Better Regulation principles: at the heart of the EU’s decision-making process

Views:|Rating:|View Time:Minutes|Likes:[vid_likes]|Dislikes:[vid_dislikes]
On 15 April 2019, the European Commission took stock of the measures introduced under the Juncker Commission to deliver better results for EU citizens and …

Patents and Indian Patent Laws – Intellectual property rights IPR & their significance

Views:53199|Rating:4.63|View Time:24:38Minutes|Likes:1367|Dislikes:109
Download the Poket News App –
#StudyIQ Pendrive Courses for Various Govt. Exams, Click here to know in detail OR Call 95-8004-8004

UPSC/CSE – This is our Flagship & Most Selling Course. This course covered Length & Breadth of UPSC vast syllabus and made by Elite & Very best faculties from all over India with StudyIQ Trust. Click here to watch Demo Videos, Course Content, Authors, Etc.

SSC & Bank – This is our oldest Course, made by Founders of StudyIQ. 1000+ videos so far and new videos added every week. Click here to know more.

UPSC Optionals – We have covered almost all major UPSC Optionals. Click here to find yours

State Exams PSCs – Currently we have 18 States covered, More to come, Choose your state. Click to watch demo videos, know about authors and all.

Defense Exams – CDS, NDA, CAPF, SSB, AFCAT, Airforce. Click here to get into the Army, Navy or Airforce

SSC JE Exams – Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Electronics. Click here to know more

RBI Grade B – Grade B is the most popular Job after IAS. This course made by well-experienced faculties of Study IQ. Click here to watch demo videos, Authors, Course content.

NTA NET – Start your preparation for UGC(NTA) NET prestigious exam. We have courses for both Paper 1 & 2. Click here to check

UPSC Prelim Test Series – Our flagship test series for UPSC Prelims. More than 60% Sucess rate in 2018. Click here to enroll right now

DMRC Exams – Courses for Delhi Metro Technical & Non-Technical Exams. Click here to know more

Insurance Exams – LIC, NICL, and other insurance exams. Click here to know more

Law Exams – Find courses for Undergraduate and Judiciary Exams. Click here to check

Railway Jobs – More than 1.5 Lac jobs to come this year. Start your preparation with us for Tech or Non-Tech posts. Click here to check the available courses

Teaching Jobs – CTET, DSSSB. Click here to know more

NABARD Grade A –

Have a doubt? Click here to start instant Chat with our Sale team or you can #Call_9580048004

Download the Poket News App –

Follow us on Instagram –

Click here to Sponsor Study IQ

UPSCIQ Magazine – || Bank IQ Magazine –

Daily Current Affairs –

Download All Videos PDFs – || Join StudyIQ on Telegram –

Monthly Current Affairs –

Topic Wise Current Affairs –

Free PDFs – || Free Quiz – || Free Video Courses –
Follow us on Facebook –
Telegram –

The Hindu Editorial Analysis –
Current Affairs by Dr Gaurav Garg –
UPSC/IAS Burning Issues analysis-
World History for UPSC –
Indian History –

Follow us on Facebook –
Follow Dr Gaurav Garg on Facebook –

UPSC/IAS past papers questions –
SSC CGL + IBPS Quantitative tricks –
English Vocabulary –
Reasoning tricks for Bank PO + SSC CGL-
Error spotting / Sentence correction
Static GK complete-
Complete GK + Current Affairs for all exams-
World History – UPSC / IAS –
Learn English for SSC CGL, Bank PO
Science and Technology for UPSC/IAS –
Philosophy for UPSC/IAS –
Yojana Magazine analysis –
History for SSC CGL + Railways NTPC –

[Applause] hello and welcome to study IQ in this session let us see what is a patent and what is the Indian baton low so paitent and Indian baton low pay dent and Indian patent low first let us see what is a patent when we talk about baton three important things have to be noted so the first thing is that patron is an intellectual property right given for inventions inventions that is the first thing to be noted so it is given for inventions the second thing to be noted is that patent is for a particular period of time that this baton is for 20 years so granting of patent is for 20 years so there is a time period for the granting of patent so after this 20 years that is this 20 years is known as the protective period of the patent so after this protective period the baton becomes a off patent so after 20 years the patron becomes off patent the word off patent or off patent means that anybody can use this patented product after a period of 20 years so after the 20 years or after the 20 years of the protective period the baton is open to the general public anybody can use this patent anybody can use this technology or the invention to make the production or make the produce so after 20 years the paetynn becomes off patent and it is open to the general public for production the third thing to be noted is that according to the TRIPS Agreement every member country has to shift from process patent to product patent so from process painted the every member country has to shift from process patent to product patent that is product patent before we discuss about product phaeton and process page and let us see what is the history of patent in India history of patent law in India history of patent law in India the first patent law in the country was passed in the year 1911 in the year 1911 the fur paetynn lowers past in our country and it was passed by the British government so the British government British government the British government passed the patent law in India in the year 1911 like all of the laws passed by the British government this slowed the baton Louis also aimed at maximizing the profit of the British companies so the aim was to maximize maximize the profit of the profit of British companies companies the aim of the slovers to maximize the profit of the British companies so with this path and the British companies charge higher prices for their products the British companies charged charged higher prices higher prices for their products and this higher prices helped them to earn maximum profit for those firms an important thing to be noted under the British patent law is that it was a product peasant not the process patent it was a product patent not a process patent so this is very important it was a product phaeton you will understand why this is important when we discuss about product patent and process patent so the British passed the first patent law in the country in the year 1911 and this was a product stated the aim of this Louis to maximize the profit of the British companies by charging higher prices for their commodities in the year of 1970 the Indian Patent Act was passed in the year 1970 the Indian Patent Act Indian Patent Act was passed this is very very important you must clearly understand what does the Indian Patent Act this is very important so let us see what is the Indian Patent Act under the Indian baton that the government allowed for process patent also along with product patents so along with along with product patent process patent was also allowed process patent verse also allowed and this process patent was allowed especially in the and pharmaceutical sector allowed especially in food and pharmaceutical sector from silicon sector and this allowed the pharmaceutical companies to produce the drugs at a cheaper price so this allowed the pharmaceutical companies to produce their drugs a cheaper price so the drugs were produced at cheaper price if you notice we will see that from the UM 1970 that is the year when we passed the Indian Patent Act from the Year 1970 to the next 20 years that is the patent is for 20 years for the next 20 years we have seen we have seen a tremendous improvement in the production of drugs especially general drugs in the country so for the 20 years we will see a tremendous improvement in the production of generic drugs in the country let us see how it this has happened as we have discussed Payton is for a period of 20 years so after 20 years the Payton becomes off patent so after 20 years it becomes off patent it means that anybody can use the technology or the invention to make their produce so after 20 years it becomes off patent suppose a particular drug was paid ended and after 20 years what will happen it becomes off patent so after 20 years anybody can produce the drug so this will be known as generic drug under general blood the composition will be the same the product will be the same the drug was the same anybody can produce it under different names so it becomes a general drug so this is how India captured the world market of pharmaceuticals so India became one of the largest producers of pharmaceuticals and drugs in the world with this introduction of process patent we were able to sell our drug set cheaper rate so we were we we were able to export the drugs even to us cheaper drugs quality was good so this increased the production of drugs in India and we became one of the largest producers of drugs in the world in short we can say that the in reduction of process patenting was the reason for the growth the pharmaceutical industry in the country again in the year 1995 India join the trade organization so India joined WTO in the year 1995 what was the impact for the Indian intellectual property rights while joining the WTO let us see so under the WTO the member countries had to comply with the TRIPS Agreement the TRIPS Agreement voltage trips trips means trade related intellectual property rights good sis trade related related intellectual intellectual property rights property rights it is a multilateral agreement of the World Trade Organization in relation to the IPR or intellectual property rights so it is a multilateral agreement of WTO relating to the intellectual property rights so under the trips agreement or the trade related intellectual property rights agreement of the WTO every member country had to shift from process patent to product feted so under trips every member country every member country had to shift from process patent process patent to product patent the obligation was that every member country has to shift from the process patent to product patent but for different member countries different time period was given in order to comply with this agreement the developed countries developed countries had to comply with it within a period of one year so for the developed countries the time was one year for the developing countries like India the time was five years so within five years they have to comply with this agreement also unclose was given that in case of any emergency the developing countries can extend this time period of five years to another five years that is extension of five more years well granted five more years so the developing countries can extend this for another five years that is five plus five in total ten years and for the least developed countries or the LDCs the time period given was eleven years so they have to comply with it within a period of lavinius what was the implication of this trips agreement for India we said that under the Indian baton that we allowed process patenting along with product fattening especially in the drugs and food sector so what was the implication when we had to comply with the trips agreement within a period of ten year we were compelled to move back to the product page ending so within ten years India has to adopt product patenting product patenting in order to comply with this in the year 2005 we amended the Indian Patent Act in the year 2005 we amended the patent law amended paetynn low by lamenting the patent law the government had to ensure the interest of various stakeholders so parallel laws were also made some parallel laws were made in order to protect the interest of various stakeholders for example that price control order was passed drug price control order so under the drug price control order the prices of the essential drugs will not come under any law or conduct so under the drug price control order prices of drugs prices of essential drugs essential drugs will not come under any contract or low while complying with the TRIPS Agreement the most important thing the government had in mind was to control the prices so the government could not afford an increase in the prices of the drugs in order to keep the prices of the drugs under control we introduced section 3 D of IPR intellectual property rights section 3 D of the IPR it is very very important and you should clearly know what is a section 3 D of the idea let us see what is a section 3 D of the intellectual property rights the aim of any pharmaceutical company or any MNC would be to maximize their profit so aim of MNC or a pharmaceutical company would be to maximize profit profit maximization so what does generally do after the 20 years that is after 20 years this 20 years is the protective period for the patent after 20 years patron becomes off patent so after a patron becomes off patent worthless in menses or the pharmaceutical companies will do is they will appoint them they will appoint the research team appoint a research team so after this 20 years they will appoint a research team and this research team will come up with a conclusion that the efficiency of the drugs has gone down with this 20 years so 20 years before the particular drug was given the patent so the research team will come with a conclusion that now it has been 20 years and the efficiency of the drugs has come down so conclusion efficiency has come down and this research team will makes likely some differences in the patented product and they come up with new drug so they will come up with new drug and with this new drug they will apply for patent so with this new drug they will apply for a new patent a playful new patent and if the Patent Office grants them the patent they can use this drug for another 20 years so another 20 years they will have the monopoly so if agent is granted for the new drug with slight differences from the previously painted product another 20 years this company will have monopoly over the drug and this resulted in evergreening of patient evergreening of patent this term evergreening of patent is very important and you must understand what is evergreening of patent this process will continue what is evergreening of patent it means that when a patented product becomes of patent that is after 20 years the MN sees will appoint a research team and this research team will come up with the conclusion that the efficiency of the particular product or the drug has come down and they will make some slight differences in that drug and with the new drug they will apply for new patent but actually in fact the drug is the same there is only a slight difference and with this slight difference if the company or the pharmaceutical company or the MNC manages to get the patent they will have the monopoly for another 20 years for the same drug and this process is known as evergreening of patent section 3d of the intellectual property rights we're introduced in order to prevent the evergreening of patent so the purpose of section 3d of intellectual property rights is to prevent evergreening of patent evergreening of patent you must clearly understand what is evergreening of patent this is very very important term now let us see what is the section 3d of the intellectual property rights 3d of IPR the section 3 D of the IPR says that there should be an enhanced efficiency in order to get paid and for an already-existing done here you must clearly not down the world enhanced efficiency so the 3d section 3d of IPR says that an enhance the efficiency is required for getting a patent for an already existing done what is the section 3 D of the IPR section 3 D of the IPR the section 3 D of the IPR says that there must be an enhanced efficiency in order to occur patent for an already existing done so the word enhanced efficiency is very very important here the section says that there should be an enhanced efficiency so enhanced efficiency is required for acquiring patent for an already existing drug enhanced efficiency is required for acquiring patent for an already existing drug here you must clearly understand what is enhance efficiency this close is very important so in the definition itself they have given enhanced efficiency is required for acquiring patent of an already existing drug but the patent office has not given a clear definition of what does enhance the efficiency so but the patient office did not give a correct or proper definition for what does enhance the efficiency no clear definition was given by given by the patent office regarding enhanced efficiency the definition for the term enhanced efficiency became clear with the Novartis case so let us see what was the no artist case no artists case now artists is a multinational company dealing with pharmaceuticals so no artist is an MNC dealing with the pharmaceuticals and they applied for a patent for their drug Gleevec the drugs name is devack but the patent office take the application saying that there was no enhanced efficiency in the drug so the Patent Office rejected the application of the Novartis company saying that there was no enhanced efficiency the company approached the supreme court and in the landmark judgement the Supreme Court said that enhance the efficiency means therapeutic efficiency enhanced efficiency means telepathic efficiency the Supreme Court also said that minor improvement cannot be considered as therapeutic enhancement so minor improvement cannot be considered as therapeutic efficiency and therefore the supreme court also rejected the application of the Novartis company the Supreme Court also rejected the application of the Novartis company saying that there is no enhanced efficiency in their drug Gleevec and with this Supreme Court judgment the drug giver does not have patent in India there is no patent for the drug Gleevec in India so you must understand that the Supreme Court has given clear definition for what is enhanced efficiency so according to the Supreme Court judgment enhance the efficiency means there must be therapeutic efficiency and minor improvement in the drug cannot be considered as therapeutic efficiency and therefore the Supreme Court has rejected application of the Novartis company for the drug Gleevec the u.s. is against the section 3 D of our patron act that is the u.s. is against the section 3 of the intellectual property rights so section 3 D u.s. is against why US is against it because many of the multinational pharmaceutical companies in India are from the US and from the Western European countries so so with the addition of the section 3 D into the intellectual property rights it is difficult for a company to get paid and further already existing gun it has to prove enhanced efficiency in order get phaeton for an existing drug so now it is difficult for the u.s. multinational companies to get the patent for the already existing drug and this has lowered the profits and their business interests so us is against this and us says that India is very poor in intellectual property rights and us also says that India does not follow the TRIPS Agreement in its true spirit this is because of the section 3 D of the intellectual property rights and this has led to many debates us cannot actually go to the World Trade Organization for this section 3 D because it is under the trips but instead of going to the World Trade Organization what US has done this the US has added India into the priority watchlist so India has been put into the priority watchlist by the US so in days into the priority watchlist in the US so India is into the priority watchlist the next step us would take is an international sanction section 3 D of the intellectual property rights is important for us from the Indian context is that it has prevented evergreening of patent in India so section 3 D of the IPR has prevented evergreening of patent prevented evergreening of patent by following this Indian model many other developing countries has also adopted this section 3d India was the first country to adopt section 3 D but following India's path many developing countries has now adopted section 3 D India was the first country country to adopt this section 3d 3d following India many countries many developing countries has adopted this example is Brazil and this has created problem for us so many other developing countries also adopting this section 3d into the intellectual property rights has created a big issue for the u.s. now the u.s. multinational companies cannot go to these countries and then easily get a patent it has to prove enhance the agency for acquiring patent for an already existing that so this has created issues for us now let us see what are the advantages of the section 3d and what are the disadvantages of this section advantages the most important advantage is that the drugs became affordable drugs became affordable so and hence the efficiency has to be proved in order to gain a patent in the country so if a company fails to prove their enhanced efficiency they will not be granted patent so after this twenty years the product becomes off patent and any number of companies can produce the particular drug and this will increase the competition and the prices will come down and when the prices comes down it becomes affordable for many people that's so that was the most important advantage of addition of the section 3d of the intellectual property rights drugs became affordable because the prices has come down with the increased competition now anybody can produce the particular drug and it has improved the competition in the market the supply has increased therefore the prices has come down the second advantage is that now we are capable of producing even for other countries so producing for other countries when a patent becomes off patent we can produce it anybody can produce it and this surplus of production has led to the export of pharmaceutical products and drugs to other countries this has not only created a strong pharmaceutical sector in the country but it has also helped India to produce drugs for poor countries like Africa the third advantage is that India has set a model for other developing countries in order to adopt this close as we have already discussed the Brazil example so other countries also adopted this model from the Indian model so now the multinational companies cannot go to those other countries who have adopted this close so this countries also will be protected from the evergreening of patents now let us see what are the disadvantages of this section 3d of the IP are disadvantages the first disadvantage for India was that the US has put us in the priority watch list priority watch list and another thing we must not here is that India has very rarely used this section 3d of the idea so in 2017 18 19 days period many of our patents will become off patent so many patents will become off patent and we must watch what will happen in India during these periods here you must note one thing India has allowed 100 percentage FDI in pharmaceuticals so 100 percentage of FDA is allowed in pharmaceuticals and then in this period that is seventeen eighty ninety two thousand seventeen eighty ninety many of our patents will become off patent and we should carefully see what will happen because we have a lot of 100 percent FBI in the pharmaceutical sector many immense ease would come to India and apply for patent so let this closely watch what is going to happen in this period [Applause]

