Limeys get liberated!

THE UNSEEN MOON sends heartfelt congratulations this morning to the Brits who have thrown off — as of 11 p.m. last night — the yoke of the European Union.

acfede1733495afc76812f0988826c8bSince Great Britain was one of the principals of the EU, there is hope of a domino effect and that other nations will come to their senses, embrace their nationalities and culture, and get the devil out of that nefarious, globalist organization.

Like open borders in North America, open borders in Europe has been a disaster, allowing millions of people, especially Mohammedans, from less successful nations to easily invade the countries of Western Europe where they set up their little caliphates, grab taxpayer money and incite violence.

But one wonders if it’s not too late for the British. A malevolent  Mohammedan mayor rules London, and the favorite name for newborn boys in the United Kingdom last year was Mohammed. Not Cecil or Nigel.

This doesn’t bode well for British culture.

On a related note, President Trump has reduced substantially the contributions of U.S. taxpayers to the United Nations, another dreadful, globalist, plus anti-American organization. Perhaps after his re-election this year, he will do the right thing and toss the entire U.N. into the Atlantic Ocean, letting it paddle on its own.

Let us pray so.

In the meantime, let us cheer Great Britain and wish it well.

Now pass the fish and chips.

Or perhaps falafel and hummus would be more fitting.

22 thoughts on “Limeys get liberated!

    1. Jonas: I’ve claimed to be a happy-go-lucky guy? It must have been a day I neglected to take my meds. As for the Limeys escaping the EU, that does make me happy. It should make everyone happy who does not want to be governed by a non-democratic Big Brother, which is precisely what the EU is. It did not start out that way, but it’s that way now. Sad.

      Like

  1. I am ambivalent about Britain’s departure from the EU. Britain never shared the same vision of a united Europe as did the continental founders. Britain saw the enterprise as a common market where goods could be traded as freely as possible and with a minimum of governmental interference. The continental founders wanted a political union that would strip out the nationalism that they saw as the cause of the two world wars. From the moment Britain joined the common market, the frictions between those two views was evident. They were best-demonstrated during Margaret Thatcher’s years when she was able to bend the EEC to Britain’s will on several issues. But the unionists were eventually to prevail.

    I am ambivalent because the smaller nations (Netherlands, Denmark, the former Warsaw Pact countries) looked to Britain for free-market and anti-federalist leadership. They are now effectively at the mercy of Germany and France. Maybe that is what the continental founders had in mind for Europe. I doubt it was Poland’s vision.

    Ironically, the EU now seems determined to start blackmailing Hungary and Poland to abandon their national interests in favor of German and French ideas of how nations should operate. If I were a Pole or a Hungarian, I would most likely vote against the current governments in both countries. But, as a Pole or a Hungarian, I would be offended at the EU’s interference in my country’s internal affairs. I would not be surprised if one or both of them decided to take Britain’s off-ramp. The EU is quickly looking like yesterday’s man.

    My glass is half full as I wish Britain well.

    As for The States leaving the UN, we should talk. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher proved that it is possible to be a member of an organization you distrust and then turn it to your own interests.

    Like

    1. Señor Cotton: You are ambivalent on this? Of course, you are. The fence is your favorite perch on controversial issues.

      Well, I am not ambivalent on this at all, nor on many other issues. Nations should have 100 percent control of themselves. With luck, the Limeys have started that snowball rolling down the snowy slope. Let us pray so.

      As for the U.N., again, into the sea wid ya!

      Like

  2. Trump certainly would like to leave the UN and NATO. I wish he felt the same about the IMF and the World Bank and those trade deals he’s so proud of.

    Like

    1. Creigh: Being the very bright boy he is, of course, Trump would like to leave the U.N. and NATO. I do not see any reason for the United States to remain in NATO, which was formed as a buffer to the Soviet Union. Of least, Trump has forced some (all?) NATO nations to pony up their promised share of the budget. Obama never did that. Not being well versed in international finance, I cannot offer an opinion on the IMF or World Bank. As for Trump’s trade deals, I know in my heart of hearts he has done the right thing. Kudos to the Blond Bomber.

