways of defeating terrorism is to go about our normal lives. And that is what we shall all do.” These themes are thought to play deep to the spirit of the British people.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Dec 27, 2017.
‘Every religious minority in Syria – there are 23 of them – is petrified at the thought of a victory for the Syrian rebels, whom the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have been doing their utmost to supply with weapons and money over the last two years.’ ~ George Galloway Has President Assad used chemical weapons in Syria? In 2013, UK parliamentarians were not convinced. Asked to vote on military action, our representatives decided against. Today, the same question arises again, but this time they may not get a chance to debate it. We face the profoundly worrying possibility that this government could commit us to warfare without seeking or getting democratic approval. So I want to highlight some points made by our representatives in 2013.  If they were true then, they could be as true or even truer now. On 29th August 2013, UK parliament was recalled early from summer recess to vote on authorising military intervention in Syria. It was alleged that Syria had crossed President Obama’s ‘red line’ by using chemical weapons. Prime Minister David Cameron came to the House of Commons to seek approval for military action.
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change. A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by U.N. scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers. But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data. It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised. His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
Dr John Bates’ disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the so-called ‘Pausebuster‘ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as Britain’s Daily Mail reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming. Britain’s Mail on Sunday today revealed astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change. A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015. The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Feb 5, 2017.
In 2015 there was no way the UK would vote to leave the European Union, so Prime Minister David Cameron promised to call a ‘Brexit’ referendum as a cost-free sop to his party’s right wing in the upcoming election. The Conservatives won big, and Cameron kept his promise to run the meaningless referendum. But against all odds and contrary to nearly every election-day poll, Brexit won, flushing Cameron out of politics, pulling the UK out of the EU, and handing a huge victory to a populist coalition led by the UK Independence Pary’s Nigel Farage. In 2016 comedians and mainstream Democrats encouraged Donald Trump to run for president, convinced he would generate lots of good jokes and possibly damage the field of ‘legitimate’ Republican presidential candidates. He did both, but to a far greater extent than his early boosters anticipated, placing the world’s most important government in the hands of a brand-new populist movement. Also in 2016, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi convinced the legislature to shift some of its powers to the executive branch. But because he wanted a popular mandate for what might otherwise be perceived as executive overreach, Renzi called a referendum to ratify the changes and promised to quit if it failed. The referendum went down in flames, Renzi did indeed quit, and the populist Five Star Movement now has a real shot at taking power within the year.
So much has changed in just the 8 months since April 25, 2016, when this “White House Photo” of the day was taken. As Will Jordan notes, the photo showed a meeting of the world’s top political leaders, President Barack Obama talking with European leaders before their meeting in Hannover, Germany. From left: British Prime Minister David Cameron, the President, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. As of this evening, of the five, just one remains on the global political scene. The real question is for how much longer.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Dec 4, 2016.
2016 has been a tumultuous year indeed in British party politics. The completely unexpected decision by the British public to vote to leave the European Union has hit Westminster like a warhead, causing absolute disarray in every major British political party. The hard-line socialist, populist Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, found himself the target of an ultimately unsuccessful leadership challenge, which has further widened the seemingly irreparable rift between him and his own parliamentary party and left the Opposition completely hamstrung. The Conservative government itself was culled, with long-time Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne both resigning from their posts in disgrace, after failing in their bid to keep Britain in the EU. This was followed by a confused and frantic leadership election within the Conservative party, which turned ugly very quickly, and eventually saw former Home Secretary Theresa May running unopposed to become the new Prime Minister. The centrist Liberal Democrats, who had been part of the government until last year, have continued down their steep decline into irrelevance, with a mere eight seats remaining in the House of Commons. Despite being on the winning side of the Brexit referendum, UKIP has since seen perhaps the most violent and chaotic implosion of all, with new leader Diane James resigning after a mere 18 days in the job, and the man hoping to replace her, Steven Woolfe, having recently been left in a ‘serious condition’, suffering from ‘bleeding of the brain’ after being punched by a colleague from his own party. UKIP has since descended into a state of virtual civil war, after recent allegations of a conspiracy against the ‘toxic’ leadership of Nigel Farage in the run-up to the referendum, supposedly orchestrated by UKIP’s only MP Douglas Carswell and Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, both libertarians and long-time eurosceptics.