The Moggcast: Episode Twelve

Views:26666|Rating:4.82|View Time:36:39Minutes|Likes:537|Dislikes:20
Might the Tories split? “I think this is up to the Prime Minister,” Jacob Rees-Mogg explains. Why it was improper to bypass Davis’ White Paper. And apologies to Popes Urban IV and Urban VI.

the mocha cast a fortnightly conversation with Jacob Riis MOG about the topics of the day welcome to another edition of the mock cast this is Paul Goodman editor of conservative home in conversation with Jacob Riis MOG Jacob I'm fighting myself ourselves in the position of the Red Queen wasn't as you know Alice in Wonderland who had to run to standstill because but the time our listeners hear this mock cast tomorrow morning I dare say more people will have resigned Scott man resigned as a PPS this morning I wanted to ask you these resignations are they being coordinated not by me and not as far as I know I think what is happening is that people have been reflecting on the white paper on the checkers deal and they've been speaking to their constituents I was campaigning on Saturday morning in the couch on High Street and everybody who came up to me was against the checkers deal some of them were against leaving the European Union altogether two of them actually and everyone else felt it wasn't delivering what had been voted for even if they had voted remain in the referendum they be come back to that I wrote I just wanted to stick with the resignations for a moment not coordinated by you and as far as you know not coordinated at all but they are coming out as a remarkably steady and spaced rate yes indeed but they're not coordinated by me and nobody said that he or she is coordinating them to me so if they are coordinated I don't know who is doing it all the customs bill amendments which again will have been tabled and debated and voted on by the time our listeners hear this mock cast could you just give a description because people will be listening to this tomorrow morning and catching up with the news could you explain what you're trying to do yes well the four amendments to some extent helped government policy two of them are completely in line with government policy that is to say the one that says that nor none and mustn't be in a different customs union from the rest of Great Britain that it must be part of a single United Kingdom whole that his government policy and it's just a suggestion that this should be in clear legislation rather than a government promise the next one that his government policy is on v80 and the v80 arrangements with the European Union a very particular and that that should not be replicated once we've left that again is government policy the third is not strictly government policy but is in line with what the government has done before in terms of Henry the eighth clauses so that should the government wish to remain in a customs union it would have to legislate for it with primary legislation in new Act of Parliament rather than using secondary means the fourth is not government policy but probably ought to be it's a demand for reciprocity so it says if we're collecting the –use taxes then EU Member States must collect our taxes when Goods enter the European Union and the reason for that is it will be very difficult to run an independent trade policy if any goods that come to us via the EU with a lot of goods coming into a spa the Low Countries particularly would be subject to any new tax and not a UK tax to make it very difficult to apply anti-dumping duties should we wish to do that and so this is to ask that what's good for the source for the goose is sauce for the gander would you have tabled these amendments were it not for the white paper the white paper has been very significant in the decision to table amendments because the real difficulty with checkers in the white paper is not so much the policy though I don't think the policy is a good policy but that it's moved so far away from what we were told would happen before and it's the issue of is it better to have things in legislation run simply rely on earlier speeches and so on because things have changed so much as you said a moment ago that these amendments are either in line with government policy or the government could adopt them but just to be clear doesn't sound to me as though you would have tabled them were it not for the white paper bill seeking a degree of surety that you weren't seeking before that is correct and let's therefore discuss the white paper the reaction to it can I just pick you up on something you said because I've seen your colleague Paul Masterson has tweeted that his association membership over the weekend has gone up now I'm sure that I mean we know from conservative home that lots of people are very angry and disappointed about this proposal because we're getting the emails that were intended to sit before CC HQ and which come through to us but could it be that party members are less angry about this than we think because a lot depends on the local MP so if the local MP is strongly opposed to the proposals in the background to them he or she tends to pick up the noise of opposition whereas and I've spoken to one or two who support the government wholeheartedly and support the white paper they claim they've had very little knocking on their door at all and there is always in any anecdotal evidence a confirmation of one's bias to some extent because people are on balance more likely to come up to you and say I agree with you completely than not I find it very interesting talking to some of my remain supporting fellow MPs who have been absolutely astonished by the reception they've got from their associations letters coming in from people that they respect and whose views they value saying that this is not what we voted for so I think it's wider than just leave em he's getting a leave reaction and what I was doing on Saturday morning wasn't speaking only to conservative members it was going up and down the high street with anybody coming up to me who wanted to talk to me and that probably gets you a wider feeling than exclusively talking to one's own membership what do you think of what we read by the way about conservative MPs such as Andrea Jenkins being threatened with having campaigning resources and money withheld from them well this is a confusion between where authority lies but in the Conservative Party that Dana's give money to central office and the whips run Parliament the whips do not run central office funding and these two it's very important that they're kept separate because I think Dana's would be pretty unhappy many of whom are quite Euroskeptic if they thought that there was an effort to penalize euro skeptic MPs the party chairman was reported in one instance to expect into a back bencher not the whips I'd seen it as coming from the whips I think the party chairman is ill-advised to do that because many of the donors are backers of leaving the European Union and I think any MP threatened with that would find that they would get more than enough from direct contributions I don't think it's a I think it's a proper threat to make and I don't think it's an effective threat to make I'm going to move to this question now it was among the ones I'd planned to us last but we seem to be here anyway could the Conservative Party split I think this is up to the Prime Minister you see I think the Prime Minister had a United Party on the mansion house speech and she then said on the mild program that whether you wouldn't accept it and if I couldn't do that whereas it actually then looks as if she's been planning this common for which read European rule above quite a long time and that is where the split chemistry had a United Party in March on the basis of the mansion house and then as then decided to give in to the EU and this is very unfortunate and it would be very very damaging for the Conservative Party if this unsatisfactory deal were pushed through against the wishes not just of leave supporting MPs but also leave sporting members and leave supporting voters or on the back of labour party votes what's your sage sauce is that she the Prime Minister could if she mishandles this split the Conservative Party yes I think that's right I've kept on saying this this is not a new thing for me to say the Prime Minister has a choice she can either do a u-turn and go back to the mansion house settlement or she can get it through potentially on Labour Party vaids which is very divisive split East in the event of this split she would be and the parallel is in some degrees misleadingly it may be useful she'd be in the position of the pea lights in the 1840s wouldn't she she'd own because if the leadership would own the party the resources the name the money the constitution you'd have to go off elsewhere would you know that's clearly not right and it's not what happened in the 1840s is it isn't it no the pea lights continued being pea lights the protectionists had to go off on no they remained today remain the Conservative Party and Peel remained within the Conservative Party he didn't leave the consumption ah but some of the others did so Gladstone did eventually go over to the launch of quite a time but the you have a period of confusion essentially and you have blocks in Parliament with no one overall party getting a clear majority and that getting governments that are supported by the Whigs and the pier lights and so on so it's it's not as simple as one side ends the party everybody to some extent remains within the party in that period if I'm embrace the one constant was the protectionist of the pea lights would not together after the split yes they wouldn't that's right they wouldn't work together though there are periodic efforts to try and bring them together and periodic discussions of collisions Derby at one point even offers parmistan a post so they try and create quite widespread collisions I don't think one can make precise parallels with the 1840s particularly since now this is the age of mass elections you didn't have mass elections in the 1840s so the inference is you'd have whoever the equivalent of the pea lights is you know let us call the further the may height conservatives standing in constituencies against the protectionists toward israelian conservatives in this case the resmoke conservative now I think this is going too far I don't think this is going to happen I actually don't think there will be this split because I think is more likely the policy change is when you've got a position where neither Peter Mandelson nor Ian Duncan Smith supports the policy it seems quite difficult to get it through now of course Mandelson is doing this for what we would call his own reasons is he not and the phrase he used I think yesterday I saw was the worst of all worlds coincidentally this phrase is also used by Justine greening this morning who's come out in favour for a second referendum seems to be the case doesn't it that what you might call the ultra Mainers believe not without reason that the Prime Minister is weak and whereas you see a way to a different form of leave a pure form of brexit you might call it they draw from the same facts another possibility namely stopping brexit altogether that's what's going on isn't it I think stopping democracy altogether would be a better way of putting it and that that will not work we are fundamentally democratic country and so many people who voted remain according to opinion polls and people at one meets even though they would have preferred us to stay in the European Union recognise and feel strongly that a democratic vote should be followed and so I think this idea that brexit can be stopped and reversed there is a mistake and is a risky mistake I think it would cause great discontent discontent in the electorate you would vote against the white paper proposals were they to represent a deal would you not yes and if that happened and were the deal to be voted down what do you think would happen in Parliament then it depends on the government the government controls the parliamentary timetable and the legislation is in place for us to leave without a deal there is no mechanism for Parliament to introduce legislation and have the time for it unless it is backed by the government it's possible for Parliament to change standing orders to do this but that's a very complex process and the government would have to provide time for that anyway and it would require a lot of contingent votes which then only happen with the program without a program motion which can only be provided by the government say the parliamentary formalities mean that a government that wanted having lost this deal to proceed with no deal would be able to do so you're convinced that's the most likely outcome I think from talking to you about the savory period of time was other people drawing it may not be an exact parallel but they would cite the Norway debate which was your debate on the German I would say well if the Commons decides it wants something badly enough that will happen so what could happen is not No Deal but the postponement or even the cancellation of brexit there's very little evidence that the commons wants that enough there are people who don't want to leave but how many of them really want to kick the electorate in the teeth I would suggest not enough to make that feasible and yes of course you're right that the government only exists with the confidence of the House of Commons but I don't think any Conservative MPs can't vote against the and innovative confidence I mean I suppose we could look ahead and speculate about what would happen if there is a deal if it's voted down whether you have no deal or the EEA or the postponement of brett's it but we've probably explored that enough to give listeners an idea of how complex this is so let's return to what we know and have in front of us namely the white paper is very interested in what you said about it a few moments ago that you thought it was bad but this wasn't your prime objection to it your prime objection to it was that the government had effectively conceded a whole was a massive ground without really saying so and without really making it clear why it's done that and without making it clear when it did it yes I agree with all those points I think it is peculiar that dexia was charged with drawing up a white paper at the same point without David Davis is not in Ch Downing Street was drawing up a completely separate paper 120 page paper for the cabinet now that doesn't happen in a couple of days there must have been some long-standing aim to get this common rule book idea and for common little book read European Union's rule book idea into play without telling the cabinet minister in charge of the negotiations this is a most unusual approach to cabinet government can I explain the sequence as I understand you sure we can try and work through it together and I say this in the light of conservative home last week having published the home of Dexys white paper in 23 installments so we've had a chance to have a look at it in the mansion-house speech back in March the Prime Minister clearly nailed her colours to the flag of mutual recognition so we wouldn't have ongoing harmonization we'd have mutual recognition and this was consistent with everything that had happened before there'd been a whole discussion at checkers in January or February I think about the form that mutual recognition might take so at some point between march and the emergence of this white paper something changed somewhere but we don't really know when all I know is that the DEXA ministers were aware near the end of the process that as it were they're in one room writing their own white paper all he rob ins his next-door writing his own but this happened very late in the day when do you think the Prime Minister changed her mind well you don't even know that the mansion-house speech was precisely the view of the prime minister at that time that is on mr. Mars show yesterday morning Monday of Sunday morning the Prime Minister when asked when this plan had first been thought about wouldn't give any indication of when it had been and it seemed to have been some time ago March is not that long ago it's very troubling and I think the Prime Minister ought to be clear about this and should tell the electorate what the process was what led to this and why was dexia not told when that was the department's job we're getting into very difficult territory here but in essence you're suggesting that the Prime Minister might not have been being straight when she delivered the mansion-house speech and she might already have had an alternative model now David Davis in his resignation letter and this has been rather missed by most of the media basically said in terms the Prime Minister had not been upfront with him in everything that she did so I'm coming back to where you began this section of the conversation we have a question of trust here and it doesn't seem to me that you now entirely trust the PM there is an issue of trust now there is of course a difference between saying something that is untrue directly and not saying something that if known would be useful for people to know that two are different categories in terms of trust but there's an old joke in the city that when somebody says to you his word is as good as his bond take his bond just in case and that seems to me to be a sensible way to behave which is why I put down amendments to the legislation just thinking about it isn't the Prime Minister entitled if she so wishes to have her ministers doing one thing and be drawing up another proposal in private with her advisers we have cabinet government in this country and what is done ought to be agreed by the cabinet or Tripura and the policy of the cabinet collective responsibility does not mean everybody gets their orders from the Prime Minister that the line about juvey Wellington's first cabinet and he comes out afterwards is a most difficult thing I give all this lot their orders and then they want to sit around discussing them that's not how cabinet government works it is a collegiate position which everybody then has to defend the Prime Minister appoints ministers to certain roles they have the seals of office from the Queen to carry out those roles the Prime Minister doesn't have the specific authority to carry out those roles the Prime Minister has a different role which is to chair the cabinet to set overall policy and to appoint the ministers in the first place if she doesn't think the minister is doing the right thing then the Prime Minister should appoint a new minister not do it behind the minister's back in Downing Street it's also questionable taxpayers money oh you know we're all taxpayers and our money was being spent doing two contradictory things half of that money was therefore being wasted you think it's not a good use of taxpayers money in effect to have what Steve Baker called a Potemkin department that is a very good way of putting it and it's not good constitutional practice for the prime minister not to have confidence in her own ministers to allow them to get on with the job they're appointed to do do you have confidence in the Prime Minister I have confidence in the Prime Minister and do not seek a vote of no-confidence in are not written one of the letters and I would always support the government in the terms of the fixed term Parliament act I would always support a conservative government let's just qualify just in case in ten years time we have some government digs oh yes yes can we just roll events forward a little again in this way that we have a sort of pattern of concession in these talks Downing Street would say and I think quite rightly there being concessions from the EU too but now we have a very major change of direction from mutual recognition to ongoing harmonization this isn't the government's final position is it this is merely an opening bid there were briefings to members of parliament on behalf of by the prime minister's advisers and this question was put very directly is this the final offer and the answer was no they don't like to portray it as an opening offer but it was cleared it was not a final offer and therefore you would expect that the EU would come back with some demands of its own well you would indeed because in some ways I think it's unfair to call this a soft brexit proposal it's some really a bit of this and a bit of that proposal in the sense of that the ease down to come back on free movement and say look you can't possibly try to have access to one part of the four freedoms without access to all of them they're bound to come back on services for exactly the same reason and they're bound to come back on the court therefore it's possible to imagine isn't it that the Prime Minister in a few months finds herself saying about the present position what she said on Sunday about mutual recognition she might find as I say it wasn't negotiable in which case further concessions would be proposed isn't that the power the regrettable problem became clear in the interview with Prime Minister with mr. Mara when she made that point about how people voted with their heart and basically her job was to get on deliver it with her head and this had come up similarly similar words in the briefing from her advisors and the problem with that is that it means that the government at its highest level does not believe in brexit see people like me who campaigned for brexit think it is this wonderful opportunity that its heart and head together it's constitutionally right it's economically advantageous it will create a real opportunity of this country to be a global nation rather than tied into the failing European economic model but Prime Minister thinks that leaving is costly and therefore of course she's not arguing for the best brexit because she wants to be protected in this failing fortress Europe and that is at the heart of the weakness of the negotiating position the primacy is scarcely surviving the publication of these proposals she wouldn't survive further concessions would you well I suppose the hope from unity of the conservative party point of view and the interest of the country point of view is that European Union turns around and says we are not accepting these we want more and the Prime Minister recognising the political reality says okay then it's got to be a completely different deal basically a free trade deal on a Canada basis and you put up a board in Ireland if you feel like it I just note in passing that Downing Street is no longer stressing no deal is better than a bad deal again look at the interview with mr. Mar and the Prime Minister seem to think that any deal was better than a bad deal but also there's a very interesting important song that said that Gavin bar wall had said Ireland isn't that important and the Prime Minister always wanted a soft brexit now that's fine that's not a dishonorable position but the Prime Minister should have said so from the outset and then we would have known where we stood she should have said so to the voters say to people who say to you you were being purest and doctrinaire about all this that you could bring down the Prime Minister in effect you might even bring down the government and we will have mr. Corbin I've said very clearly that I will not fight against a Conservative government under the fixed term Parliament's act facial confidence which is the only way of bringing government down and getting to mr. Corbin I would dispute that I've been doctrinaire I have been willing to accept any number of compromises that I'm not enthusiastic about so giving the EU 39 billion pounds which it's more than I think we need to pay them accepting a transition period which is not an implementation period the Prime Minister initially called for and the two are different accepting that we might belong to certain agencies accepting the very widespread compromises under the mansion-house speech which weren't her pure in every form brexit were compromised that brought everybody together the point at which people like me have dug our heels in is when we become simply a rule taker in perpetuity for our goods and Agri foods severely limiting our ability to do trade deals with the rest of the world and de facto subject to the European Court of Justice on that point Donald Trump was telling the full Candide unvarnished truth first time round that his interview with the son wasn't he under the terms of this proposal the government white paper any trade deal with America would be off whatever he said in a press conference at checkers afterwards what he said in the press conference at checkers if you look at it carefully confirmed what he said in the interview with Tom Newton down at the Sun he said you do whatever deal he want that's up to you I just want to deal that's good for trade there was a conditional so he showed his good manners at checkers by not being unhelpful directly in front of his hostess but he didn't actually change his position do you think we should sue the you know I think we should be much tougher in the negotiations and it's quite tempting isn't it to say look we've put in whatever it is half a trillion pounds since membership and we're not gonna give you any money we'd like some money back instead of course you Shapiro Busters always be with you in negotiations you should do two things one is you should be generous on issues that are going to be settled in one direction anyway where we should have been over people from EU Member States living in this country and the other is on the things that matter to you should be as hard as nails we've been hard on the issues a day matter at which we're going to give away anyway and soft on the ones that really do we've had the whole negotiation upside down not necessarily endorsement of the proposal that we should see the EU but leaving that aside for what's your view of Trump I'm fascinated by him as a political phenomenon I'm impressed by the things that he manages to get done in a way that most politicians wouldn't dare that they are much more cautious they're much more likely to follow the norms whereas he throws the norms up in the air and sees where they fall but he's done something remarkable in terms of his meeting with Kim jong-un and potentially begun to unlock a very long running problem that nobody else managed to do anything about his Iran policy may turn out to be rather more successful and people initially thought so I think he is an underrated politician because people don't realize about the way in which he needs to appeal to his electoral base and remarkably he delivers on his promises he's done things that previous Republican leaders had promised and didn't do and he's got in he's done them and I think either you shouldn't promise things to voters or you should do them and to that degree I think he is proving rather more successful than many people anticipated yes I met him six months ago or so very interesting man to speak to very well-informed obviously was very close to Donald Trump I've only met him once so I don't know him that well but he is very very well-informed and with very strong views some people would say call a spade a spade Valon flirts with and helps to drive the alt-right and trump's attitude to putin is a danger to the west I'm very suspicious of Putin I think we should treat Putin extraordinarily carefully and we should remember that he has invaded countries or participated invasions of independent sovereign nations and he's murdered people in the United Kingdom I mean this is really serious he is not a friend of ours and when you stop with the devil you should use a long spoon save Trump's attitude to Putin does he worry you at all I want to see what happens I I think it's interesting that people have assumed that because there are certain similarities between Trump and Putin in terms of their big personalities that they might get on it could be precisely the reverse they could find that they're actually quite competitive with each other and that the relationship isn't as smooth as people fear I am nonetheless concerned about what may happen between Don Trump and Vladimir Putin I think one should watch it with great caution and see what happens and what about famine the alt-right LBC producer I think quoted Bevin yesterday is saying that Tommy Robinson is a hero well I think that's simply wrong on Tommy Robinson that I think our contempt of court laws are very sensible protection of the right to a fair trial and that freedom of speech is crucial but say is the right to a fair trial and standing outside a courthouse shouting abuse at somebody whose trial is underway has been illegal in this country since time immemorial this is not a new piece of law it's not a restraint of free speech it is the ordinary desire to ensure that people have a fair trial in the United States of course it's different in the United States the First Amendment protects free speech even when people are being prosecuted but juries are sequestered in high-profile cases for much longer than they are in this country very different sort of person Boris Johnson what do you think the future holds for him oh I think Boris Johnson is a very important political figure very powerful charismatic figure popular appeals broadly across the country I'm a great admirer of Boris Johnson's what do you hope he does now I mean after all he is the the leaf politician with arguably you're somewhere in the queue yourself Jacob is arguably got the biggest projection he was the star force of the vote leave campaign what did he do now and we suggested on Khan home this morning he should go out and take the case for leave the case against a second referendum if you like take it out and go campaigning around the country well I was good out I certainly think those of us who want to leave the European Union needs to be more campaigning essentially we won the referendum and then stopped campaigning whereas the other side lost the referendum and started campaigning they didn't try very hard other than trying to scare us witless during the campaign itself so I read your piece this morning I liked the reference to Lord George Banting most interesting figure to two backed Israeli he sold all his horses one of which then went on to win the Derby which he was understandably miffed about because it was his great life's ambition anyway slightly beside the point he didn't die he died quite young he died died quite young yes and Disraeli didn't with a majority I think and no 1874 it's quids it's yeah it's 28 years out of office I don't see that happening to the Conservatives I think we're more likely as I said earlier to reverse the policy than to split the party and the great thing to remember is that pierre was right about the corn laws and the Prime Minister currently is wrong about not leaving the European Union de facto so yes I think some more campaigning its excellency lt's writing for The Telegraph again that's a wonderful platform for him and I think he with somebody who will help ensure breaks it is delivered well Jacob I think we have one more mod cast before the end of term goodness knows what condition will find everything even when we have it it's been a pleasure speaking to you as usual and well there is one important thing I hike a correction from my last podcast I said the last paper to be elected from outside the College of Cardinals was urban the fourth and I checked it afterwards I'm sorry to say it was an urban the sixth I got my eyes and the bees the wrong way around so can I apologize to listeners to the mall car no one's intervened on you in the Commons to make the point no but I holds a journalist chasing you to correct the record which is surprising of course we know how much attention journalist pay to detail on which point thank you very much for paying to do record and for speaking to us I've enjoyed this conversation very much and look forward to speaking with you again in a fortnight thank you very much the Hmong cast a fortnightly conversation with Jacob Riis MOG about the topics of the day

