Chaos For Months

I’m beginning to wonder whether David Cameron is really a closet Brexiter. First of all he goes to Brussels and very publicly fails to get a “new deal” for Britain. Then he conducts a campaign of fear and threats that was more or less guaranteed to get a lot of people’s backs up.

And then, as soon as Brexit has won, he firstly immediately accepts the result, and announces his resignation not now, but in 4 or 5 months time. And what that means, it seems to me, is that he has bought the Conservative party 4 or 5 months to not only elect a new leader, but also start to begin to figure out how to actually best get out of the EU – because nobody really knows how to do it.

So that means that nothing is going to happen for months. And I think that’s a good thing. There’s no need to rush. Also, it’ll mean that nothing will happen to overturn the result (if it can be overturned) for months. It introduces a pause, a breathing space.

The EU, on the other hand, wants the whole process over and done with as quickly as possible, so they can re-normalise European politics and return to business as usual. If there’s going to be a divorce, they don’t want the soon-to-be ex-wife still living in the family home, and arguing about who owns the car and the kids and the cat. And while it’s all hanging over them, there are going to be more and more EU member states calling for their own referendums. The EU might get snowed under, and become completely paralysed.

But paralysis is what there’s going to be. And there’s going to be political chaos for months.

The pause also happens to coincide with the upcoming US Presidential election. Donald Trump is going to be telling Americans that “the Brits have taken their country back, and Americans need to do the same.” In fact, that’s exactly what he has already said while visiting Scotland during the referendum (amazing timing for the visit).

So there’s going to be political paralysis and chaos in Britain, and political paralysis and chaos in Europe, and an accompanying political firestorm in the USA (where there is one already).

Is it all completely accidental? Did David Cameron ever have to promise a referendum? Didn’t he realise that he might lose it? Was he secretly trying to lose it? He couldn’t have done a much better job of losing it.

We’ll probably never know. But it’s thrown a monkey wrench into politics not just in the UK, but also the entire EU, and even the USA, and maybe the entire world.

It might almost be better for the EU to say right now, “Forget about Article 50! Have whatever terms you like! But we must agree them immediately. Because we can’t go on like this, even if you can.”

And David Cameron holds all the cards.

And while the uncertainty lasts, stock markets will shudder. Everything will creak and groan. There will be strange portents in the sky, birds seen flying upside down, sea monsters washed up on beaches, UFOs, earthquakes, and volcanoes.

As a matter of interest, U.S. conservative talk radio has been all over the Brexit vote, approving of the British vote.

Here’s Mark Levin on Friday:

And Rush Limbaugh on Friday:



About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Chaos For Months

  1. Interesting thinking Frank, and quite possible. I think it’s more likely though that they really, truly, never expected the Brexiters to do much better than a third of the vote. It’s VERY unusual for a majority of a major population to be willing to vote for a “radical change” to almost anything. The whole “Devil we know is better than the Devil we don’t.” factor plays a BIG part in the average person’s decisions about anything important in their lives: Inertia and fear are both powerful forces.

    If the “establishment” had simply ignored the Brexiters as a sideshow of “UKIP nutters and racists” they’d likely have won. Instead the made the mistake of taking the battle to center stage where the arguments got continually aired and discussed and thus the strengths of the Brexit arguments got spread much more widely than they would have.

    If they’d had ANY idea of the direction of the ultimate results they would have padded their security beforehand with talk of needing a supermajority vote for such a major change. It would not have been unreasonable *IF* they had done it before losing.

    Going for it now is clearly just a crybaby move of “I’m going to change the rules because I don’t like having lost under the old rules.” It’s a totally unacceptable way to deal with a loss no matter how many millions of fake votes they’re able to throw into the ring. What’s the term judicially? Double jeopardy? Where the court doesn’t like a result so just says “We’re going to do the trial again, and again, and again… until we find you guilty!”