This post was published at Lew Rockwell on October 10, 2016.
France wants to halt thorny EU-US trade talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as President Francois Hollande underlined there would be no deal until after President Barack Obama leaves office in January. Matthias Fekl, the French minister for foreign trade, has said his country will call for an end to the deal. France has been sceptical about the TTIP from the start and has threatened to block the deal, arguing the US has offered little in return for concessions made by Europe. All 28 EU member states and the European parliament will have to ratify the TTIP before it comes into force. The statements came just a couple of days after German economy minister Sigmar Gabriel had said talks for TTIP had de facto failed. Gabriel, who leads Germany’s centre-left Social Democratic party and is vice-chancellor in the coalition government, said Europe mustn’t submit to the American proposals. Mr. Gabriel’s statement is in contrast with the position of Chancellor Angela Merkel who supports the deal. Meanwhile, the US-German conflicts are growing. US courts and authorities took a hard line against the Volkswagen Group, Germany’s largest car manufacturer, in relation to its exhaust scandal. In a deal that does not include all damage claims, VW is required to pay up to 13.6 billion euros. There is a growing chorus in Germany saying that the country should orientate more to Asia. This perspective shared by the organizers of the anti-TTIP lobby, including the German Trade Union Federation (DGB), the Left Party and the Greens. The fact that former British Prime Minister David Cameron – an outspoken proponent of TTIP – is no longer involved in negotiations is another major setback for the deal, which at this point is believed by many to be dead in the water. TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of buy American.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 5, 2016.
The drama of Britain’s stalled nuclear facility at Hinkley Point C grew more Shakesperean this week, with the Chinese firm involved in its construction now under investigation in the United States for espionage. It was announced on August 11 that the Chinese CGN firm and engineering advisor Szuhsiung Ho have been indicted on charges of industrial espionage in the United States. The charges relate to alleged attempts to steal nuclear secrets to aid the Chinese nuclear energy program. The power plant at Hinkley Point, a joint UK-French-Chinese venture, has been at the center of an on-going debate in the UK over the future of the country’s energy infrastructure, its relations with China and its place in the world post-Brexit. It has also emerged as the first real test of Prime Minister Theresa May, who leads Britain in the aftermath of the vote to leave the EU last June. More broadly, the issue has drawn focus onto the expanding economic influence of China and the possible political consequences this might have world-wide. Britain’s nuclear energy program supplies 21 percent of the country’s power and has been hyped by the country’s Conservative Party as a key component in the long-term plan to reduce carbon emissions. To pay for the plant, the previous government under David Cameron agreed to a subsidy program which would pass the cost of construction onto consumers, charging a premium for cheaper power. The 18 billion project is projected to provide 25,000 jobs in its construction and 900 permanent positions once it is up and running. The huge facility could supply 7 percent of Britain’s projected energy needs over a 60-year timeframe. Given the current set-backs and that anticipated rate of construction, the plant would not begin generating energy in commercial quantities until 2025. Britain is in dire need of a long-term energy plan that conforms to the Paris Agreement on climate change, and its current infrastructure is dependent on coal-firing plants and older nuclear facilities scheduled for de-commissioning.
This post was published at Wolf Street on August 15, 2016.
On June 23rd, despite months of fear mongering by former Prime Minister David Cameron and his allies, doomsday global economic forecasts offered by the International Monetary Fund and the Obama Administration, and a steady drumbeat of anti-Brexit news stories by the BBC, The Economist and the Financial Times, the British people delivered an unexpected event to the global financial system by voting to take Britain out of the European Union. Despite the forecasts of doom and gloom, the people voted for freedom, democracy and common law. Most of the elites continue to warn of dire consequences for Britain and many believe that the separation process will be long, messy, and perhaps even farcical. Many argue that Britain will seek some sort of reconciliation once it realizes the true costs of its hubris. A July visit to the UK convinced me otherwise. While in England, I had the good fortune to attend the first parliamentary question session with newly minted Prime Minister Theresa May. Those fiery exchanges convinced me that she will take her time to negotiate a sensible and mutually beneficial Brexit treaty. Provided she can control the civil service apparatus (dominated by interests that leaned heavily toward the ‘remain’ camp), May appears set to achieve Parliamentary approval and Royal Assent. Tickets for in-person attendance to Prime Minister’s Questions (or PMQ’s as they are known) are typically hard to come by. This is particularly true when a new Prime Minister is being tested in the ring for the first time. Sitting on a special bench on the floor of the House in the immediate vicinity of Members afforded me the rare opportunity to sense the mood and ‘music’ of the House. It had been 37 years and one month since as a Member of Parliament I had listened to Margaret Thatcher tackle her initial PMQ’s as the UK’s first female Prime Minister. The comparison was not only interesting, but it influenced my outlook for the prospects of Brexit.