UKIP interview Remainer at so called People's Vote demonstration, Shire Hall, Gloucester

Views:549|Rating:5.00|View Time:3:7Minutes|Likes:10|Dislikes:0
Martin Macrae of UKIP Gloucester interviews a representative from the demonstration in support of the LibDem Gloucestershire County Council motion calling for a 2nd EU Referendum ( the so called People’s Vote). See also: Nick Clegg quote before result of EU Referendum.

Paddy Ashdown quote before result of EU Referendum.

[Laughter] [Applause] [Applause] [Applause] divided the country absolutely divided the country families are divided by this yes right when it went to the referendum no one was told about anything it was just I mean you're all right I think people are pretty slow today are now they are now when I tell you if we're going to try and place trust in someone like Donald Trump who's put sanctions on their neighbor Canada and has no qualms about put sanctions anywhere at all and you're expecting this country to do trade deals all throughout the globe with these people and Europe can give us a good spanking for this who is paying for it and for what paying for all these trade deals and everything it's a tax payer in this country trade dealers are not to tax I don't tax you you're not taxed me all I'm gonna say is the chickens will come home to roost which will mean we are going to be a lot worse off I agree we will have there will be a financial cost of course it will be but the problem will be what you say longer-term we live now in the present right okay in the longer term petitions can you absolutely guarantee that will be the case in the longer term can you actually guarantee the difference we will find where we were absolutely fine why why what why upset the applecart why was fine where we were we were Europe was and you you mean yes yes

Donald Tusk: "Special Place in Hell" for Brexiteers Without a Plan

Views:42|Rating:5.00|View Time:34Minutes|Likes:1|Dislikes:0
European Union President Donald Tusk took a swipe at U.K. politicians who campaigned for Brexit without an idea of how to make it happen “safely.”

A day before Prime Minister Theresa May — who is trying to chart a course that satisfies pro-Brexit hardliners in her party — is due in Brussels for talks, Tusk slammed those who made campaign promises that made the divorce seem easy.

“I’ve been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely,” he said at a press conference in Brussels with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. #Brexit

Read more:

Subscribe to our channel:

I strongly believe that the common solution is possible and I will do everything in my power to find it a sense of responsibility also tells us to prepare for a possible fiasco by the way I've been wondering what the special place in hell looks like for those who promoted bracket without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it safely

¿Qué es el Brexit? o Por qué Inglaterra decidió dejar la Unión Europea

Views:549214|Rating:4.65|View Time:25:1Minutes|Likes:16414|Dislikes:1220
Freddy Vega te explica qué pasó el 23 de Junio en el Reino Unido, donde tras un plebiscito vinculante, la isla británica optó por renunciar a su membresía en la Unión Europea.

¿Por qué David Cameron es el responsable que Inglaterra haya terminado fuera de la UE? ¿Qué es y qué rol juega en la salida “UKIP”? ¿El británico, tiene o no razones reales para votar por “irse”? ¿Qué va a pasar con los inmigrantes que llegaron a tierras británicas… y con los ingleses/galeses/irlandeses que hoy viven (y viajan) en la zona de la Unión Europea? Todas esas dudas y otras más, te las explicamos, para que entiendas el conflicto internacional que de una u otra manera afectará a todo el planeta… Incluso a tu país.

Todo esto y más, en

¡Suscríbete a nosotros!
Aquí, en YouTube:

y ahora ustedes ya saben que brasil es el término que usan para hablar de como inglaterra sale de la unión europea más de 1.400.000 personas votaron por que se salieran versus los que querían que se quedara lo más impactante es que el 72% de la población de inglaterra salió a votar por ende este voto es claramente democrático y es un reflejo de lo que la población británica realmente piensa o lo es el arquitecto de todo este cambio y de la salida inglaterra en europea es nigel farage de un movimiento político llamado un kit que es básicamente un montón de personas que dicen que todos los problemas de inglaterra están fundamentados en la unión europea y tenemos que salirnos ya es un movimiento nacionalista muy similar a otros movimientos nacionalistas ultra patrióticos como por ejemplo el de un candidato por allá en estados unidos que tiene pelo falso que probablemente es alimentado de bebés rubios que son extraídos para instalarse los en su cabeza uno de los factores esgrimidos para salirse del en europea es que inglaterra le da más dinero la unión europea para ser parte de la europea un país tiene que darle dinero a la unión y a cambio la unión te da leyes migratorias más fáciles comercio tratados entre otras cosas ellos dicen que inglaterra da mucho más dinero del que recibe a pesar de que realmente teniendo en mente que inglaterra es un país que importa demasiado y exporta servicios les estaba yendo de hecho bastante bien otra de la razón es que dicen que los ingleses no se sienten en control de las leyes al ser parte de la europea la unión europea establece ciertas leyes de hecho parte de la campaña para salirse en europea mencionaba como la unión europea tienen leyes para la curvatura de las bananas y también tiene leyes para las almohadas a pesar de que la gran mayoría de esta campaña era demagogia falsa hay muchos de estas leyes que no existen o que no aplican como la gente creen que aplican sí que hay muchas leyes y mucha burocracia en la europea pero nunca al nivel que estaba haciendo mostrado por un kit y por todas las personas que querían salirse de la cnea europea el tercer componente es falta de representación porque la mayoría de las leyes que se ejecutan en la unión europea son votadas en bruselas por los representantes del parlamento de la unión entonces los londinenses bueno no los tandilenses los británicos sentían que no tenían control sobre ellos en democrática real sobre lo que estaba pasando a pesar de que realmente existe un parlamento en la unión europea y a pesar de que inglaterra tenía un deal mucho mejor que el resto en europea no tenían que tener el euro podían mantener la libra esterlina ellos tienen un veto sobre qué leyes aceptar y qué leyes no las únicas leyes que realmente tienen que compartir son aquellas que tenían que ver con bordes migratorios y con importación exportación de servicios cuando el consumidor final fuera parte de la unión y luego está el componente más real inmigración muchos ingleses sobre todo de zonas pobres o que no estaban tan conectadas con los centros financieros de poder como londres se sentían abandonados y sentían que la inmigración estaba haciendo que se volvieran irrelevantes que el mundo y el gobierno los olvidará y básicamente querían volver a sentir ese sentimiento de acción de patriótico de ser británico de ser inglés pero al final del día esto tiene que ver con lo de siempre los inmigrantes me causan cosas y no los quiero acá porque se van a robar mi trabajo y al termino todo este cuento david cameron el primer ministro de la unión europea dijo como parte de su programa de elección yo en algún punto voy aceptar un referendo para que decidan si quedarnos o no dentro de la europea esta es la verdadera razón por la que existe el referendo del brasil esta persona decidió vamos a aceptar un referendo porque porque él creía que era imposible que la gente votará por irse entonces simplemente uso esto como una apuesta política para callar a la gente de ukic y a todas las personas anti europeas que querían que inglaterra estuviera completamente independiente o aislada como se podría decir de otra manera el hizo una apuesta y perdió y hoy renunció como primer ministro en la campaña hubo cosas muy locas una de ellas es que estaban mencionando que la unión perdón que inglaterra ofrece 350 millones de libras esterlinas a la semana a la unión europea que podrían estar invirtiendo en salud en el sistema nacional de salud muy bueno que tienen los ingleses llamados en age es la campaña llegó a puntos tan absurdos que tenían buses que mencionan un mensaje como este le enviamos al en europe a 350 millones de libras esterlinas a la semana démosle ese dinero al sistema nacional de salud mejor y suena bien verdad pero que no funciona si no funciona así porque el dinero que se le da a la unión europea se regresa a través de más labor calificada con los inmigrantes y con la gente que podría vivir en cualquier lugar desde europa si inglaterra con todo el sistema financiero que estaba ultra conectado con el resto de europa y con ciertas prebendas de exportación e importación la gran mayoría de europa obtenía servicios financieros de inglaterra y la gran mayoría la facturación de europa se vendía inglaterra de hecho inglaterra obtenía mucho mucho dinero por cada euro que invertir en una europea recibían 1.5 euros de regreso todos los expertos financieros toda la gente que entendía cómo funciona la economía lo estaba diciendo el problema es que muchas personas que estaban centrados en el mensaje nacionalista no querían escuchar a expertos no querían escuchar a personas porque simplemente no confiaban en ellos a pesar de que la economía no funciona por algo que alguien decida en un cuarto oscuro si no es simplemente una representación matemática de la estructura social del mundo llegó a tal punto que uno de los políticos a favor de salir se empezó a decir en inglaterra estamos cansados de que los expertos nos digan que hacer piense en un minuto en esa frase eso es como estar enfermo de cáncer y decir yo estoy cansado de que los médicos me atiendan a partir de ahora me voy a entregar güey hay gente que de hecho hace esto en un punto de la campaña se puso tan agresivo que una representante política a favor de la unión europea fue asesinada por una persona que mientras le disparaba decía que una inglaterra sola unida debía permanecer es una persona del movimiento ultranacionalista británico a ese punto en un país donde este tipo de violencia armada no pasaba en décadas todo el problema es realmente inmigrantes muchas personas en particular en twitter van a decir cosas que literal son hablan de no es kilómetro pero tiene muchas leyes es que bruselas es que él la austeridad pero el verdadero problema son los inmigrantes quieren saber por qué cuando se le preguntaba a las personas por qué quieren irse a la europea los que querían quedarse mencionaban que inglaterra tienen una posición de poder económico que querían mantener y que le generaba prosperidad todo el mundo y era lo que efectivamente estaba pasando una mejor economía genera mejores empleos genera mejores oportunidades los que querían irse todos mencionan lo mismo no quiero más inmigrantes yo quiero que solamente ingleses tengan empleos en inglaterra yo creo que solamente ingleses tengan lugares en inglaterra yo quiero que solamente ingleses usen el sistema de salud de inglaterra el problema es migración no es ningún otro el problema es este efecto xenofóbico de echarle la culpa a la gente nueva de cosas que nosotros estamos haciendo mal al revisar cuáles son los problemas que la gente le importaban tanto los que se quieren ir como los que se quieren quedar ustedes notan una polarización impresionante las personas que se querían quedar en la unión europea hablaban de lo positivo que es la multiculturalidad la igualdad el feminismo aceptar las diferencias sociales y culturales de otros mientras que los que quieren quedarse como un país único y salir de él no les gusta el multiculturalismo no les gusta la igualdad no les gusta el feminismo no les gustan todas estas cosas progresivas y de igualdad que han empujado tanto una mejor sociedad para nosotros querían una inglaterra única para un inglés único los inmigrantes casi en todos los casos son una fuerza para el bien si muchas noticias salen hablando de como inmigrante x matas tal persona o no sé qué y casi siempre las noticias más fuertes hablan de cómo es un inmigrante el que comete un crimen gigante lo que hemos visto en europa etcétera pero la realidad que la inmensa mayoría los inmigrantes son una fuerza para el bien en los casos de eeuu los inmigrantes ilegales tienden a tomar trabajos que los locales y cual no iban a tomar y en el caso de europa y en lugares como silicon valley las fuerzas de emprendimiento más grandes tienden a venir de inmigrantes en silicon valley el efecto es más fuerte el 50% las compañías de silicon valley son fundadas por inmigrantes y esto se ve tanto en las empresas chiquitas como en la billion dollar companies los inmigrantes siempre son una fuerza para el bien pero generan un efecto irracional del cual políticos demagogos se aprovechan de una manera muy fuerte y en particular el efecto más grande y el más fácil de mencionar y el más difícil de contraatacar es ese sentimiento de que llega a gente de afuera que se roban nuestros empleos porque todavía tenemos este concepto de que las paredes de las murallas medievales siguen aplicando y que una persona que viene de otro país es completamente diferente y ustedes pueden pensar en este instante pero freddy yo soy de latinoamérica de españa no sé que a mí no me importa tanto esto esto es un problema de estos blanquitos para allá de inglaterra de eeuu pero piensa en un minuto en el racismo que nosotros vivimos en latinoamérica como un ejemplo en argentina siempre consideran que las fruterías las controlan bolivianos y que la carne la venden uruguayos esto me lo han dicho argentinos todo el tiempo cada vez que voy igualmente cuando voy a madrid todo el tiempo la gente dice uy si esos chinos que controlan las fruterías y así siempre hay un efecto como de que hay otro país que es como raro y en ocasiones es un chiste y eso no está mal pero muchas veces se vuelve un sentimiento nacional en contra y eso pasa piensen por ejemplo ahora colombia y méxico son los mejores amigos jamás pero hace muy pocos años méxico le pedía visa para poder ir y bien sentimiento que los colombianos estaban arruinando todo a medida que fue cambiando ambos países nos hicimos más ricos porque somos más amigos pero cuando este sentimiento en contra los inmigrantes ocurre todo va a peor ustedes qué opinan de otras nacionalidades de los colombianos de los peruanos de los bolivianos de los uruguayos de los mexicanos de los españoles en fin se fueron de la umh europea y qué pasó que tuvo colapso se fue la libra esterlina al carajo colapsó el dólar australiano colar el dólar de nueva zelanda con tuvo solamente japón resurgió y esto tampoco es positivo porque japón es una economía que depende de su capacidad de vender sus productos al resto del mundo entonces con esta revalorización todo se siente más caro y van a tener que vender menos lo más triste de todo es que si ustedes ven quién votó porque es muy claro que entre menos educación tenían las personas más querían ser una sola patria entre más educación tenían las personas más querían estar conectados con el resto del mundo y ser parte una organización como la unión europea' el efecto es sinceramente brutal nunca había existido en la historia de la esterlina moderna una caída tan impresionante y una volatilidad del mercado de esta manera y quiero que entiendan que a pesar de que algunos ganan y otros pierden la realidad es que cuando la economía sufre un efecto volátil completamente impredecible todos a nivel económico entramos en riesgo todos a nivel económico perdemos confianza y queremos ahorrar más y gastar menos y eso hace que la economía se estanque este es un gráfico desde 1970 hasta el día de hoy de cómo se ha movido la libra esterlina en un tiempo la libra esterlina era considerada la moneda sobre la cual nosotros podríamos guardar las reservas de la economía del mundo y ahora estamos viviendo una volatilidad que nunca se había vivido esto es efecto de una decisión de una serie de políticos que por manipular personas o por apostar de la manera incorrecta van a afectar las vidas de muchos imaginen una persona que tiene que pagar su hipoteca y que tenía un trabajo en españa o en francia pero vive en inglaterra y ahora de repente perdió el 10% del valor del dinero que tenía y no solamente pasa con inglaterra el euro también está cayendo es un efecto si nos caemos con ustedes nos caemos todos si el euro cae el dólar cae y la libra esterlina cae y de repente toda la economía entra en pánico y no quieren gastar recuerden recesión menos empleos menos trabajo menos distribución de la riqueza y lo vimos incluso en nuestras propias regiones el peso mexicano que igual iba con una tendencia a la alza todo este tiempo por múltiples razones internas gracias a lo que pasó con inglaterra está empezando a hacer aún más caótico y es probable que en cualquier momento digamos una nueva realidad donde el billete de 20 pesos es el billete de un dólar curiosamente el oro es la única moneda que está creciendo las empresas que hacen minería de oro empezaron a subir porque el oro al ser un metal físico tiende a mantener su valor de una mejor manera mucho más que las monedas porque las monedas dependen de la confianza que tengamos en nuestros gobiernos y quien confía en un gobierno cuyo primer ministro apostó por tratar de demostrarle que él era mejor y perdió y quien confía en un gobierno que logró manipular a sus habitantes para votar en contra de sí mismos de su prosperidad y de su futuro por eso tanta gente quiere invertir en oro ahora y este otro gráfico triste e impacto esta es la gente que votó por irse versus la gente que votó por quedarse las personas que quieren quedarse en la unión europea' tienden a ser jóvenes las personas que quieren ser otra vez independientes y una sola inglaterra tienden a ser viejos y esto casi siempre tiende a tener dos razones una la nostalgia es muy poderosa a nosotros se nos olvida que el pasado era muy malo y solamente nos acordamos de las cosas nostálgicas mucha gente quiere volver a vivir el imperio lo grande que era cuando las realidades que ahora están mejor que nunca y por supuesto muchas de estas personas no tienen por qué vivir con las consecuencias de su decisión la mayoría de estas personas que votaron por irse les quedan 20 años de esperanza de vida suena cruel lo es pero es mucho más cruel en mi opinión personas que van a tener que vivir 40 60 años y sus hijos en un entorno donde la economía está un poco peor debido a decisiones irresponsables irresponsables suena como una palabra dura verdad está bien tengamos una palabra un poco más suave poco informadas como sé que son poco informadas porque google tal cual como ustedes ven acá demostró que la búsqueda más fuerte después del voto para salir de la unión europea es es la unión europea mucha gente en inglaterra ni siquiera entendía el concepto de un europea solamente entendían la demagogia de sí más control sur inglaterra unidad ser menos inmigrantes y lo más curioso los inmigrantes que son refugiados no dependen para nada la unión europea es algo que tiene que ver con las naciones unidas que es un organismo completamente diferente del que inglaterra no sólo no se ha salido sino que por dios no se va a salir eso sí que sería estúpido aunque estoy seguro que ahora cualquier cosa puede pasar así que toda la demagogia de inmigrantes de etcétera es mentira los inmigrantes refugiados de los cuales la gente le tiene tanto miedo no los para salirse en una europea eso es una resolución de las naciones unidas- de cómo tratar refugiados básicamente es inglaterra dándose una zancadilla y culpando la europea por lo que pasó al punto que esta mañana la bbc de londres entrevistado a una persona que votó por salirse y la persona decía yo estoy impactado yo voté por salirme porque pues odio la unión europea pero yo sabía que tenemos que quedarnos y que no sabía que mi voto contaba persona se da cuenta en tiempo real que sus decisiones tienen consecuencias y se impacta por ello y entré en pánico y algo que son adorables te está ignorando es el amor y lo digo muy en serio esto es la unión europea' una de las grandes ventajas de la unión europea y de europa en sí era el libre movimiento de las personas una persona en españa podría elegir vivir en inglaterra y trabajar en españa una persona en francia podría elegir trabajar en francia vivir en inglaterra una persona en inglaterra puede elegir ir a suecia todos los fines de semana sin ningún tipo de emigración sin ningún tipo de plan sin ningún tipo de nada y esto creó una unión personal increíble en las últimas décadas esto creó relaciones interpersonales internacionales esto creo que hay muchas parejas que viven entre alemania e inglaterra entre el norte de irlanda e italia esto es muy real hay muchas familias que van a ser destruidas o cuyas vidas van a ser afectadas por estas decisiones porque en el instante en el que inglaterra decide salirse de la unión europea inmediatamente hay que renegociar todos estos accesos libres y esto afecta a millones de familias que tenían todo un plan de vida que ahora acaba de ser destruido muchos hablan en chiste de que ahora van a poder hacer menos vacaciones que el ebro que tal pero esto verdaderamente afecta a todo cuando ustedes crean un mundo sin barreras efectivamente esas barreras se eliminan y efectivamente la gente crea relaciones personales y cuando un grupo de políticos apoyado por un montón de personas que no tienen el conocimiento de lo que están votando y que votan sin control por algo cuyas consecuencias no son claramente entendidas y les mienten de una manera sistémica por 20 años los medios deciden romper esos lazos vamos a ver un efecto muy muy duro en la vida personal de las personas llega a tal punto que uno de los más grandes megaproyectos que últimamente ha hecho europa es cavar un túnel subterráneo que va de londres a parís hay un tren donde ustedes se montan en parís y salen a londres que va por debajo del mar es un proyecto increíble y era completamente fácil de usar que me montaba en el tren yo salí a londres cero problemas y ahora vamos a tener que vivir ese proyecto con puntos de migración tan difíciles como migrar de méxico eeuu legalmente todo el tiempo entre londres y france entre francia y londres y si ustedes creen que pasar de 0 segundos a 2 de migración por persona no afecta la economía piensan de nuevo que ha pasado históricamente cada vez que un país levanta paredes y hace que la migración sea más difícil como spoiler a leer siempre va para peor y las consecuencias son aún más fuertes porque este es el mapa de la gente que votó por irse y por quedarse amarillo es quedarse azul decir se nota en algo muy claro es escocia irlanda gales los que quieren quedarse en una europea y es inglaterra profunda los que quieren irse land europea hace muy poco tiempo escocia hizo un referendo para ver si se iban de la unión porque irlanda se fue a un país irlanda y un pedacito irlanda del norte se quedó en el reino unido puede que ahora después de él preside escocia tenga todas las razones no ahora pero en unos dos años en cinco años en diez años tenga todas las razones para irse imaginen el efecto que se va a causar en el resto de europa inglaterra vota por salirse de la unión europea escocia vota por salirse al reino unido- el reino unido se rompe el norte de irlanda se una irlanda y hay muchos movimientos separatistas en europa grecia siente que toda la culpa de todo lo que está pasando la tiene europea italia está pasando por un momento muy extraño y también sienten que no tienen por qué estar ahí francia y alemania tienen movimientos internos donde sienten que ellos mantienen al resto de la unión cataluña quiere separarse de españa entre muchos otros al punto de que ya mismo el primer efecto que tiene que inglaterra se salga el en europea es que diplomáticamente españa ha empezado a hablar con inglaterra para decirles oigan qué tal si nos devuelven gibraltar o si tenemos como un tema y combinado generalmente que ya han habido problemas españa le quitó la electricidad gibraltar por un tiempo no sabemos qué va a pasar lo que sí pasó sin duda es que la economía de inglaterra está sufriendo de una manera casi irreversible y por muchos años le va a doler mucho a los británicos la decisión hoy mismo francia se puso por encima de inglaterra como economía poderosa del mundo esto nunca había pasado mucho tiempo en inglaterra siempre en esta rueda de francia yo creo que si esto no le duele incluso los británicos que dicen la patria primero no sé que debería haber hoy se acuerdan de la campaña donde ellos decían que esos 350 millones de libras esterlinas que le mandaban a la semana a la unión europea metérselos al sistema nacional de salud pues resulta que ahora este pedazo de un perdón este pedazo de humano está diciendo ahora que ganaron el break we know eso decirlo fue un error yo creo que no deberíamos hacerlo yo creo que nos equivocamos diciendo esto yo creo que ustedes pueden odiarla en europea la europea tiene cosas muy extrañas lo admito eurovisión ustedes pueden no ser tan fans de la burocracia que en bruselas ustedes pueden no estar de acuerdo con la austeridad y otras cosas pero algo maravilloso de la umh europea es tratar de recordar la historia por toda la historia moderna europa ha estado tratando de matarse a sí misma en este gráfico lo negro es guerra y lo blanco espacio europa todo el tiempo ha tratado de matarse al punto de que europa inició dos guerras mundiales donde industrial hizo la muerte la unión europea ha sido la época de mayor prosperidad y paz de la región por lo menos eso podemos decir de nueva europea por lo menos eso podemos admitir incluso si no admitimos el resto esto es algo muy importante y aunque no creo que inmediatamente cosas como el break causan problemas de guerra así que van a tener un efecto brutal en el resto del mundo turquía se quiere ir de la umh europea ya en este mismo instante y está en francia gente que no le gusta el cambio para nada y que aman la estabilidad están empezando a hablar de qué va a pasar evitar este tipo de cosas en nuestros países es muy fácil lo primero es recordar que esto es culpa de la gente joven que no vota la inmensa mayoría de ustedes son jóvenes estoy seguro que hay muy pocos de ustedes mayores de 45 años si los hay mándame un tweet a fred jr o un snap no ustedes no pueden ser snapshot no olviden lo que un tweet freddy er efe rdr la barbilla de ustedes que me ven son jóvenes salgan y voten yo escucho todo el tiempo hoy escribo tu lo importó recuerdan el británico ahí arriba que decía yo no sabía que el voto iba a tener efecto no sean ese británico no sean idiotas voten salgan a votar aunque sea aburrido aunque parezca que no tenga sentido voten porque cuando ustedes no votan ustedes están siendo representados por la gente que sí que tiene tiempo para votar y odio por ustedes toda la generación de mayores de edad que odia el cambio y segundo para esa generación que por cierto no todos los mayores odian el cambio algunos incidentalmente votan y nos joden a nosotros los que tenemos que heredar el mundo aprendan entiendan de esto no me crean a mí el 100% y no le creen al 100% este vídeo que yo acabo de publicar vayan investiguen cada uno de los hechos de los que yo les hable y creen su propia opinión aprendan y luego eduquen así como lo están haciendo y ahora mismo con mucha paciencia por lo que yo puedo hacer chistes en este vídeo porque sé que la inmensa mayoría de estas personas no ven el vídeo ustedes van a tener a sus padres a sus abuelos a ese tío racista que todos tenemos o tierras y está en ocasiones tú sabes de quién estoy hablando siéntense en esa reunión familiar y tengan la paciencia de decirle tía resulta que los inmigrantes no están tan mal resulta que si perdiste tu empleo es porque eres realmente mala en lo que haces y alguien mejor lo es no tiene nada que ver con el gobierno resulta que esta persona por quién votas te es un idiota y no tiene los mejores intereses ni los estudios ni los míos en su mente resulta que hay otras opciones resulta que un mundo global interconectado es mucho más interesante que aislarnos y ser ultra nacional y resulta que el patriotismo es una enfermedad que se cura viajando y tú puedes hacer lo mejor por mí así como yo lo hice y mira lo que pasó en inglaterra inglaterra votó por el ultranacionalismo y tanque o su economía la lección más grande que nos debe quedar es que es completamente posible que un país entero vote en contra de sus mejores intereses cuando grupos demagogos lo afectan una de las enfermedades más grandes contra la que tenemos que pelear con efectos como él preside es el antiintelectualismo es rechazar a la gente con educación y rechazar sus opiniones en cambio de patriotismo a cambio de nacionalismo a cambio de irracionalidades pero esto no se soluciona peleando una elección grande que nos debe quedar es que hay un pueblo entero hay personas millones de personas que les importa un carajo perder el 10% de su economía perder el 18% del valor de sus ahorros con tal de tener la razón y de demostrarle a alguien que hacen lo que quieren entonces no podemos ganar simplemente diciéndoles roger es idiota sino aprendiendo y educando la educación al final del día es el componente más importante y más poderoso que hace que cosas como estas no nos pasen sean ustedes parte de eso y obviamente nosotros en platja nuestro objetivo es cambiar la educación hacer la educación online primero y que incluso a través de la educación tecnológica este tipo de cosas no pasen y si ustedes vienen un país que está al borde de estas cosas bienvenidos a los países donde el plan si está estaremos felices de ayudarles contratarlos y distribuirlos por el resto del mundo no existe tal cosa como ser legal a una patria existe tal cosa como ser leal a la humanidad a todo el mundo a tratar de romper los bordes y crear un mundo más pacífico mucho más cool y donde estemos centrados en innovación y en no matarnos ojalá evitemos guerras con esto y ojalá break no se vuelva la puerta para desarmar la unión que hemos logrado gracias a cosas como internet no olvides darle la aig a este vídeo si te gustó incluso si no te gustó y tenemos muchos más vídeos mira tenemos más para ti en este canal quieres saber más de esto no solamente está este suscríbete a nuestro canal quiere ser la primera persona en enterarte cuando flash y público nuevo contenido suscríbete ya mismo aprende programación marketing diseño negocios online ya crea el futuro de internet