    If that’s the way they’re planning to play out the game they may manage to turn this thing into an outright revolution: you do NOT promise people a democracy and THEN throw out the results of their voting without rioting in the public square.

    – MJM

    • Frank Davis says:

      But Cameron isn’t trying to throw out the result. He hasn’t called it into question. And Cameron remains Prime Minister of a Conservative government. Everybody else may be doing that, but they’re not the UK government.

      Everyone else can complain as much as they like, they can shout and yell till they’re blue in the face – but they’re not the government, and they can’t do anything about it.

      Not sure about “voting for radical change” either. Britain has been self-governing for hundreds of years until very recently. People haven’t been voting for anything radical. They’ve been voting to return to what they used to know, and what was very well tried and tested. The real “radical change” has been entry into the EU. And it’s not working. And more and more people can see it, and not just in Britain. The EU is a failed political experiment.

    • Some French bloke says:

      Inertia and fear are both powerful forces.

      “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Revelation III, 16.

  2. waltc says:

    He promised the referendum bec that was the only way he could get re-elected. He promised it the way pols promise everything–either planning to figure out a way to not do it, or leaving it as something to “worry about later, ” the immediate goal being winning the election, ends justifying means. He also must’ve thought if it came down to it Stay would be an easy win. By the usual means of fooling enough of the people enough of the time. The Ruling Class is so used to thinking the rest of us are easily manipulated sheep (and not necessarily wrong about that either) that they just got the rocking surprise of their lives

  3. Marvin says:

    Pro Remain, but hilarious…

  4. Frank Davis says:

    What Cameron’s not going to do.

    European ministers tell Britain to trigger Article 50 and choose new PM ‘within days’

    FRANCE has told Britain to appoint a new prime minister within “a few days” and to immediately quit the EU by soon triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

  5. Frank Davis says:

    Peter Oborne

    There have been two great democratic moments in post-war British politics. The first was in the 1945 General Election when victory for the Labour Party under Clement Attlee swept away the old British establishment and brought in a new era of social democracy.

    The second is today. Just as the old establishment was swept aside in 1945, we have seen a popular revolution against a bankrupt political class.

    • Rose says:

      I had always wondered why Churchill’s government was voted out after the war and it was many years before I found a possible answer.

      Apparently, and this is not from any verifiable source, just a written comment some years ago, the Labour party of the time wrote letters to all the troops serving abroad to say that if they voted for a Labour government they would all be brought home in time for Christmas.

      How true that is, I wouldn’t like to say, but it did sound plausible.

      • Chester Draws says:

        Not remotely plausible, sorry. Remember they were re-elected. Churchill was never very popular despite his later canonisation for his wartime service.

        War service made people see new ways of doing things.

  6. Steven says:

    Actually I voted out to get rid not only of the Brussels elite but the Westminster elite.england is divided right down the middle as the results have shown.Up north we have been taken for a ride by Westminster and those in power.Perhaps one day southerners will realise up here that we don’t all have whippets flat caps and outside toilets.We speak our mind.

  7. Re all the “changes of mind” we’re supposedly hearing about, I just added an answer to a question over on Quora. Since some folks seem to have difficulty viewing Quora answers I’ll reprint it below. (Actually signing on to Quora is not that hard: just skip past or check off most of the registration questions if you need to register: you can always go back later and fix ’em if you want. The only thing they’re really fussy about is using your real name and giving serious, informed answers that are both “Nice” and “Respectful” : flaming stuff (even mild insults) quickly get people banned.)

    My Answer to the Question,


    This is not exactly an answer to the Question, but I think it’s an important observation: Of the 57 Answers posted thus far, there seem to be no more than two or three at most that would strongly agree with the premise of the Question.

    Not only is this informative in and of itself, but it is also informative in terms of the strong contrast it makes to the wave of “news” (or would the word “propaganda” be more appropriate?) that Brits by the millions are regretting the outcome with Brexit voter wailing and tearing their hair out in despair over have helped make the “disaster.”