This post was published at Euro Pac on August 4, 2016.
August 2016 – NEW YORK – There are mounting developments in world affairs that threaten to disrupt the progress of globalism. Britain decided to leave the European Union in a national referendum held June 23. Consequently the world’s major stock markets tumbled and the pound plummeted. British Prime Minister David Cameron stepped down to take responsibility for the Brexit vote. Theresa May, his successor, formed a new Cabinet designed to carry out the exit policy. In retrospect, the EU has long been considered the model for regional integration and also a major driving force to help establish globalism around the world. So a string of difficult negotiations will likely ensue over Britain’s withdrawal. Some of the other EU members might follow suit. The wheels have begun to spin backward. Meanwhile, the U. S. presidential race is being held against the background of expanding income gaps and mounting discontent among poorer Americans. Such dissatisfaction among voters threaten to turn U. S. politics more inward-looking and diminish the American role in international affairs. The United States might become unwilling to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership and begin to contribute less to global security. The U. S. middle class is shrinking, and the prevailing public sentiment is getting more confrontational. China is making expansionary moves in the South China Sea and the East China Sea on the strength of its economic power and military buildup. An international arbitration tribunal ruled against China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea, but Beijing has rejected its decision. While the U. S., Japan and South Korea are increasingly alarmed by China’s moves, Beijing is maintaining a hard-line stance and is attempting to create a fait accompli on the back of its economic strength.
It is a month after Britain’s surprise vote to leave the EU. A new Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor are in place, both David Cameron and George Osborne having fallen on their swords. The third man in the losing triumvirate, Mark Carney, is still in office. Having taken a political stance in the pre-referendum debate, there can be little doubt the post-referendum fall in sterling was considerably greater than if he had kept on the side-lines. This article takes to task the Treasury’s estimates of the effect of Brexit on the British economy and Mr Carney’s role in the affair, then assesses the actual consequences.
This post was published at GoldMoney on JULY 28, 2016.
Less than 3 months ago, on April 22, in an address to the British people that may have cost David Cameron his job and led to the ever more rancorous divorce between the UK and the EU, Barack Obama warned that the UK would be at the ‘back of the queue’ in any trade deal with the US if the country chose to leave the EU, as he made an emotional plea to Britons to vote for staying in. Two months later, a majority of Brits gave Obama the finger and Britain is no longer part of Europe. But while that story in itself would be quite satisfying, it turns out that Obama lied. Again. As it turns out, not only is the UK not at the back of the queue, it now finds itself at the very front. As reported by the FT, the Obama administration has begun preliminary discussions with senior UK officials about how they might pursue a trade agreement between the two countries following Britain’s exit from the EU, Washington’s top trade official said. The discussions were revealed on Thursday by Mike Froman, the US trade representative, and coincide with a growing push by Republican Brexit supporters in Congress for President Barack Obama to launch talks on a commercial pact quickly. READ MORE
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 15, 2016.
While today’s resignation of David Cameron and immediate appointment of Teresa May as his replacement was fully expected, moments ago May’s cabinet served up her first major surprise when it was revealed that the man who led the Brexit campaign, Boris Johnson, and who many assumed would not hold a key role in the new UK cabinet, was just appointed to replace Philip Hammond (who will now be finance minister) in what may be the most prominent and important role as the UK prepares to negotiate its exit from the EU: that of foreign secretary.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 13, 2016.