Boris Johnson "we just need to clear away the dead bodies to create a resort in Libya" Tories laugh

Views:610|Rating:5.00|View Time:19Minutes|Likes:5|Dislikes:0

Highlights of BBC's EU Great Debate – BBC News

Views:43250|Rating:3.67|View Time:3:39Minutes|Likes:166|Dislikes:60
The EU referendum took centre stage at Wembley Arena as the two sides traded blows before an audience of 6,000 people for the BBC’s Grand Debate. Both campaigns had three representatives each on their respective panels, including Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson for Remain and former Tory London Mayor Boris Johnson for Leave.

Please subscribe HERE

Islamic State’s ‘Most Wanted’
World In Pictures
Big Hitters
Just Good News

Brexit: Endgame – The Hidden Money, with Stephen Fry

Views:1030363|Rating:4.27|View Time:11:15Minutes|Likes:36944|Dislikes:6284
How will wealthy Brexiteers profit from Brexit? The surprising truth about the world’s most secretive tax network for the wealthy.

Plus, we hand the Brexit Party a rather unfortunate award.

Voiced by Stephen Fry.

Please join us, help fight misinformation and get exclusive previews and content:

Extensive Brexit facts at
If you’re a UK citizen, please send it to your MP (you can find their email via the link above).

We’re looking for someone with exceptional animation and graphic design skills to join our team. Get in touch via

The Financial Secrecy Index ranks jurisdictions according to their secrecy and the scale of their offshore financial activities. A politically neutral ranking, it is a tool for understanding global financial secrecy, tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions, and illicit financial flows or capital flight.

Immigrants contributed £20bn to the UK between 2000-2011, paying 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits.
Study by UCL Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini, published by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.

Brexit part 1 is here:

Brexit part 2:

Brexit part 3:

Brexit part 4:

Stephen Fry’s new book, Heroes:

If your charity, NGO or exceptional product needs a video, please get in touch at

Check out the new site for the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (design and videos by our team):

why are some wealthy brexit ears so keen on a new deal breakfast I would they profit from an event that economists agree would make the country poorer the truth is obscured by a myth about the EU either you want to live in must your macarons Europe with a United States of Europe with a European army with all power vested in the center in Brussels or you believe in being an independent self-governing nation state that is the European debate in a sentence this is in fact the problem with the whole European debate Britain can't take back control from the EU because we never lost it 99% of UK public expenditure is determined by the UK government which shapes all major political policy from education to marriage divorce and the NHS the exception is immigration but the UK controls the vast majority of immigration which is from outside the EU immigrants from within the EU are the most valuable for the UK economy paying for more hospital and school places than they use so it's unlikely that the government will rush to reduce numbers Theresa May was Home Secretary for all those years why did she do nothing about it if this was the burning issue and the reason why I think she didn't do anything it's because our social services depend upon the skills of the doctors and the nurses in the health service and the government didn't want to be put in a position where is obviously controlling these numbers creating shortages here lengthening the queues EU countries don't give up their independence or sovereignty the Netherlands and Portugal legalized cannabis Germany's purity law means beer can only contain hops malt and water and mowing the lawn on a Sunday could land you a fine of 50,000 euros its ADIZ no less Italian France is known as French Britain is wonderfully endearingly britain at its best for me at least it means britain had the control over its laws that meant i was able to marry the man I loved and wanted to spend my life with four years again at its worst Britain alone in the EU also had enough control to decide to institute a preposterous and unworkable porn ban in which we're supposed to give out online our credit card and passport numbers to prove our age the small blobs is one of the worst ideas ever invented at the moment unless your Facebook or Google it's actually pretty hard to match up someone's real identity to their online behavior unless that is you make people log in to your site with their real name real email address and real credit card details which is exactly what this legislation will force people to do and this database it would be gigantic despite the absolute truth that anything anything online can be hacked but the illusion of britain losing control resonated with those feeling trapped at the wrong end of inequality and let's make sure that June the 24th Independence Day this obscured a true attempt to take control financial control for the wealthy far from interfering in national politics the EU works on projects that require cooperation like improving air quality cutting international core costs and reducing tax evasion new EU laws make it very difficult to dodge tax by moving profits to low tax countries and a new general anti-abuse rule covers national tax loopholes leading brexit ears have suggested that post brexit london could follow the example of singapore the financial secrecy index which tracks tax havens and capital flight ranks singapore fifth in the world with a secrecy score of 67 Nigel Farage may like the sound of this as it's more secretive than the Isle of Man a tax haven where he was found to have set up a trust fund Jacob Riis mogs investment company is managed via subsidiaries in the tax havens of the Cayman Islands and coincidentally Singapore this is all legal and an established part of Britain's tax network for the wealthy the financial secrecy index states that if Britain's Network were assessed together it would be the single most financially secretive place in the world suddenly BRICS it's a field for the wealthy makes more sense particularly an Odile brexit which would mean no requirement to abide by strict new financial regulations MP Owen Peterson said if we are to thrive our post brexit model should exactly be Singapore low tax low spend low regulation Trump's tax policy provides a glimpse of the potential impact a large corporation tax cut led to a steep drop in tax receipts and ballooning national debt and the impact of financial secrecy on schools and hospitals is felt all over the world African countries have lost over 1 trillion dollars in capital flight dwarfing their combined external debt so Africa is in fact a major net creditor to the world but its assets are in the hands of a wealthy elite protected by offshore secrecy while debts are shouldered by normal Africans brexit threatens to undo EU progress Sajid Javid a contender to replace teresa may who has worked as a banker in Singapore has spoken about using tax cuts and deregulation to transform the post brexit UK economy the NHS may also be trans in the true attempt to take control by corporations the initiative for free trade launched at the Foreign Office by Boris Johnson and Liam Fox thinks American healthcare companies should be allowed to run NHS hospitals after brexit the IFT aims to quotes we capture the moral case for open commerce in other words take back control for corporates environmentalists describe its plans as a low standards free-for-all as a doctor I do get worried about how polluted the air is around us especially for children stood in front of the the school we saw that the and the two levels we're measuring actually became higher and we don't have high pollution events certainly working in a knee we've definitely seen a rise of cases of children with wheezy problems so loads of things that the EU is banned because they could be harmful to are helpful to the environment a totally fair game in the u.s. from the chemicals in your cosmetics to the pesticides sprayed on the crops that you eat so as trade talks with the UK begin the u.s. is going to want to wrangle it so that we have a system that's welcoming to us exports from fluorinated chicken to veggies sprayed with v harming pesticides there are also of course simpler political motivations Nigel Farage has run for MP seven times as the leader of you Kip he found a following and has focused on brexit ever since the illusion of losing control is very effective but it's not Britain that needs to take back control it the British company I suppose it's a paradox really many people saw it as if you like something of a rejection of a way things have been done yes big business your campaign actually did come personally against big business and perhaps our feeling by the public these people have been getting away with murder I mean basically they don't seem to pay any tax they sort of run around the world doing doing what they want there's some the irony that post brexit we would become a tax haven for big companies is that is that what the public had intended when they made that vote it's a very good point but I think there's a distinction to be made um the there's a there's a sort of corporatist Davos man approach rigging the rules of the market in favor of incumbents and the already wealthy and there's a slightly different approach in fact I would argue a radically different approach which is we're in favor of free markets not big business we're in favor of competition with insurgents the big guy seeing the taxes of internationally mobile come they're gonna be internationally mobile in order to induce them to come here to pay the reduce tax rates that's is that what people who thought they were getting with a vote on the deal there would be a genuine opportunity to boost NHS funding and hit certain wealthy elites where it hurts now what would you call a new myth-busting campaign to take back control from tax dodging corporations and lying politicians how about take back control around the world manipulative misinformation threatens our health our schools and hospitals and the environment join us to truly take back control our first brexit award goes to the party that grew from a mountain of brexit which we have debunked in detail nigel farage says he will announce his policies after the election but there's plenty to go on we may have made one of the biggest stupidest collective mistakes in history by getting so worried about global warming I think we're gonna have to move to an insurance-based system for health care Faraj campaigned for a deal with the EU actually know what Norway Norway Norway can afford to give people money it's rich it's successful Norway Norway Norway Norway they're rich they top the world's happen its index they're allowed to catch their own fish but now he wants a very different no deal brexit he's treating the EU elections like a referendum on Europe so let's have a proper one an informed vote asking who's ready taking control

Corbyn Asked Seven Times What His Brexit Policy Is

Views:9978|Rating:4.40|View Time:3:26Minutes|Likes:22|Dislikes:3

does he want to leave the EU I want us to get a good deal and then that have a decision in the public after that so you want to get out of you know what we thought the general election on was to respect the results that referendum and that we've done to try to get a deal which guarantees trade and relations with Europe in the future and if we can get that through Parliament proposals we put then I think it would be reasonable to have a public vote at decide on that in the future so in simple terms if I went down into the streets in Liverpool and put up a big poster which said vote Labour get brexit that would be a fair assessment I think what would be a fair assessment would be to say vote Labour Challenge austerity and guarantee living standards for the future not a No Deal exit from the European Union which is all is being offered by the Tory right and in a sense by the Tory party but this is a this is an election heavily about whether or not we leave the EU and I just want to be absolutely clear look labour wants to leave the EU we said all along we respect the result of the general election obviously we expect results the referendum obviously and we do not believe in No Deal exit from the European Union would be anything but very bad for the British economy and very bad for the living standards particularly of the poorest people all that Faraj and the right are offering is a No Deal exit they're not bothering to tell anybody about the job losses that are going to come as a result of that and not bothering to tell anybody about the loss of investment and all the damage that's going to be done and the trade deals they will then do with Donald Trump you are a very experienced politician and a party leader and I want to know about you yourself do you yourself wish to leave the EU I voted to remain in the EU in the referendum indeed I campaigned to remain and reform the EU that was the position of the Labour Party in the referendum of the position we've taken we are confronted with the result of the referendum therefore I have put forward the view of a customs union with the European Union and of course trade arrangements and crucially protection of Rights it were consumer rights and environmental protection that is a long answer not necessary well it's a very long because it's a very serious issue and I think you would be very well aware of the problems that gonna be faced if there is no deal exit it so you I do undefined you're in or out then you present the whole thing as though it's a rerun of 2016 it's not what it is is the situation we now face of what we do in our relations with Europe in the future I'm just really asking where you stand now when it comes to a referendum are you in favor of another referendum or not our party view taking a conference was that we should keep the option of the public vote there on the telecom they said let me finish no to make a decision which would be a public vote on what comes out of that parliamentary view at the moment there's no decision come out of Parliament the the word I jumped on there is option because option can mean anything at all in other words you haven't you didn't let me you didn't let me complete the answer actually I gave you a chance of jumping on that word option but the the word option suggests that you could or could not go for another referendum I'm just asking you which it is we would want a vote in order to decide what the future would be so yes

EU encouraging an exodus of biblical proportions – UKIP Leader Nigel Farage

Views:7607|Rating:4.93|View Time:1:22Minutes|Likes:141|Dislikes:2
Description |
• European Parliament, Brussels, 16 September 2015

• Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Co-President of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) Group in the European Parliament – @Nigel_Farage

• Group presidents speak before the vote on: Council Decision establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary
[COM(2015)0451 – C8-0271/2015 – 2015/0209(NLE)]

An emergency proposal to relocate 120,000 asylum seekers from Italy, Greece and Hungary among EU member states
• Video: EbS (European Parliament)

• EU Member States:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom

cafergot mr. Ferris president Schultz the unhcr say there are currently 59 million displaced people in the world and clearly voting for this resolution today for this legislation today sends a message that actually Europe is prepared to accept limitless numbers of people that actually is politically and physically impossible and wouldn't it be better a more intelligent for us to think about what the 1951 Geneva Convention and definition of a genuine refugee is it is a person or persons who was a result of their race religion political beliefs or orientation are directly in fear of persecution if we were if we were as Member States to apply that and to help genuine refugees we would take the support of our public with us opening up the door to countless millions encouraging an exodus of biblical proportions and directly contributing towards the profits of the traffickers more people drowning in the Mediterranean does not make sense

