'Brexit' wins, UK to leave the EU?

[aragorn]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

On the topic of the vote itself, I've been thinking.

We have a pretty good idea that votes can be manipulated, at least to some point. Maybe they only have enough control, and only dare to use it enough to swing close elections. That being the case:

1) Either the PTB used that power to swing the vote to Brexit to create chaos, or

2) Their vote manipulations were not sufficient to overcome an overwhelming majority and only brought the balance down to 52/48.

If it is #1, that would mean that a majority of the people voted to stay in the EU and the PTB used their manipulations the other way.

If it is #2, that would mean that the numbers voting against the EU could have been as high as 60%. (Or so it seems to me.)

I suppose there is also a possibility that they just let the chips fall where they may and the vote is reasonably accurate but I don't think they leave stuff like that to chance.

There is another possibility: that they did totally control the vote to an even greater extent than I have imagined above and the divide is what they wanted it to be for the purposes of dividing the country.

A couple of more "sub-scenarios" come to mind:

1) The guy (or a group of people) who was supposed to hack/tweak the votes betrayed their masters for some reason. Perhaps s/he was bribed, threatened, or just tricked the PTB for ideological reasons (although I can't imagine someone who is in this kind of work would have any conscience).

2) Someone from "outside" hacked or in other ways messed up the software that is/was used for adjusting the votes

3) Some fraction of the ruling elite said "We've had enough", and thus they manipulated the votes with the help of 1)

Then there's Obama's recent visit to the UK, which was a clear PR stunt to manipulate the voters, so that the "Stay" side would win. Or, was it? The other day I thought, that perhaps he delivered an ultimatum instead: "Keep doing as we say, or we'll create chaos in your country". But, this wouldn't make sense - the US wouldn't need a talking head like Obama to deliver this "offer they can't refuse".

Right now, I vote for the "created chaos" theory, that this was all by design for reasons that aren't yet quite clear.

 

[griffin]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

<snip>
On the topic of the vote itself, I've been thinking.

We have a pretty good idea that votes can be manipulated, at least to some point. Maybe they only have enough control, and only dare to use it enough to swing close elections. That being the case:

1) Either the PTB used that power to swing the vote to Brexit to create chaos, or

2) Their vote manipulations were not sufficient to overcome an overwhelming majority and only brought the balance down to 52/48.

If it is #1, that would mean that a majority of the people voted to stay in the EU and the PTB used their manipulations the other way.

If it is #2, that would mean that the numbers voting against the EU could have been as high as 60%. (Or so it seems to me.)

I suppose there is also a possibility that they just let the chips fall where they may and the vote is reasonably accurate but I don't think they leave stuff like that to chance.

There is another possibility: that they did totally control the vote to an even greater extent than I have imagined above and the divide is what they wanted it to be for the purposes of dividing the country.

The last possibility you mention - that they totally controlled the vote and chose the result - is simply an emphatic case of alternative #1. The third possibility - that they didn't attempt to rig the outcome - seems unlikely, given what we know about the Scottish Referendum vote, but call that alternative #3.

I'm thinking alternative #2 was most likely the case, if the PTB actually did attempt to rig the election.

Alternative #1 (that the PTB intervened and threw the vote to Leave in order to cause chaos) doesn't seem to accord with the political history of the question and the party that scheduled the referendum, nor with the reactions of the various players in the UK political establishment to the surprise outcome.

The Euro-skeptic wing of the Conservative party had always been quite bothersome to Cameron and UKIP had attracted worrying levels of support in recent elections, threatening Tory margins of victory. Cameron had promised to hold an EU Referendum, and he thought doing so would allow him put the issue to rest - assuming of course that the combined weight of the party apparatus and all its friends in publishing, industry and especially finance would handily win the day and see off the anti-EU vote. His obviously shocked reaction to the Leave result makes it quite clear that he'd badly miscalculated.