    How much of that wailing is real? And how much of it is just a political play to soften up popular opinion so the referendum can be ignored or overturned or so that the goal posts can be moved to a 60% or 67% requirement AFTER the game has already been played and ended?

    The balance of thinking as displayed at least on Quora so far seems to be that the wailing is about as real as fourthhand smoke on a football contaminating an entire stadium.

    MJM, A Philadelphian, not a Brit, so take that into account here…
    Written 16m ago

    – MJM

  8. Frank Davis says:

    In among all the petitions apparently there’s one which demands a replay if Iceland beat England tomorrow.

  9. Rose says:

    3M+ ‘Remain’ Petition Uses ‘Script’ To ‘Fake’ Signatures: 25,000 From North Korea, 2,800 From Uninhabitable Antarctic

    “Questions are being raised as to the true number of UK citizens signing a petition to urge another European Union membership referendum as evidence emerged that activists are encouraging foreign signatories. Some critics claim that a “bot” or “script” is being used to automatically generate names and signatories.

    As of early Sunday afternoon, over 3.1 million signatures had been registered on the petition named: “EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum” which calls for the “Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.”

    But an analysis of the data on the petition shows that at least 6 per cent of the signatories, or nearly 200,000 are from foreign countries. While foreign-based UK nationals are allowed to sign UK petitions, some believe that many of these are fraudulent given that Remain activists are handing out post codes online in order to elicit more signatures from abroad.

    As of Sunday afternoon, around 41,118 signatories have come from Vatican City, 11,717 from the United States, and curiously, 24,855 from North Korea.

    At least 19,000 signatures have come from France, and 2,735 from British Antarctic Territory, which has a population of just 250 people.

    And even UK-based signatories are raising questions, with the petition attracting a curiously high number of signatures from constituencies with small populations.

    Turnout in the 2015 General Election was 36,185 in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency. Yet over 40,000 are claimed to have signed the Remain petition from that constituency in the past few days. That would mean that more than every single person that voted in 2015 has signed the petition, including all voters from the UK Independence Party and the Conservative Party, the former of which is overwhelmingly Eurosceptic, and the latter of which is split in half over the issue.

    The House of Commons petitions committee has today acknowledged that there may be fraudulent signatures on the petition, and has claimed that they will remove them.”

    “The petition has been pointed to by Remain activists including Members of Parliament as a sign that UK voters did not want to leave the European Union and that another referendum must be held.

    The same people have not yet commented on the allegedly fraudulent nature of many of the signatures.”

    “A House of Commons spokeswoman said the petition was created on 24 May. There were 22 signatures on it at the time the referendum result was announced.

    The petition’s website states it was set up by an individual called William Oliver Healey, and says: “We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60%, based [on] a turnout less than 75%, there should be another referendum.”

    Thursday saw a 72.2% turnout, significantly higher than the 66.1% turnout at last year’s general election, but below the 75% mark suggested by Mr Healey as a threshold.

    In a statement posted on Facebook, a campaigner for the English Democrats party identifying himself as Oliver Healey says he started the petition “when it was looking unlikely that ‘leave’ were going to win, with the intention of making it harder for ‘remain’ to further shackle us to the EU”.

    He says the petition has since been “hijacked by the remain campaign”.

    “BBC political correspondent Iain Watson says the petition has attracted a lot of attention but has no chance of being enacted, because it is asking for retrospective legislation.
    Our correspondent says some referendums do have thresholds but those clauses must be inserted in legislation before the vote so everyone is clear about the rules.

    You cannot simply invent new hurdles if you are on the losing side, our correspondent says.”

    • Marvin says:

      Much more info on the fraudulent petition here and the political shenanigans behind it, including Camerons tweets before and after, starts at post #1026…

      I know it’s the Icke forum, but if you ignore the paranoia, the mysticism and the numerology there’s some good stuff on there.There was a post showing how it was done. It’s a simple infinite loop in a HTML document, that increments the number of signatures, but that post seems to have been removed, I think the forum is playing safe understandably (not promoting hacking).