Hitler's Children and Gerry Adams Children

Views:471|Rating:5.00|View Time:10:23Minutes|Likes:37|Dislikes:0
BBC I Player – Hitler’s Children

you know what we had see stuff a bit I said a prayer before and asked for Ireland from yourself and blaming us time to ease off just not go I'll lose my temper get words–all got keep the blood pressure down right so this video is gonna be called hitless children it's a TV program that was all I'm gonna pot link to it good program and this videos could be called hitless children Jerry atoms these children now this program was about the children and the grandchildren of notorious Nazis you had gorings grandchildren grandchildren gay wasn't councilmen yet Himmler's grand or you had a few others you had the grandson of the man who run outfits the common done you had the son of somebody else who's high in the extermination of something but gonna put a link to this program it's worth watching now what the children need what the children ideally want role models remember McMartin that farmer that shot that he'll dad killed it you know he just shot a burglar in the back and he just had to be a child and he got the guy who's with him and that one was 14 years old who is that child's role model he's father now who's Alice to fullfil because the child was shot dead the Goering who is with a traveler gypsy calling whatever he left him he fucking left he didn't come back to helping he left that 14 year old boy that 14 year old boy went out with him because he was part of a plan of burglars his role model ease dad was a criminal and when the family kicked off about McMahon killing their son and blah blah blah and how he was such a nice boy and everything and he was he was you boy he was growing up in the way of those around him his role models about 3-4 years after he's after the young rappers shot dead his father was arrested because he was head of a gang and he robbed the clothing factory at night your factory warehouse where all the clothes and he robbed it what they did was they got the security guard and he was a woman and he tied her up they poured petrol on and they threatened to set light to her unless she gave the coals to the alarms and everything that was that young boy's role model he's dead fucking dad the gang poor Petzl on a woman minimum wage security guard cider up poured petrol on and threatened to set fire to it he's about role models and this program hit with children seems about the relationship between the children done shield independence and how they feel now cuz their parents were nasty monsters and it's a very interesting program he's worth watching and as I say we want the best for our children want the best for this world we have to be role models for our children we have to do the best we can so it's worth watching and you see how these children grandchildren feel the responsibility of what their grandfather what their father did they bear the responsibility and the thing is it makes you think where does the responsibility stop how many generations after the deed does it does the responsibility go disappear and it's in the name it's like you've hit with our children what responsibilities will day bear the grandchildren now and this is what he fetches up this program and it's really interesting what The Goring grandchildren of dog do sterilized himself brother and sister you've both been sterilized be both sterilizing you know they took the decision to sterilize himself because they've they've added the torture between him and who said the bloodline stops here and I think that was tragic I think that was extreme they've taught the burden of responsibility too far but that was their decision sterilize themselves in the bloodlines stops here so why am I going this jelly Addamses children when we book talk about how can the children once the children it's like that young boy who McMahon shot he was only 14 he was just doing what his role models have done father uncles fathers friends family friends this guy who was with him was taking him out to gain experience in Birdland he needed an assistant to climb through a small window that's why you ain't got this young lad no hear anything owl says all the family really Nemo the family knew what he was doing when this guy rolled up in the car to pick him up 14 years old to take him out for the name the news burglar and he brought about those walls and he'll be booked I raised the issue of when the children had children of Gerry Adams and Mary McGuinness they are children but as they get older and they have children what responsibilities do they have to point out to their father that what he's doing what he's done in the past is evil the killing of innocent men women children babies unborn children all those situations have happened with the IRA the killing of innocent people the murder of innocent people brought about by the actions decisions of jelly Adams and my McGuiness so as their children grow they have a responsibility to make a decision how do they approach the fact that their father was a decision making in the murder of innocent people especially tell you adam's all Jerry Adams his children all of them and grandchildren know that Jenny Adams was the main figure in the decision it's a kidnap torture and execute Jean McConville all Jenny Adams these children know that all these grandchildren will know that what do they do about it as I say gorings granddaughter and grand son have made the decision that the bloodline ends it that's how much responsibility they took remember chels and if you watch this program you'll see they've all approached in different ways the children and grandchildren of 13 Darcy monsters so what about the children and grandchildren if the IRA monsters what they gonna do life is normal last video it talks about this woman from the Muslim Council of Wales it's a misogynistic religion blah blah blah but she's going away of her own free will what do the children and grandchildren of my McGuiness jelly onions how can they go into the future knowing their fathers were monsters just to say mr. Darcy children and grandchildren know that their fathers and grandfathers were monsters you have this thing about family loyalty thoughts I had an email from Eleni yesterday which she was talking about family and now there's no connection between her and her family of brothers and an Amir applier said you're not obligated you're not obligated this thing that blood is thicker than water is shaped if you have a bad brother or sisters brother or sister those things are negative in life you do not have to support them because blood is thicker than water when the children of Jerry Adams grew up they have a responsibility to God to humanity to condemn the evil actions just as the children of the Nazis at all you don't get these children in this program grandchildren saying what my dad did was okay he was only standing up for the German people my grandfather there was nothing wrong with his actions coming down to our ships he was doing the best for Germany so did the children if Terry Adams say no just a thought

No-deal Brexit won't lead to hard Irish border, DUP spokesman says | Squawk Box Europe

Views:13278|Rating:2.84|View Time:7:4Minutes|Likes:87|Dislikes:66
Sammy Wilson, Brexit spokesman for the Democratic Unionist Party, discusses the U.K.’s planned split from the European Union.

I can understand why the EU would love the you know chemists and the customs union as a solution to the mihrab problem they've got along the Irish border in fact we suspect that one of the reasons why they made such a big issue of our exporters because precisely they wanted to keep the United Kingdom within the customs union we would not support that and the reason why we wouldn't support it is that one of the reasons why we wanted to leave the EU was to have the freedom to do trade deals with countries around the world where we believed there were economic opportunities which didn't exist with being part of the customs union of the EU because don't forget he's a very protectionist trading bloc and because of that opportunities which could have been hard with India China a lot of other expanding economies around the world were missed right on and we believe that one of the reasons for getting out of the customs union is to be able to exploit those opportunities and to break free of the kind of protectionist bloc that the EU is I want to just give you a slight thought experiment here and you may not welcome it but if the Europeans continued to insist that the withdrawal agreement cannot be renegotiated there cannot be changes to the backstop and we end up with a situation where there is no deal by March 29 legally the UK leaves the European Union and there will have to be some kind of border between Northern Ireland and the Republic why is that not the case in your view well it's not the case because already the EU have guaranteed the Irish government that there will be no border in the event of his leaving with no people but well let me just use the words of the chief negotiator of the EU who only this week has said that he that we would have to look they would have to look at operational ways of controlling trade while not having physical checks and he said he had a team working or at present and these are the two things he mentioned that first of all they would look at pitiless solutions in other words he would look at electronic means of capturing the records and trade and they would look at decentralization in other words they would look at either checking Goods at the point of departure or point of arrival away from the border now those are things that we have been arguing for the last two years should be done neither you're saying they would embrace them in the event of a new deal you're saying it's not more sensible to impress someone make a part of it David I know you don't speak for the government but you are a partner of the party that is in government essentially and I want to ask you this we've heard from a number of government representative this morning they've been unable to explain what these alternative arrangements would be that a part of Graham Brady's amendment that was passed with the majority last night do you have any clear way of explain to our viewers what those could consist of I do have I mean the first thing is that we're we're saying to give comfort to the EU and to give comfort to the Irish that there should be a legally binding protocol and respect of Northern Ireland that not none of this the the parties to the agreement would ever erect a hard border and then secondly that there would be a menu of means by which that could be achieved and including the canopy borough solution which the EU say they're looking at at present and putting decentralization ie looking at Czechs away from the border including the trusted trader status which is already in operation anyway for goods crossing the the border where taxes have to be collected currently because of excise differences v80 differences seals tax differences in your language and so there's a whole range of things which have been looked at and put forward in the past which have been rejected by the easier us why did they reject them well I think that the reason why they rejected them was because they saw the Irish border issue and the way in which they presented the Irish border issue as a way of keeping Britain and both the customs union and the single market that was really their objective they didn't want Britain to be free to be able to be a competitor on the world stage and unfortunately Prime Minister fell for it the House of Commons wouldn't accept it and she's now having to go back to renegotiate it do you think the override code believes that the reason they want this backstop in place in the form that it has right now is to stop Britain from being a player on the world stage I believe that Liam viragor has been used by the EU and as also for his internal domestic politics reasons where he's having to compete with Shanthi and had to make the border a big issue under snow of course coming back on the Irish government there's a degree of panic because if we leave about No Deal the Irish economy will suffer very very seriously given a 50% of their exports go to GB and they would then find barriers between GB and themselves with very high tariffs because it's mostly agricultural goods that they export to Britain so you know we're we're looking at a solution we want that means they re economy that's the economy next door to is we want to see them prospering and I believe that what happened in the House of Commons last night if parties take a sensible approach then we can't get through this and indeed you know just point out to you that the previous administration and the Irish Republic took the same view as we did that we should try and find the easiest ways possible for dealing with cross-border trade when the new administration took over them suddenly the whole attitude changed we had the national chairman of the Federation of small businesses on early this morning and he said that his members had essentially made it clear they wanted at least two months notice if there's going to be no deal do you think that yourself your party other lawmakers in this building behind us have lived up to their responsibilities to business owners in the United Kingdom I think we have because first of all it was always no one every no one since the withdrawal agreement are they withdrawal bill went through that 29th of March would be the theater in which we were leaving it's been no one knife for at least six months that this withdrawal agreement was not going anywhere and we were probably heading towards a situation if there was no response from the EU that we'd be leaving without a date and you know it's not only the the people and the House of Commons and the House of Lords and the government who have to take some responsibility for this but we'll of course if we finish up with no deal it will be because the European Union play the part and not as well by being unwilling to compromise one final incredibly quick yes-or-no question if this deal comes back in two weeks time they've been no substantial changes to the back slot will the DUP vote it down hi I'm Johanna Versace and thank you for watching you can check out more of our videos by clicking on the boxes on the screen and don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more from CNBC international thank you for watching

Growing together: EU enlargement. A story from Italy

Views:4435|Rating:4.63|View Time:1:42Minutes|Likes:25|Dislikes:2
It has been ten years since the European continent was reunited after years of division when ten countries, mostly from Central and Eastern Europe, joined the European Union. Lovro Žiberna tells us which impact it had on his pharmacological research.

dressed as often referred to as the city of science due to its high concentration of research centers in the region being part of this international research community has enabled me to make strong collaborations and I've learned a lot from professors and researchers here my name is Laura Shabana I was born in Maribor in Slovenia and I studied pharmacy in Ljubljana as a PhD student I spent some semesters in Strasbourg and Trieste and here I also successfully applied for a positive position three years ago on a European project transfer Caravan I'm also currently employed in our search will could bilirubin which is produced in our cells and released into the blood bilirubin has a strong antioxidant activity and thus protects one's health status the bilirubin level in the blood can vary according to the individual's lifestyle as for example their diet body weight stress or sports I very much enjoy the cultural exchange to learning Italian Italian culture and Italian cuisine while I mean interest I've made new friendships with people from all over Europe who are currently working here year largeman has made it possible to live and work in a foreign country and easily exchange panik's and ideas with researchers from other European countries I'm sure that our research will have a positive impact on the health of all Europeans

Oil Price Can Go Up to $300 Per Barrel Due to Saudi and Iran

Views:67184|Rating:4.84|View Time:6:2Minutes|Likes:5491|Dislikes:178
Saudi and Iran both are exporting the Oil in international market. It shows that if things can move in the same way it can be skyrocket in upcoming days with new development.

bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim assalamualaikum dunya Coca BGC – I'd eternal Oksana Pattaya Chitina in jolly hamlet tariqa Carlin refrán patria happily dunya Co Yanni's ferati al-assad ethnic at anak pada horrea Mozilla discuss kanessa Pele is video called like a hockey team we go subscribe curry or bail I can / 0 click curry America Chahta Hai cave or Iran / attack array or Saudi Arab Iran a personal array or greater Israel Kira hvar Israel killer or obese may say her today sorry Surat al camber surfaces above Conchas kaga or Iran or Saudi Arab killer I could row click Ilya our Bo Keeler like yo quickly rusev China a cave da da da Ganga sub similar took a bus imagine a kegger in dono Kiku Dona Sol la cabina courage okay inshallah Neon Hitch are you Muslim a Maliki Beach we're putting it yeah am ricotta Thomas come to drama has jolly hemlock Ibaka Iran pnom LaDonna or Arabic Allah Rana is cabina conquering becky butanna sagar inky oppas makisi vertical conflict jota to sub say pearly Jess a conflict start other oil prices Joe a bit thick ribbon baths a dollar barrel pair after screen pari a chart which Allah a girl technical analysis code they get to market Nietzsche after each Aria energy of pattern band Ahava market niches I gr never leave octo maybe look into the fundamental analysis hey I think at 0 C because poverty a conflict killer I key to swallow technicals fails Oh JA a or Adela Rio Theatre Pelle doden okay under TLT price it should purchase a Dosher dollar per aberrant but Jos a TIA or pseudonymous takodana Sagar Saudi Arabia or Iran Kia person I am recall and I karma that I take rebirth teen so dollar barrel per price ja satya obvious in the other car like a boss sir dollar barrel crude oil kiss time price or Pakistan may xor true p sky or at justine show dollar per barrel budget or flow generic a poncho chase was also the root page that liter patrol Pakistan Samak dunya beret the Husky conversion begins Saudi Arabia Iraq Iran you equate Oman Qatar yes sub milker ribbon at ice million barrel padushka tempered a oil at ice million barrel yelling do corrode a c-loc barrel per day produced car they look at Carrie but these fees at global production g3 beauty of skier agree surat al-fatiha to immediately price x4 Pichardo $4 barrel purple j'tia or ask about a Garriott conflict Berta couch Dilma Zedong age after a quick socrata to do so dollar say busy abba across Jesus at the air or surface yoga empty linear kept pure world can decree but be safe peaceful supplier will cut – Oh Jackie discuss obsessive looks on okay us psycho China called Japan Co your own collection over Lake in America kph okay Sarah Larissa el agua para who could you because at that absolutely Hardy I can shake him a fog that bill cool Malaya K Iran or Saudi Arabia killer I your namu Salman okay mahogany to keep our kiss I'll give my father to eat cheese bilkul being here as a Muslim he as a country be you gave her Marisol at times I am already India Sepang head from already of a nice olive our arms I am was upon a pyramid rapist eat China Riga busca Board elected or parijata Iran under cou dollars around the vehicle se trata LP shaadi the Pakistan kill electronic or international lobbies changuk India Pakistan Burnham Locker a target Pakistan in Cuba the curricula Nagasaki the Kira Shia partner Middle East get that both Saaremaa Malika largest oil importers both Chinese I was sorry Surat the Harlequin that kyoka yellow cab even HR take UK China keyboards our exports have Middle East Kimber the Puri Julia mister of the LP Shahi oil he came to bring he to his kiss out her cheese he came up RJ get the man buying power up Jackie discusses your burger puri duniya McKissack onyx on haga doble China Koga like it dunya kinder egg cheese hamesha Adric Haga pooja tik tree in Urbandale Vicario Saudi Arabia casa dos all pilot the creepin bastard billion dollar defense budget Ajah Ajah without the a/c billion dollar to cross karai or Isidora iran Kirkeby shot billion dollar ah are Joanie's billion dollar carry para p.m. military strength J you so much for the Arabia show biz Madame Barbara Iran a kiss when I'm Barbara like in Iran Kappas drawn technology to her was shot us Sega Barbara iske drone technology co Shia dunya Kevlar beat can a bra he muscular Ibaka Saudi Arabia Co they came to Saudi Arabia capaz he cetera military aviation tanks Iran who kisses a gossip rehearsal a kiss eager Saudi Arabia Casilla or a good fit to Marion Illinois let negative Surat al decay are their food on Ursula Rio Tia to Saudi Arabia K pass a corrode Charlie Slovak reblog a jacket Iran cables charcoal Hickory learning anything I wrote a year Kappa natural theology of America Prabhakar majora or Puri dunya gamba the ELCA fedora hasta barranca Jota – sorry dunya Holly Pakistani Puri dunya eat Enomoto 0 get a remote r0 Keisha if zero is a mean perky serie internal bra conflict una de kaga yay mom lotta Jesper has your pot cellular level I solemnly Hamilton keen for my this Sony or Charlie meta Jared carry of jolly paper currency your digital currency a a busca de Clairvaux kahani yaad aati licking is sorry surat al-kahf tender self you a or Saudi Arabia egg by on car septa here oil tankers / from Iran said kissy-kiss i'm keiko illinois nahi chart a dosa haqiqa TV go subscribe canal but bully a video call like curry share Caray or comment section may apply raita is a zero curry

Afua Hirsch: Stop blaming immigrants

Views:6371|Rating:2.00|View Time:11:36Minutes|Likes:26|Dislikes:39
A report published this week, and written by the Government’s integration tsar Dame Louise Casey, has shed light on how some immigrant communities in Britain have failed to integrate into society. But Afua Hirsch believes it’s not the fault of immigrants.