So those points argue against alternative #1. Either that, or David Cameron's a very good actor and should stop wasting his time in politics and pursue professional acting instead.

In addition, here's a good explanation for alternative #2 perhaps having been actually the case here. (I read this somewhere recently, but unfortunately now I can't remember where, or I'd quote the link.)

Apparently the government security agencies have only limited capabilities to influence voting results in Britain, due to election arrangements. It seems that the only part of the overall vote they can fiddle with is the postal vote, which is only about 20% of the total. The rest of the votes are collected locally and are counted by ordinary, honest people in larger cities and county seats throughout the country.

That means that, at most, the government's minions can skew a total voting result by only about 5%, on a national basis, without making it obvious in the high level statistics that votes have been diddled.

(That works like this: if the postal vote is 20% of the total, you can maybe get away with skewing half of it, or 10%, making the postal results 15% for your side and 5% for the other side, not about even.)

So I'm for alternative #2 - they tried, but failed, to rig the EU Referendum vote. Now it gets interesting.

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

And the Express UK has this article.

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.

This just makes me wonder, why would the UK have to leave the EU for the above to be implemented? Or is it just post-Brexit opportunism?

It was reported as a long time plan so perhaps the Brexit referendum caused the elites to move the timetable forward for this plan before more nations leave the EU.

I'm skeptical about this supposed blueprint. Maybe such an idea exists floating around in the hallways of some European governments, but from that to announce it as an official proposal there is a big leap. Imagine the amount of opposition that such a plan would have; EU officials know this. For me, the article reads like euroskeptic/brexiter propaganda. "It's good we are leaving cause they were planning to absorb us into a supersate! See?"

 

[Niall]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

And the Express UK has this article.

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.

This just makes me wonder, why would the UK have to leave the EU for the above to be implemented? Or is it just post-Brexit opportunism?

It was reported as a long time plan so perhaps the Brexit referendum caused the elites to move the timetable forward for this plan before more nations leave the EU.

I'm skeptical about this supposed blueprint. Maybe such an idea exists floating around in the hallways of some European governments, but from that to announce it as an official proposal there is a big leap. Imagine the amount of opposition that such a plan would have; EU officials know this. For me, the article reads like euroskeptic/brexiter propaganda. "It's good we are leaving cause they were planning to absorb us into a supersate! See?"

Exactly. The timing of this 'revelation' hurts the EU, not the Anglo-Americans. The British Establishment has been whinging about the 'coming European superstate' since the 1980s.

What they're really afraid of is a Europe where predatorial capitalism is regulated.

The British media is again stirring the pot, leaking lies to cast the EU as evil and Britain as good.

I'll take an 'overweening European superstate' over an Anglo-American totalitarian TTIP corporate hell any day.

Yes, including a European military instead of NATO.

 

[Laura]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

I'm thinking alternative #2 was most likely the case, if the PTB actually did attempt to rig the election.

My thinking too.

Alternative #1 (that the PTB intervened and threw the vote to Leave in order to cause chaos) doesn't seem to accord with the political history of the question and the party that scheduled the referendum, nor with the reactions of the various players in the UK political establishment to the surprise outcome.

The Euro-skeptic wing of the Conservative party had always been quite bothersome to Cameron and UKIP had attracted worrying levels of support in recent elections, threatening Tory margins of victory. Cameron had promised to hold an EU Referendum, and he thought doing so would allow him put the issue to rest - assuming of course that the combined weight of the party apparatus and all its friends in publishing, industry and especially finance would handily win the day and see off the anti-EU vote. His obviously shocked reaction to the Leave result makes it quite clear that he'd badly miscalculated.

So those points argue against alternative #1. Either that, or David Cameron's a very good actor and should stop wasting his time in politics and pursue professional acting instead.

I agree with this, too. There's just too much chaotic reaction at the top for it to have been planned to turn out this way.

In addition, here's a good explanation for alternative #2 perhaps having been actually the case here. (I read this somewhere recently, but unfortunately now I can't remember where, or I'd quote the link.)