Editor’s Note: Notice it specifically mentions either David Cameron or Barack Obama to be the one to do it. Even if disclosure really came, and the alien phenomena isn’t just some dark cover for government experimentation, if it was falling out of the mouths of either one of those two, you can probably rely on it being total b.s. Still… do these guys know something we don’t? Via Metro:
David Cameron has said Theresa May will be the new Prime Minister by Wednesday evening, adding he was ‘delighted’ that the Home Secretary would succeed him. Mr Cameron will chair his last Cabinet meeting tomorrow before attending Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday. He will then go to Buckingham Palace and offer his resignation to the Queen. Speaking outside Downing Street Mr Cameron said: ‘I am delighted we’re not going to have a prolonged Conservative leadership election campaign.”
Update 2: more details from the WSJ: Andrea Leadsom, one of two contenders to replace David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister, on Monday pulled out of the leadership race. Ms. Leadsom’s exit appears to clear the way for Home Secretary Theresa May to become the next U. K. prime minister. Ms. Leadsom said a nine-week leadership election was ‘highly undesirable’ and that Britain needs a new prime minister as soon as possible. She added that she was giving her full support to Ms. May. The British pound surged on the news. The withdrawal comes after a weekend of controversy in which Ms. Leadsom appeared to suggest her rival, Ms. May, wasn’t as qualified because she didn’t have children. According to a transcript of an interview with the Times of London newspaper, the 53-year-old Ms. Leadsom said she didn’t want the conversation in the campaign to be about how she has three children while Ms. May, 59, doesn’t have any. ‘But genuinely I feel being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake,’ Ms. Leadsom said. ‘She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people, but I have children, who are going to have children, who will directly be a part of what happens next.’
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 11, 2016.
Moments ago, UK Home Secretary Theresa May largely as expected, topped the first ballot of Conservative members of Parliament in the contest to replace David Cameron as party leader and prime minister. Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox came last, meaning he is eliminated from the race. The votes cast for each candidate were as follows: Theresa May: 165 Andrea Leadsom: 66 Michael Gove: 48 Stephen Crabb: 34 Liam Fox: 16 A BLoomberg adds, tory lawmakers will vote again on July 7 and July 12. Party members will then choose between the two remaining candidates in a postal vote, with the winner due to be announced by Sept. 9. Why is this important? Because while some may assume that May ultimately winning the race for next UK leader and PM could result in some or all unwinding of Brexit, today the UK Standard reported that contrary to her prevailing image, Theresa May “squared up to Brussels boss Jean-Claude Juncker by demanding early talks on Britain’s exit from the European Union.”
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 5, 2016.
When David Cameron decided to let the British people vote on Brexit, he did not realise that he would open a real can of worms. Before the referendum I declared that Brexit would not be the reason for a collapse of the world economy but that it could be the catalyst for such a collapse. We have only seen a few days’ reaction with heavy intervention from central banks around the world but judging by the massive volatility we have seen so far, there is now a very high likelihood that a major secular decline in the world economy will now start to unravel. The next few weeks and months are likely to be a lot worse than the 2007-9 crisis. Unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats should not decide over 500 million people The problems areas will not just be in the economy but also on the world political stage. The elite is not pleased with Cameron that he gave the British people a democratic vote on the question of the country’s EU membership. Political leaders know that it is very dangerous to give the people the option to decide on any important issue. Only the Swiss people have this right and exercise it frequently. In most countries the elected government take all the important decisions without consulting the people. And in the EU it is even worse than that. Because most of the binding decisions for all member states are taken by unelected and unaccountable officials. And the European Court of Justice stands above all member states’ judicial systems. The British people have with a small majority rejected to have their sovereignty given over to Brussels. They have also made it clear that they don’t want to be forced to accept the EU rules on unlimited and uncontrolled immigration which if continued will destroy the fabric of the U. K. and the rest of Europe.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned the U.K. to have no illusions about life outside the European Union, hardening her stance ahead of Prime Minister David Cameron’s first meeting with fellow E.U. leaders since triggering the political earthquake that’s shaken the bloc’s foundations. Merkel, in her toughest response yet to last week’s British vote to quit the 28-nation E.U., said that the U.K. can’t expect favored treatment once it leaves and that there will be no informal talks on a new relationship before the government in London files its application for divorce. ‘There shouldn’t be the slightest misunderstanding about the conditions laid out in the European treaties for a case like this,’ Merkel said in a speech to Germany’s parliament in Berlin on Tuesday. ‘My only advice to our British friends is: Don’t delude yourself about the necessary decisions that need to be taken.’