The Pledge is a debate show with no presenter to moderate. You can watch it on Sky News every week.

Join the debate via @ThePledge and #ThePledge on Twitter and

another major report on immigration Louise Casey's predictable verdict is that Muslims especially the Bangladeshi and Pakistani community have failed to integrate failed to learn English promoted regressive values towards women married raised and educated their children separately we know segregation is a reality in the UK it's clear when you listen to these people in all them one of the most segregated towns in Britain you quite like this to stay as a mostly white area I'll just say that well Tanya missus yeah but yeah you know truthful honest yeah course what people are segregated aren't they by choice but the fact is that the problems of integration are the result of government failure since mass immigration started after the Second World War immigrants have been left alone to sink or swim instead of investing in communities experiencing high levels of immigration providing the housing school places English language classes and community facilities that everyone needs immigrant or not people have been left to languish integration requires thoughtful policy time and money no government's been willing to invest that and if this one isn't either then spare me any more reports the most compelling part I thought of the Casey report was that many people not all that a lot of within the Muslim community don't want to integrate you think she's wrong that's not what I took from her report that they deliberately stay that they don't choose to learn the language that they stay in their communities that they don't want to reach out that they educate their children within their own schools and they don't want you don't you don't buy that it's very interesting how two people can read the same report what I took from her report was that fundamentally most the people who live in this country believe in compassion believe in richland most by monolith there are structural reasons why people are living separately not just Muslim people white people are leaving communities when immigrants come in so people are self segregating and I agree with you that is happening and she sends out in her report very clear so you do agree this there is a small percentage who just don't want to integrate yes of every of every background interesting you also talk about English lessons are you suggesting we pay them for those well we used to we've cut the amount we spend each lessons by 14 million I would cut the whole lot okay you don't want immigrants to learn English learn if I don't live in France right I don't expect the government to pay me to learn how to let speak French I've got to go and do it myself likewise if I go and have anywhere else in the world what why the hell should the people here already paying taxes to the absent ill they squeak why should they send me any more money I'll tell you what else on understanding if the reason that immigrants have come to this country and would you compare them all to you just getting up-to-date hold on hold on the clue is in my last name you know it was my dad who came to this country who says it's not like you know a particular British name if you think about it my grandparents are in my grandpa's my grandparents then my dad had to learn nobody paid them they went out and my grandfather owned a restaurant and learned English and that's how it should be all the people who came at the great settlement of Jewish people when they came here nobody gave them bloody free houses and language lessons and Chryslers well they went and learnt the language themselves and I would go further before I get other people today I would go further I live in a London borough you can excuse me where when I get a leaflet about recycling it must be in about 15 different languages and there's a bloody phone number if they haven't got the language this is absurd we're in England we will speak English then if you become part of this country you speak on you will see what benefits there are to be had sitting there and speaking polish all day long or sitting there and speaking whatever it might be or do all day long is not gonna work you know there are several of us around the table who are the products in one way or another of immigration I would have thought you of all people would understand that immigration in this country has happened for different reasons you know it hasn't just been up starts moving you know a lot of masculine immigration was actually was was controlled by the government the government actually recruiting peoples come to the country to do low paid jobs letting them live in poor areas where there was already high density population a lot of poverty and those means who have stayed in those areas and as a result yes many of them are segregated but the point is it wasn't an accident you know it wasn't random it was completely predictable in some cases it was orchestrated by the government now instead of saying right this is how we make integration work this is what other countries have dollops will allow immigrant communities to integrate and support that and support the existing community as well as it orchestrated out of the Orchestra's you need me to explain do you treat me as a child after the second well yeah in communities I was proving in certain communities because it's hardly surprising van arriving here in I'm Asian I'm probably going to go to pack food or I might go to this or I might go where I've got family or when people from immigrants backgrounds when people from Asia and Caribbean and Africa came here they tried to live in places where they were not invited they were not welcome they ended up living wherever they could and you know where those areas were they were poor areas where they ended up paying higher rents because they were the only places they were able to live now did the government intervene did the government resettle to the government provide extra housing black people shipped to places they don't want to live I'm explaining to historically the reason why immigrant communities live where they do they went to industrial areas where there was demand for their labor they stayed there nobody did anything to facilitate them living anywhere else nobody provided them with my quality housing no one helps the people who are already living what we have at the places report and actually I'm not sure you disagree with most of it yes I I think the analysis was rather good I thought when it came to what do you do about this if you want to do anything I thought the solutions okay but they didn't actually change thing that which is the problem with so many policies but I thought I mean I as a kid I lived in Outer London on the borders of Hayes and South at the time when South all changed in five years from being a traditional white working class population to being an Asian population and I lived in my little streets where I'm at we moved away but but this is your mother see it's where actually people put together to try to stop a shion's buying those houses in the street and they didn't do that because of races or anything like that they did it because I was scared because what had happened to South or in a very short period of time no one tried to explain and what I thought Louise Casey captured was that in that period and in the period since sort of governments have done very little really they've done very little though they probably done more for the for the migrant community – coming in they've actually done for the for the indigenous community who needed some help and some supporters so this is what's happening but this is okay and they've done very little and what she really says is different governments over a period of time have actually had a failure of policy the trouble they were for said that was think it tells me what policies wouldn't do with souls skips over the really difficult issues like faith schools it's always the elephant in the room faith schools by their very nature promote segregation now voters like them Church of England schools are extremely popular but the reality is faith schools are a huge driver of social segregation she acknowledges it but she stopped short of saying we know she recommends an integration test it's not a test it's not an oath that we need it's a complete restructuring or engorgement that we have all of these establishments that actually keep people separate now I like you I think we agree on this I think integration is it's not even optional you know we can't have a sustainable future if we don't integrate but there are reasons why people are keeping separate it's not just because they're a bigoted regressive Muslims living in older if you don't want to talk to white people it's much more complicated than that and the problem is I think that her report because it stops short of really addressing the root causes can end up demonizing some of those communities and we've already had plenty of reports that do that you know so that's that's what I think that we need to look at but it's not just the government responsibility the source our integration and people coming together there are a huge number of people but to echo your point they don't want to and and there are so many places like if I think of where I'm from there are various areas that I'm from whole office they might mention that before there are various places that are completely unrecognizable the shopfronts are often not in English the people there are not speaking English and people are intimidated there are streets and I'm thinking of a particular street that you would I would always have been in when I was a kid and I was growing up my mates would have been there we would have just played out there no where would I go there now it's just it's completely changed as an area and for example I used to work in India I've done a lot of work in India when I go to India I don't wander around and say excuse me you know can you accommodate me please my way of living my language if I want to get on the British government to get out several hundred years and talk about to government me as an individual that chooses to go somewhere and wants to get the best from that culture in that place that I live and wants to be a part of that community so while I'm hearing from you is it's a government fault it's a government fault as a government fault to me one of the one of the first things you have to start doing is teaching British values for examples in all schools I don't care what religion it is British values should be taught to each and every child and English should be mandated in each and every school irrelevant of faith and just quickly because you mentioned India that is an example where British people went and maintained a very British Way of life and only mix with each other for several hundred years so I can't talk about no but just here today all right girls schools just look at this we've got a clip from some school children which makes the point about I think how important schools are we just highly see any white poop in it like a home but in school is a different religion is different they prefer speaking to friendly you know to me integration it's not rocket science we know how to achieve it other countries have achieved it one way is through schools if we integrate children then we won't have a future where there are streets and Holle that you feel are part of another country you know and that's all we need to do the government's failed to do basic things face was a big problem they don't fund communities where emigrate immigrants are coming in to support the existing community they're not collecting data basic things and instead of actually acknowledging this we're just talking more about how immigrants want to just keep to themselves and so great and it's not because I think it by political correctness we shouldn't say certain things because I know what you're thinking Nick you know it's not that at all it's just that I don't think they're ever gonna solve the problem unless we actually get to the root of it I mean in the case European would which has got an insight there are quotes Obie's blackburn Burnley Birmingham Bradford where there are Ward's with over 70% Muslim populations now if you don't think that's healthy which I don't in the society I think you've got only government can do something about that the market won't do anything about it this is what's happened what would you do what would I do now what I just told you what I doubt that I don't know but what I would ensure is that everybody learnt language learned the language that they sorted it out themselves and as I said before when you go to hospital and I find it truly extreme and there's signs and God knows how many language no they're not they're assigned to learn language but you don't think there should be any funding for another shouldn't I pay for themselves but my daughter has just gone to Sweden is it like as an academic right and Sweden pays for anybody who couldn't get up to – or Sweden wanted it and I think that's not big money it's not big money is money we need something we should do I think I don't think that overcomes the problem because I think you've still got parts of these populations you don't want other English and so that debate will Rumble on and on and you can flick through your printouts or are you lying

Tory Brexiteers and Remainers unite to throw Theresa May a lifeline

Views:391|Rating:1.00|View Time:3:6Minutes|Likes:1|Dislikes:4
Tory Brexiteers and Remainers unite to throw Theresa May a lifeline

The proposal is branded a “glimmer of hope” by one MP, as the prime minister braces for a series of crucial votes.

Tory Brexiteers and Remainers have united to help Theresa May ahead of crunch votes later today that could change the course of Brexit.

Ministers and backbenchers are backing a proposal aimed at stopping divisions within the Conservative party, with one MP calling the compromise a “glimmer of hope”.

Mrs May addressed Tory backbenchers on Monday night. Later that evening, one of the supporters of the new proposal, Nicky Morgan, messaged colleagues to reveal its full extent, which she says still means the UK leaves the EU on 29 March with a backstop that would be “acceptable indefinitely”.

That is the insurance policy to stop a hard border reforming on the island of Ireland by aligning some customs regulations in Northern Ireland with the EU.

The proposal is known as the “Malthouse compromise” after housing minister Kit Malthouse, who helped broker it, and has garnered support from ex-foreign secretary Boris Johnson and backbench Brexiteer ringleader Jacob Rees-Mogg.

The first part – known as plan A – is to change the divorce deal by coming up with a new backstop and extending the proposed transition period by one year – until the end of 2021.

The UK would continue to follow EU rules and pay into its budget, which could allow enough time to reach a free trade deal.

If that fails, plan B would see the UK ask for a transition period also until 2021, but preparing to leave on WTO terms, with no tariffs.

Critics say it would be rejected because Brussels has ruled out offering a transition period that does not lead to a deal being implemented.

Green MP Caroline Lucas called it a “fast-track to a disastrous no-deal Brexit”.

Politicians from all sides are jostling to take control of the Brexit process, with a series of votes planned for Tuesday night on what its course should be.

Mrs May has urged Tory MPs to support Sir Graham Brady’s amendment, which calls for the backstop to be scrapped and replaced with “alternative arrangements”.

The backstop has proved the most hated part of her withdrawal agreement with Brussels, which was rejected by 230 votes in parliament earlier this month.

But another bid by Yvette Cooper could derail Mrs May’s plan to take the UK out of the EU without a deal if one is not ratified before 29 March 2019.

The Labour MP’s amendment wants time for a vote on delaying Brexit until the end of the year, if a deal is not passed by the end of February.

Mrs May will face down rebels on her own side and critics in the opposition camp by making the closing speech in tonight’s debate.

turi brexit ears and remainders unite to throw Teresa Mayo lifeline the proposal is branded a glimmer of hope by one MP as the Prime Minister braces for a series of crucial votes Tory brexit ears and ray Mainers have united to help Teresa May ahead of crunch votes later today that could change the course of brexit ministers and backbenchers are backing a proposal aimed as stopping divisions within the Conservative Party with one MP calling the compromise a glimmer of hope mrs. may address Tory backbenchers on Monday night later that evening one of the supporters of the new proposal Nicky Morgan messaged colleagues to reveal its full extent which she says still means the UK leaves the EU on 29th of March with a backstop that would be acceptable indefinitely that is the insurance policy to stop a hard border reforming on the island of Ireland by aligning some customs regulations in Northern Ireland with the EU the proposal is known as the Malthouse compromise after housing minister kit Malthouse who helped broker it and has garnered support from ex foreign secretary Boris Johnson and backbench brexit during leader Jacob Riis MOG the first part known as plan a is to change the divorce deal by coming up with a new backstop and extending the proposed transition period by one year until the end of 2021 the UK would continue to follow au rules and pay into its budget which can allow enough time to reach a free trade deal if that fails Plan B would see the UK ask for a transition period also until 2021 but preparing to leave on WTO terms with no tariffs critics say it would be rejected because Brussels has ruled out offering a transition period that does not lead to a deal being implemented green MP Carolyn Lucas called it a fast-track to a disastrous No Deal brexit politicians from all sides are jostling to take control of the brexit process with a series of votes planned for Tuesday night on what its course should be mrs. May has urged story MPs to support Sarah Graham Brady's amendment which calls the backstop to be scrapped and replaced with alternative arrangements the backstop has proved the most hated part of her withdrawal agreement with Brussels which was rejected by 230 votes in Parliament earlier this month but another bid by a vet Cooper could derail mrs. mais plan to take the UK out of the EU without a deal if one is not ratified before March 29th 2019 the Labour MPs amendment wants time for a vote on delaying brexit until the end of the year if a deal is not passed by the end of February Mrs May will face down rebels on her own side and critics in the opposition camp by making the closing speech in tonight's debate debate

'We didn't vote to be STITCHED UP' Marching Brexiteers SNAP at MPs betrayal – 'LEAVE now'

Views:5559|Rating:4.89|View Time:5:26Minutes|Likes:224|Dislikes:5
‘We didn’t vote to be STITCHED UP’ Marching Brexiteers SNAP at MPs betrayal – ‘LEAVE now’

FURIOUS Brexit supporters have insisted they did not vote to be “stitched up” as they ripped into MPs in the House of Commons for “betraying” what the British people voted for while they joined the 270-mile March to Leave from Sunderland to London.