Apparently the government security agencies have only limited capabilities to influence voting results in Britain, due to election arrangements. It seems that the only part of the overall vote they can fiddle with is the postal vote, which is only about 20% of the total. The rest of the votes are collected locally and are counted by ordinary, honest people in larger cities and county seats throughout the country.

That means that, at most, the government's minions can skew a total voting result by only about 5%, on a national basis, without making it obvious in the high level statistics that votes have been diddled.

(That works like this: if the postal vote is 20% of the total, you can maybe get away with skewing half of it, or 10%, making the postal results 15% for your side and 5% for the other side, not about even.)

So I'm for alternative #2 - they tried, but failed, to rig the EU Referendum vote. Now it gets interesting.

Yeah. I've also read a few exposure pieces about the limited ability to control the vote. One of the earliest I remember was the LBJ election back when. Found a bit about it, but not the same thing I read which was in a book. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html

It has been alleged for years that Johnson captured his Senate seat through fraud, but Mr. Caro goes into great detail to tell how the future President overcame a 20,000-vote deficit to achieve his famous 87-vote victory in the 1948 Democratic runoff primary against a former Governor, Coke Stevenson. A South Texas political boss, George Parr, had manufactured thousands of votes, Mr. Caro found. Johnson died in 1973, Stevenson and Parr in 1975. Mr. Caro says the election showed Johnson's determination to win at all costs as well as his coolness under fire and his ability to select gifted lieutenants, whom he then manipulated.

The whole story is interesting and an example of the early days of vote manipulation before electronic votes could be so easily switched.

But again, MOST votes are counted by decent people interested in the process being fair so that means that only SOME manipulation can take place; though, of course, they are getting more and more blatant about it.

 

[Yupo]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Can you provide a link?

Link for article on EU:
http://worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/EU.html

The general page:
http://worldaffairsbrief.com

There is a lot of interesting stuff here on military backstory, government coverups, historic deceptions, current events. Most interesting to me is a philosophy of law, liberty and government section.

 

[luc]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Alternative #1 (that the PTB intervened and threw the vote to Leave in order to cause chaos) doesn't seem to accord with the political history of the question and the party that scheduled the referendum, nor with the reactions of the various players in the UK political establishment to the surprise outcome.

The Euro-skeptic wing of the Conservative party had always been quite bothersome to Cameron and UKIP had attracted worrying levels of support in recent elections, threatening Tory margins of victory. Cameron had promised to hold an EU Referendum, and he thought doing so would allow him put the issue to rest - assuming of course that the combined weight of the party apparatus and all its friends in publishing, industry and especially finance would handily win the day and see off the anti-EU vote. His obviously shocked reaction to the Leave result makes it quite clear that he'd badly miscalculated.

So those points argue against alternative #1. Either that, or David Cameron's a very good actor and should stop wasting his time in politics and pursue professional acting instead.

I agree with this, too. There's just too much chaotic reaction at the top for it to have been planned to turn out this way.

Yeah, as I wrote above - maybe we shouldn't imagine everything being so stream-lined and planned at the top-levels. Psychos being psychos, I imagine a lot of in-fighting going on there, new factions emerging and shaking up power structures, different levels of knowledge, wishful thinking, manipulations, double-crosses, games etc., especially now that things are chaotic and power is shifting geopolitically. It's really interesting to see everything that's going on - meetings on different levels, a not yet streamlined "agenda setting"/message in the media and so on. I guess the only thing we can be sure of is that psychos being psychos, they will make things worse. Fwiw

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Interesting take by Thierry Meyssan on voltaire net - The Brexit reshuffles world geopolitics. His analysis indicates that it was the City of London that was behind the planned brexit. He clearly indicates that this was wanted, which confirms the evidence that all popular votes are fixed.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192607.html

following the money this article on RT indicates who of the rich lost and won because of the brexit. https://www.rt.com/business/348684-global-billionaires-losses-brexit/

According to the data, Europe’s rich took the hardest hit. The 92 billionaires lost $29.4 billion, with the two-day decline totaling $81.7 billion.