  10. Some French bloke says:

    The Brexit vote, and Nigel Farage choosing last week to declare that “doctors have got it wrong about smoking” – at such a crucial moment in his political career – both count as huge dark clouds gathering above the citadel of Tobacco Control. All these years of “fight[ing] against them with the sword of [our] mouth[s]” (Revelation II, 16) may soon come to a head, and put an end to their ignoble experiment.

    • Rose says:

      Got ’em.

      Resolution of the Council and the Ministers for Health of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 18 July 1989 on banning smoking in places open to the public

      10 years before the Who Partnership Project with the Drug companies, 14 years before the FCTC

      18 July 1989

      “Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

      Having regard to the draft recommendation from the Commission,

      Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (1),

      Whereas the European Council held in Milan on 28 and 29 June 1985 stressed the importance of launching a European action programme against cancer;

      Whereas the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, in their resolution of 7 July 1986 on a programme of action of the European Communities against cancer, set the objective of contributing to an improvement in the health and quality of life of citizens within the Community by reducing the number of cases of cancer and under this heading gave priority to measures against smoking;

      Whereas, in addition to the potential encouragement to smoke and the unpleasant physical effects and the nuisance which smoke causes for non-smokers, there is an increased risk of respiratory illnesses for non-smokers involuntarily exposed to the smoke of tobacco products ; whereas consequently, it is appropriate to protect the right to health of non-smokers against involuntary smoking;

      Whereas, to ensure respect for the right to health of non-smokers, it is essential to ban smoking in public places in certain establishments and in forms of transport;

      Whereas, however, in view of the extent of tobacco addiction affecting part of the population, it is appropriate to make provision to permit smoking in part of these establishments and forms of transport;

      Whereas it is necessary to extend to the citizens of all Member States the protection they are afforded in some Member States against the damage caused by involuntary smoking;

      Whereas, finally, the initiative set out in this resolution will have an even more beneficial effect on public health, particularly for the workers directly concerned, when coupled with health education programmes during the years of compulsory education and with information and public awareness campaigns,


      to take the following measures by introducing legislation or by other methods in accordance with national practices and conditions:

      1. Ban smoking in enclosed premises open to the public which form part of the public or private establishments listed in the Annex.

      2. Extend the ban on smoking to all forms of public transport;

      3. Provide, where necessary, for clearly defined areas to be reserved for smokers in the above establishments and, if possible, in public transport, particularly for long journeys;

      4. Ensure that in the event of a conflict, in areas other than those reserved for smokers, the right to health of non-smokers prevails over the right of smokers to smoke;

      to inform the Commission every two years of action taken in response to this resolution. (1) Opinion delivered on 26 April 1989 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      Public and private establishments referred to in point 1 of the resolution (non-exhaustive list)

      1. Establishments where services are provided to the public, whether for a charge or free, including the sale of goods;

      2. Hospitals, establishments where health care is given and all other medical establishments;

      3. Establishments where elderly persons are received;

      4. Schools and other premises where children or young people are received or housed;

      5. Establishments where higher education and vocational training are given;

      6. Enclosed establishments used for entertainment (cinemas, theaters, etc.) ; radio and television studios open to the public;

      7. Enclosed establishments where exhibitions are held;

      8. Establishments and enclosed places where sports are practised;

      9. Enclosed premises of underground and railway stations, ports and airports.”

      Thanks SFB.