      Like

      1. Believe me, there’s less than meets the eye in these trade deals. For example, a highly touted provision is that U.S. companies no longer have to transfer technology to operate in China. But under President Obama, a simple solution was available: don’t move your operations to China.

        Like

  3. Well, I am also celebrating Brexit. It’s sure taken long enough. The next domino to fall is France. Frexit is going to happen as the French narrowly voted to join the EU in the first place and the country has been plagued by waves of migrants and a weak globalist PM. Macron will be defeated in the next election and France will regain their sovereignty. Then it will only be Germany holding what’s left of the EU together. I’m cashing in my Euros.

    Like

    1. Brent: Italy too is beginning to slide toward independence. Nations should not permit themselves to be governed by non-elected bureaucrats who live elsewhere. It’s an idiotic notion on the face of it. The EU, as all governments do in time, grew bloated. increasingly meddlesome and high-handed.

      Like

    1. Nelson: Yes, he does. Globalists are everywhere. I see he points to no border controls in Europe as a positive thing. To me, it’s a ghastly thing, perhaps the ghastliest of all aspects of the EU.

      Like

      1. For sure, the whole immigration situation has gotten out of hand. I’m experiencing that in a different way here in Vancouver (Canada) … Rich from China using and abusing our immigration policies, not to mention the money laundering. One in 4 babies in one hospital here are born to non-residents simply to become automatic citizens.

        Like

        1. Nelson: Open borders is the law in the EU. Canada pretty much has the same thing, it seems, due to leftist governments who leave the doors open while crooning Kumbaya. Your prime minister is the most politically correct national leader on the planet. Open borders in Europe are why the United Kingdom and other EU nations are overrun with Mohammedans whose culture is totally contrary and violently opposed to Western Civilization. The U.K needs to get rid of them, but I don’t know how that’s going to be possible. That London now has a Mohammedan mayor is appalling, and it’s the EU and its open borders that caused it.

          Like

  4. You may have to vet my opinion with Prof. Cotton, but what I find ironic about this debate is that conservatives and small-government types, not so long ago, supported free trade wherever and whenever, and rah-rahed when free-trade agreements popped up. Liberals, on the other hand, used to favor trade barriers to protect local constituencies, like unionized workers, from the threat of foreign imports that would undermine the domestic manufacturing-job base.

    But gradually, perhaps starting with Clinton, both sides began to merge and embrace the free-trade formula, starting with NAFTA. Regional arrangements, like the EU, by standardizing trade standards and so on, would promote free trade, no?

    In fact, some evangelical libertarians, reveling on the truth of their free-market gospel, even advocated open borders, on the assumption that the Invisible Hand would pull the levers if the situation got out of hand.

    We need to consult the writings of St. Margaret (Thatcher) or St. Milton (Friedman) to iron out the contradictions. That’s where Prof. Cotton comes in. LOL

    al

    Like

    1. Señor Lanier: As always, you’re a hoot! As for those stances of those groups, I can only reply that times they are a’changing. As for that Invisible Hand you mention, I think it is beginning to pull those border levers in many places as people see the light on the grave problems caused by lack of border control. A Mohammedan mayor of London is just one grisly example.

      As for consulting Prof. Cotton, he would, of course, see both sides of the issue. Milton Friedman (R.I.P.) was an opponent of open borders and rightly so. And I’m sure that Thatcher is cheering in her tomb this morning with the U.K.’s departure from the EU. Bless her heart.

      Like

  5. Free trade is pipe dream manufactured by people and corporations who want to put their hands in your pocket without you knowing. The EU was formed to prevent the 4th Reich.

    Greece, Portugal and Spain would have been better off without it.

    Agreeing to free trade by forcing other countries to clean up their labor practices benefits no one.

    Like

Comments are closed.