The net worth of the 150 billionaires from the US and Canada has plunged by $62.5 billion through Monday.

China’s 26 billionaires suffered a $1 billion loss on Monday and a $5 billion loss since Friday. They have lost $18.7 billion since the beginning of the year.

and in a earlier RT article https://www.rt.com/business-projects/348345-richest-people-losses-brexit/

Britain’s wealthiest person Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor dropped more than $1 billion. However, for the UK’s wealthiest Brexit was surprisingly less devastating than for others in the billionaire class. Altogether, Britain’s 15 richest people lost “only” $5.5 billion.

bolding mine - this seems to indicate who was in the known and who not. It could indicate that a very small elite in the City of London has indeed taken a drastic step. If true, a lot more damage will follow.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

from zero hedge - Why A UK Billionaire Believes Brexit Would Be "Good For The UK"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-20/why-uk-billionaire-believes-brexit-would-be-good-uk

The City of London and the pound would both benefit from the U.K. leaving the EU, says billionaire Peter Hargreaves. Brexit may knock the pound initially, but it would rebound, the co-founder of Hargreaves Lansdown — the largest U.K. retail broker, with more than $84.1 billion equivalent in assets — told Bloomberg Briefs' Geoff King in a June 17 interview.

Q: Why do you support "Leave"?

A: Every year in the EU it gets more political, it gets more legislative, more regulative; we don’t seem to get very much benefit from it. We will be far better out. The EU as an economic mark is declining in the world, when there were only nine countries in it was 30 percent of the world's GDP, now there are 28 it is only 17 percent. That's some serious decline. Other countries that are growing — India, parts of Africa, Brazil, China and even Russia — are the places we should be trading with.

Q: How do you counter strong economist/analyst support to remain?

A: There's a huge amount of vested interest, a lot people making these comments are politically motivated and also work for big banks that aren’t British. They’ve built these enormous dealing rooms and offices in the City of London and Canary Wharf and their bosses are saying we don't want to endanger this huge investment of ours. I don't think it will endanger that huge investment. You can't move the City of London to anywhere else in Europe. It's madness to suggest it. Frankfurt, the place everybody keeps talking about, only has a population of 700,000, it could not accommodate anything like the City of London. The City of London is absolutely guaranteed, it is bound to survive. The only center that could take over would be Zurich and that's not in the EU either. It's absolute drivel that the City of London will be affected. The City of London will go out and it will deal with these emerging economies in the Pacific Basin, Southeast Asia, Africa — they're all going to want finance for different things. You can't set up the City of London anywhere else. It takes years, and during that time the City of London will have grown stronger. Any attempt at usurping it will fail.

Q: How will London's role change?

A: It will become more global. There are only two global financial cities: New York and London. The fact London is no longer shackled to the EU means it will go out and deal with the rest of the world. New York is not in a great place, it is only in a great place for dealing with America and South America. The London time-zone is perfect for almost everywhere else in the world.

Q: What will happen to the EU?

A: The EU will disintegrate when we leave. They will realise there is nothing left. The political union is going to be a disaster and they'll want a free-trade area. Do you know who'll be the first country invited to that free trade area? The U.K.

Q: What happens to interest rates with a Brexit?

A: I don't think there'll be any change. One thing every country in the world is trying to do is get the value of their currency down. That's why interest rates are low. It is quite likely the pound will come under a bit of pressure, initially it will go down. That will be compensation for any tariffs, so the tariffs won't bother us. Not that they will instigate tariffs anyway, but any worry about it will already be compensated by the pound. The pound will become strong again, just like after we left the ERM snake under John Major. [At that time] the pound came under enormous pressure, but within 12 months was one of the strongest currencies in the world because we weren't shackled to the euro.