      • Here’s the prickle on the pear:

        “4. Ensure that in the event of a conflict, in areas other than those reserved for smokers, the right to health of non-smokers prevails over the right of smokers to smoke;”

        “The right to health” is meaningless in this context since, in the event of any conflict at all, even if it’s fifty yards away outdoors, the nonsmoker can claim that their health is “compromised” since “there is no safe level of exposure. It also covers the people who will falsely claim allergies/asthma/the-heebie-jeebies because their claim, without any substantiating evidence has to “prevail(s) over the right of smokers.” The health phrase is simply included as a justification for saying “In the event of a conflict, the nonsmoker will automatically prevail, regardless of circumstances.” Which also means that if they guy two floors upstairs and on the other side of your building sneaks a smoke in his bathroom at midnight you can get him evicted.

        – MJM

        • Joe L. says:

          “The right to health” is meaningless, period, but I digress.

          Bear in mind this was written in 1989. The “no safe level of exposure to SHS” myth from the early/mid-2000s was the necessary tool for the antis to eliminate what small amount of humanity (i.e., reserved smoking areas) was still present in this manifesto. Once there was “no safe level of exposure,” there was no longer any reason to “Provide, where necessary, for clearly defined areas to be reserved for smokers in the above establishments and, if possible, in public transport, particularly for long journeys.”

  11. Oi you says:

    CallmeDave a closeted Brexiter…??? Surely not! Though It would answer a few questions, I suppose, like why he flip-flops so much? I never known anyone change his mind about so many things, so many times. I was beginning to think he was becoming mentally unstable, stressed out by his job perhaps. So what you’re saying is that it’s all an act, by a cold and calculating personality, guaranteed to give him the result he wants. Well, I guess he’s not known as ‘Flashman’ for no reason….

  12. Joe L. says:

    So there’s going to be political paralysis and chaos in Britain, and political paralysis and chaos in Europe, and an accompanying political firestorm in the USA (where there is one already).

    I find this timing a bit too coincidental. Just as we in the U.S. are reaching a peak level of division, so now is the U.K. It seems as though every class/race/ideology/lifestyle/culture has been pitted against one another more than ever by recent (as well as some ongoing) events and the subsequent non-stop media coverage (read: propaganda). Black vs. white, gay vs. straight, rich vs. poor, smoker vs. non-, smoker vs. vaper, tobacco-smoker vs. marijuana-smoker, America vs. Mexico, Christian vs. Muslim, Muslim vs. gay (or is it Muslim vs. Mexican? Possibly both. [re. Pulse nightclub massacre]), Republican vs. Democrat, Republican vs. Republican (!) (Trump), Democrat vs. Democrat (!) (Clinton/Sanders), gun owners vs. gun haters, Leave vs. Remain, U.K. vs. the rest of Europe, Scotland vs. England, Ireland vs. England, etc., etc., etc.

    There is so much tension right now and it just continues to build; it won’t be long until this spring snaps back violently. I can’t help but wonder if we are being poked and prodded into hating one another in order to cause chaos and turmoil for some greater political goal (globalization, Martial Law?). Regardless, I don’t like where it seems like we’re heading.

    • Joe L. says:

      First paragraph should be a block quote. I must’ve typo’d the tag.

    • Oi you says:

      I was watching one of Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy programmes not so long ago and he was investigating reports of the political elite building a massive bunker in the Osarks. I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist normally, but it was a fascinating programme. Made me feel a bit uneasy as to what our leaders might be planning….


    • waltc says:

      Aptly put, Joe. “Divided, we fall.”

      • waltc says:

        That was meant to apply to your first post.

        As for the early EU smoke ban plan, it was posited by the Royal College of Physicians in the late 60’s long before shs was invented and merely as a move to make smoking socially unacceptable–out of sight, out of mind. Still, interesting to know that the eirocrats bought into it as part of their master plan

        • Some French bloke says:

          Historically speaking, SHS is the brainchild of one Fritz Lickint (1898 –1960; a rather short lifespan by antismoker’s standards). And according to Nigel Farage (and myself) “doctors have got it wrong about smoking”, not just about second-hand smoke.

  13. Pingback: 17,410,742 UK Smokers | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.