Q: How will factors holding down inflation differ?

A: Everyone is trying to increase inflation by reducing their interest rates and reducing the value of their currencies. We don't know what the impact of us leaving will be. I can't make any suggestion on how we get the currency to the level we want and inflation to level we want until I know how markets react to us leaving the EU. It is a hypothetical question, it may do it automatically, we may have measures to take. I think there'll be a knee-jerk reaction, but afterwards there'll be calm with people realizing it is no big deal us leaving. I think everyone is going to realize it is actually going to be good for the British economy.

Q: Would leaving the EU impact savings and investment?

A: I have more money in the stock market than any other person in the U.K., I have 2 billion pounds in the U.K. stock market. No one has anything like that. Do you think I would be intent on leaving if I thought that was going to endanger my wealth?

 

[bjorb]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

[quote author= luc]Yeah, as I wrote above - maybe we shouldn't imagine everything being so stream-lined and planned at the top-levels. Psychos being psychos, I imagine a lot of in-fighting going on there, new factions emerging and shaking up power structures, different levels of knowledge, wishful thinking, manipulations, double-crosses, games etc., especially now that things are chaotic and power is shifting geopolitically. It's really interesting to see everything that's going on - meetings on different levels, a not yet streamlined "agenda setting"/message in the media and so on. I guess the only thing we can be sure of is that psychos being psychos, they will make things worse. Fwiw[/quote]

Yea, but what now. Did it happen with or without the consent of the US? If it didn't, what to expect? Terror-attacks on Britain soil? But MI6 is just as capable to return the favor. I am afraid that this possible in-fighting will cause a lot of innocent lives.

Whatever happened, some powerful group made clear that they are relevant and must be taken into account. This can give them leverage on the big table. Or not, they may also be marked as enemies from this point on.

I reckon US/Germany are going to accelerate their EU super state before it possibly breaks further down. It can only get more tense by now.

 

[Niall]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Apparently the government security agencies have only limited capabilities to influence voting results in Britain, due to election arrangements. It seems that the only part of the overall vote they can fiddle with is the postal vote, which is only about 20% of the total. The rest of the votes are collected locally and are counted by ordinary, honest people in larger cities and county seats throughout the country.

That means that, at most, the government's minions can skew a total voting result by only about 5%, on a national basis, without making it obvious in the high level statistics that votes have been diddled.

According to our sources, they swung the 2014 Scottish referendum result by 30%. (True result in favor of independence: 75% - Official result: 45%)

To me the 52-48 (official) split smacks more of hedging bets.

I also seriously doubt last year's majority win for the Tories.

 

[Niall]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Have y'all noticed what THE top news story has been in the UK since the result was announced?

Worry about Scotland leaving the UK? Nope.

Worry about what it means for the UK's relationship with Europe? Nope.

It's all about Jeremy Corbyn. The pressure on him to resign is intense.

They won't call early elections, activate Article 50, or do anything else, until they know 'the number one threat to British security' is gone.

They're desperately trying to prevent 'a normie' from taking power.

 

[Niall]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

John Kerry: Brexit could be 'walked back'

The Guardian

The US secretary of state has raised doubts about whether Brexit will ever happen, suggesting most leave campaigners do not truly believe in Britain’s divorce from the EU and do not know how to achieve it.

Claiming there were a number of ways in which Thursday’s vote could be “walked back”, John Kerry, who visited Downing Street on Monday, said David Cameron was loth to invoke article 50, the EU exit procedure.

“What I don’t understand is that those who want to leave are totally unable to tell us what they want,” Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, said after Cameron’s final EU summit on Tuesday. “I thought that if you wanted to leave you had a plan ... they don’t have it.”

Maybe "they don't have a plan" because leaving isn't part of the plan.

 

[Niall]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

The British media is currently full of stories like this one, about how the vote result doesn't mean the UK is definitely leaving the EU...

UK voted for Brexit – but is there a way back?

The Guardian

Several scenarios could see the vote overturned...

[Article then goes through various 'Remain' scenarios... before concluding with...]

All these scenarios, however, are inherently speculative – and require an accumulator bet coming good – but if you think it is not being discussed in Whitehall and Westminster, you are mistaken.

 

[Ca.]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Facade ..........................

EU Calls for ‘Orderly’ Brexit at Historic Meeting Without U.K
June 29, 2016 — 1:46 PM CEST
_http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/eu-calls-for-orderly-brexit-at-historic-meeting-without-u-k
Snippet:

European Union leaders called for an orderly British withdrawal from the bloc to minimize instability as they pledged to learn lessons from the U.K.’s political earthquake and do better at serving their citizens.

As EU government chiefs took the historic step of meeting without one of the bloc’s members for the first time, they lamented the British decision to part ways then began to lay plans for a new union minus its second-largest economy. They also insisted that any negotiations on Britain’s future relationship wouldn’t be started until it gave official notification of departure.

Merkel arrives for a meeting of 27 EU leaders in Brussels, on June 29

Every Banker in the World Is Chasing the Saudi Aramco Deal
June 28, 2016 — 11:00 PM CEST
_http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-28/wall-street-on-saudi-arabia-charm-offensive-chasing-record-deals
Snippet:

When news broke in January that Saudi Arabia was considering an initial public offering of its state-owned oil company, the first reaction on Wall Street was shock. Then calls began pouring into Dubai -- the Middle East’s financial hub -- from senior bankers in London and New York.

Investment banks around the world are clamoring to join what promises to be a bonanza, and not just the IPO of Saudi Arabian Oil Co., or Aramco, which could be valued at upward of $2 trillion. The kingdom is planning to sell hundreds of state assets to bolster its finances and reduce its dependence on oil. That includes as much as $15 billion of bonds.

Saudi Arabia looks even more promising with investment banking in a global slump and Britain’s vote to exit the European Union set to deter deal-making for months to come.

“Saudi Arabia is close to the top, if not at the top, of the agenda for banks,” said Christopher Wheeler, a London-based analyst with Atlantic Equities LLP in London. “Where else is there at the moment?"

Fees paid to banks in the kingdom jumped by almost a third to about $100 million in the first five months of the year, according to New York-based research firm Freeman & Co. While that’s a fraction of what investment banks generate in the U.S. and Europe, the work of diversifying the kingdom’s economy is just getting started.

Skipping down:

Influential Roles

Two HSBC bankers recently jumped to government roles. Mohammad Al Tuwaijri, CEO for the Middle East, was appointed deputy economy and planning minister in May. Fahad Al Saif, general manager of global banking and markets at HSBC’s Saudi British Bank, is starting a debt management office that will be responsible for the kingdom’s first international bond sale.

HSBC and JPMorgan, along with Citigroup Inc., were picked just days ago to arrange that offering, people with knowledge of the matter said. Officials at the three firms declined to comment on their Saudi operations.

JPMorgan advised the Saudi Public Investment Fund on its $3.5 billion investment in Uber Technologies Inc. this month. It also has an advisory role on Aramco, people familiar with the matter said in April. The largest U.S. bank set out at the beginning of the year to increase its Saudi staff of 65 by about 10 percent, said Bader Alamoudi, CEO of its local investment-banking unit, in a January interview.

The kingdom provides a bright spot in an otherwise dismal landscape for investment banks, whose earnings are under pressure from record-low interest rates and escalating capital requirements. U.K. voters’ surprise decision to withdraw from the EU heralds even harder times for securities firms as companies that hire banks to advise on takeovers and raise money face years of uncertainty while Britain negotiates new international ties.

Link for full article

RT
Published time: 29 Jun, 2016 12:12
Will Brexit ever actually happen? There are plenty of signs it won't
https://www.rt.com/uk/348845-brexit-vote-backtrack-eu/