Angry Brexit voters were furious at the “traitorous” actions of MPs in the House of Commons for not delivering what the British people voted for in the historic 2016 EU referendum. Speaking to while on the March to Leave, organised by Brexit campaign group Leave means Leave, voters said they “would not put up with being stitched up”. Speaking between Sunderland and Hartlepool, several seething Brexit voters criticised the Prime Minister’s agreement and called for the UK to leave the EU without a deal.

Barry, from Sunderland, said: “Theresa May had to step up to the plate, unfortunately, she is a Remainer. This deal that she has put forward is worse than being in the European Union.”

Lesley, a member of Green Leaves, from Sunderland, added: “I wanted to come along to show our solidarity and complain about the traitorous way the House of Commons has betrayed Brexit.”

One voter insisted the Brexiteers were “sending a message” to MPs to ensure Brits get the Brexit they voted for.

Mandy, from Hartlepool, said: “We will not put up with it. 17.4million voted to leave, we didn’t vote for a deal, we didn’t vote to be stitched up.”

Rob, from Hartlepool, warned the “country is about to overturn democracy”, adding: “It is the biggest threat this country faces in hundreds of years.”

Brexit voters also claimed they were fed up with “patronising” remarks from Remain supporters.

Jill, from Hartlepool, said: “We knew exactly what we were voting for and I find it very patronising, people saying we didn’t know what we were voting for. We certainly did and everybody I have spoken to, without exception, did as well.”

The comments from the Brexit supporting British voters came before a turbulent week for the Prime Minister as she travelled to Brussels to ask for an extension to Article 50 after MPs voted for a delay.

On Thursday evening at the EU summit, the EU27 agreed to extend Britain’s departure from the European Union until May 22, if MPs back Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement.

If the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal is rejected by MPs, then the UK will have a shorter delay, until April 12, when Britain must then set out whether it wants to leave without a deal or agree to a longer extension.

Following the outcome of the EU summit, Downing Street has said Theresa May is “absolutely determined” to end the uncertainty over Brexit. Her official spokesman said: “There is now a clear point of decision.

“If we are able to have a successful vote next week then we can pass the necessary legislation for ratifying the agreement and we can, as a country, be outside the European Union two months today.

“The Prime Minister is absolutely determined to try to end the uncertainty and deliver clarity for the country and for employers.”

Speaking in Brussels on Friday, the President of the European Council said he was “happy” about the decision by the EU27, as he insisted the fate of Britain “is in the hands of our British friends”.

He said: “As regards to Brexit the European Council formalised last nights decisions by the EU27 and the UK to delay the cliff edge and allow for an extension. Personally, I am really happy about this development.

“As I said yesterday it means that until April 12 anything is possible. A deal, a long extension, if the UK decided to rethink its strategy, or revoking Article 50 which is a prerogative of the UK Government. The fate of Brexit is in the hands of our British friends. We, the EU, are prepared for the worst, but hope for the best. As you know, hope dies last.”

Mrs May is expected to bring back her withdrawal agreement in front of MPs next week for a third meaningful vote, with the deal already being overwhelmingly rejected twice.

But, on Friday, the Prime Minister wrote to MPs telling them she may not seek to bring her Brexit deal back to the Commons next week if there is not sufficient support for it.

The Prime Minister said if the withdrawal agreement is rejected again, or is not put to a vote next week, the UK could ask for another extension to its EU membership before April 12.

Mrs May wrote: “The Council’s decisions mean we have a clear choice: 1. We can revoke Article 50 – but that would be to betray the result of the referendum.

“2. We can leave with no deal on 12 April – but the House has previously said this is not something it will support.

“3. If it appears that there is not sufficient support to bring the deal back next week, or the House rejects it again, we can ask for another extension before 12 April – but that will involve holding European Parliament elections.

we didn't vote to be stitched up marching brexit ears snap at MPs betrayal leave now furious brexit supporters have insisted they did not vote to be stitched up as they ripped into MPs in the House of Commons for betraying what the British people voted for a while they joined the 270 mile march to leave from Sunderland to London angry brexit voters were furious at the traitorous sections of MPs in the House of Commons for not delivering what the British people voted for in the historic 2016 EU referendum speaking to express Cote UK while on the march to leave organized by brexit campaign group leave means leave voters said they would not put up with being stitched up speaking between thunder land and Hartlepool several seething brexit voters criticised the Prime Minister's agreement and called for the UK to leave the EU without a deal Barry from Sunderland said Theresa May had to step up to the plate unfortunately she is a remainer this still that she has put forward is worse than being in the European Union Lesley a member of green leaves from Sunderland added I wanted to come along to show our solidarity and complain about the traitorous way the House of Commons has betrayed brexit one voter insisted the brexit errors were sending a message to MPs to ensure Brits get the brexit they voted for Mandy from Hartlepool said we will not put up with it 17.4 million voted to leave we didn't vote for a deal we didn't vote to be stitched up Rob from Hartlepool warned the country is about to overturn democracy adding it is the biggest threat this country faces in hundreds of years brexit voters also claimed they were fed up with patronizing remarks from remain supporters Jill from Hartlepool said we knew exactly what we were voting for and I find it very patronizing people saying we didn't know what we were voting for we certainly did and everybody I have spoken to without exception did as well the comments from the brexit supporting British voters came before a turbulent week for the prime minister as she traveled to Brussels to ask for extension to article 50 after mps voted for a delay on thursday evening at the EU summit the eu-27 agreed to extend Britain's departure from the European Union until May 22nd if MP's back misses Mays withdrawal agreement if the Prime Minister's brexit deal is rejected by MPs then the UK will have a shorter delay until April 12th when Britain must then set out whether it wants to leave without a deal or agree to a longer extension following the outcome of the EU summit Downing Street has said Theresa May is absolutely determined to end the uncertainty over brexit her official spokesman said there is now a clear point of decision if we are able to have a successful vote next week then we can pass the necessary legislation for ratifying the agreement and we can as a country be outside the European Union two months today the Prime Minister is absolutely determined to try to end the uncertainty and deliver clarity for the country and for employers speaking in Brussels on Friday the president of the European Council said he was happy about the decision by the eu-27 as he insisted the fate of Britain is in the hands of our British friends he said as regards to brexit the European Council formalized last night's decisions by the eu27 and the UK to delay the cliff fetch and allow for an extension personally I am really happy about this development as I said yesterday it means that until April 12th anything is possible a deal a long extension if the UK decided to rethink its strategy or revoking article 50 which is a prerogative of the UK government the fate of brexit is in the hands of our British friends we the EU are prepared for the worst but hope for the best as you know hope dies last mrs. May is expected to bring back her withdrawal agreement in front of MPs next week for a third meaningful vote with the deal already being overwhelmingly rejected twice but on Friday the Prime Minister wrote to MPs telling them she may not seek to bring her brexit deal back to the Commons next week if there is not sufficient support for it the Prime Minister said if the withdrawal agreement is rejected again or is not put to a vote next week the UK could ask for another extension to its EU membership before April 12th Mrs May wrote the council's decisions mean we have a clear choice one we can revoke article 50 but that would be to betray the result of the referendum – we can leave with no deal on 12 April but the House has previously said this is not something it will support three if it appears that there is not sufficient support to bring the deal back next week or the house rejects it again we can ask for another extension before 12 April but that will involve holding European Parliament elections elections

How Bercow Changed the Future of Brexit – Brexit Explained

Views:660477|Rating:4.80|View Time:10:39Minutes|Likes:12567|Dislikes:521
Until yesterday there had been rumours that May was planning to bring back her deal for a third meaningful vote. Then Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, changed that. He declared that she wasn’t able to bring back the same deal again without substantial changes.

Support TLDR on Patreon:
Follow TLDR on Instagram:
Like TLDR on Facebook:
Follow TLDR on Twitter:

TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.

TLDR is a super small company, run by one person with the help of some amazing voulenteers. We are 100% fan sourced with all of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corportations, no one telling us what to say. We can’t wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!

you might not know that we have an Instagram account we post exclusive content over there as well as links to the Articles that we post on our website we also recently reached 10,000 followers so to celebrate we asked my extra special content planned be sure to head over there and give us a follow so that you don't miss a thing so as you might have seen yesterday John Burke oh the Speaker of the House of Commons made a surprise announcement citing Erskine may a 19th century political document on parliamentary procedure he argued that it would not be proper for Parliament to vote on May's deal for a third time unless it was substantially different from the deal on offer last week order I wish to make a statement to the house there has been much speculation over the past week about the possibility of the government bringing before the house a motion on brexit for another so-called meaningful vote on the 13th of March however the right honourable lady the member for Wallace II asked on a point of order whether it would be proper for the government to keep bringing the same deal back to the house ad infinitum I replied that no ruling was necessary at that stage I did need to treat of them now and their ruling is required now there may be people who have an opinion about it I'm not really preoccupied with that but a ruling would be made about that matter at the appropriate time and I'm grateful to the right honourable lady for reminding me that such a ruling might at some point in the future be required said Tuesday subsequently members on both sides of the house and indeed on both sides of the brexit argument have expressed their concerns to me about the house being repeatedly asked to pronounce on the same fundamental proposition the 24th edition of Erskine may states on page 397 that and I quote a motion or an amendment which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session it goes on to state that and I quote attempts have been made to evade this rule by raising again with verbal alterations the essential portions of motions which have been negative whether the second motion is substantially the same as the first is finally a matter for the judgment of the chair this convention is very strong and of long-standing dating back to the second of April 1604 one of the reasons why the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the houses time and the proper respect for the decisions which it takes so far as our present situation is concerned let me summarize the chronology of events the draft EU withdrawal agreement giving effect to the deal between the government and the EU was published on the 14th of November the first scheduled vote was due to take place on the 11th of December however on the 10th of December the vote was postponed after 164 speeches had already been made over three of the five days allotted for the debate that postponement was not caused by me nor by the house but by the government indeed I pointed out at the time that this was deeply discourteous to the house over five weeks later the first meaningful vote was held on the 15th of January which the government lost by a margin of two hundred and thirty votes the largest in parliamentary history subsequently the second meaningful vote was expected to take place in February but once again there was a postponement it finally happened only last Tuesday the 12th of March the government's motion on the deal was again very heavily defeated in my judgment that second meaningful vote motion did not fall foul of the convention about matters already having been decided during the same session this was because it could credibly be argued that it was a different proposition from that already rejected by the house in procedural terms it was therefore quite proper that the debate and the second vote took place last week it has been strongly rumoured though I have not received confirmation of this that third and even possibly fourth meaningful vote motions will be attempted hence this statement which is designed to signal what would be orderly and what would not this is my conclusion if the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that he's neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the house on the 12th of March this would be entirely in order what the government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the house the same proposition or substantially the same proposition as that of last week which was rejected by 149 bigots this ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject it is simply meant to indicate the test which the government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary session this was a surprise to everyone especially the government who gave a slightly grumpy statement to the press about not being given any forewarning Berko gave three reasons for his decision firstly he claimed it was concerned with judicious use of parliamentary time when that time is finite it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the house's time and the proper respect for the decisions which it takes secondly Heathrow is useful to ensure clarity and consistency so far as the statute book is concerned and finally he argued that another vote will undermine the concepts of respect for the importance of decisions made by the house and the weights to be attached to them decisions of the house matter they have weight in many cases they have direct effects not only here but on the lives of our constituents he also explained that he let the second vote go ahead because it was substantially different to the first one because of the statutory instrument that was added at the very last second so this is obviously upset the government but what did everyone else think well quite a few breaks the tears congratulated Berko afterwards thinking that this decision makes me still less likely and therefore no deal more likely some breaks idiots argue this meant that there couldn't be another vote on a second referendum as had already been a vote on a second referendum last week but Berko said that it depended on circumstance while this announcement hasn't exactly helped the government it doesn't completely preclude the possibility of a third meaningful vote although Berko said that a substantial change would require some sort of renegotiation an EU level and not just a clarification of Jeffrey Cox's legal advice this isn't completely impossible while the withdrawal agreement is unlikely to be reopened the EU have made it clear that they're happy to expand on the political declaration that accompanies the agreement which would count as a change at the EU level there's also the possibility of some sort of deal with the DUP which could include a legally binding commitment to locking in Northern Ireland so that it stays completely within the regulatory framework in the event of a backstop surely this would count as a substantial change to the agreement finally there's one other way to get the deal through the parliamentary convention that burka was referring to in Erskine may only says the same motion can't be brought back in one session so technically the government could dissolve or prorogue Parliament Jacob Riis MOG actually pointed this out in Parliament this would mean an emergency Queen's speech from May and it would require the backing of the Privy Council which isn't guaranteed Parliament could then resume business the next day and the government won't be allowed to bring Mae's deal back again however while this is legally possible it hasn't been done since 1948 to force something through called the Parliament Act which limited the power of Lords to block bills if Mae was to do this again it will be constitutionally massive but then again this is brexit so anything could happen as always make sure you subscribe to stay up to date with our videos also follow us across our social networks so that you see all of our exclusive content and our articles when they're posted on the website you can find us by searching for TLDR news you

update 8th June Brexit Leave Case

Views:26517|Rating:4.94|View Time:14:4Minutes|Likes:2150|Dislikes:24
Email addresses below but you might like these ones: [email protected] and here is Nigels press man. [email protected]

Boris: [email protected]

Dominic: [email protected]

Esther: [email protected]

House of Commons Link: Library Briefing
At the bottom of the link is a download full report in pdf.

twitter @grahamHmoore

Brexit Court Case update needs sharing. To all social media platforms, to all MP’s pages, copy the video url and send via email to your MPs.

Bombard the Conservative Leadership contenders with emails about this case. Ask them whether they SUPPORT the case!

good morning good evening good afternoon wherever you are in a world watching this as you know my name's Gwen Moore I wasn't homeless daddy dragon pseudo name on YouTube and I am helping Robyn chill Brooke who is the solicitor that has brought a case to the Royal Courts of Justice the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK has been asked for a declaration in common law and that document declaration is that we left the European Union on the 29th of March 2019 at 11:00 p.m. with no deal with giving no more money over to the European Union we left and we left by law what's the problem well I'm going to show you first the actual issue so I'm going to share you a review this document and here we go what you can see in front of you is the act of parliament that's been elevated to constitutional status it is not an ordinary statue right so the first thing to remember is this is the European Union notification of withdrawal act 2017 it is very simple 137 words and this basically repeals the European communities act of 1972 it then makes that an ordinary act in in its applies elevated to constitutional status as said by Lord Chief Justice laws in the metric mark ice this is elevated to constitutional status one because it was a referendum that caused it to because of the Jana Miller case and the confirmation that our government couldn't act in relation to this without there being an act of Parliament this is a full act of parliament it received Royal Assent which is really important and again is very simple so I'll go to the two main paragraphs and that is powtoon over file withdrawal from the EU there is nothing about extensions etc one the Prime Minister may notify under article fifty point two of the treaty on European Union the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the yoyo that no effective notification was given and it expired on the 29th of March 2019 at 11:00 p.m. this section has effect despite any provision so he in other words this is this is repealing the European communities act of 1972 it is not impliedly repealing as in the metric Mar case is expressly telling people what it's doing and very clear and it went through Parliament House of Lords and received her majesty's assent this section has affect us by any provision made by or under the European communities act 1972 – and this is very important or any other anatman right that's a very powerful limb of this law of the land the statue okay so what we're doing now is we've took taken this to the next level which is we've asked for a declaration from the Royal Courts of Justice and there are various arguments being put forward by a number of very very good lawyers including a very very good so these are rich in we should chill Brook then you have Frances for barrister then you have gown a gonna burn two seconds gonna bet again very good expert on law in this country as well as European law we've also had a number of Appeal Court judges retired have said that this is not only highly arguable it's factually correct so therefore a hundred and thirty seven awkward law which is Anna laws used to be is this is actual constitutional stay Asst therefore you would need a referendum to take this down you can't remove it right so that's the first thing so I'm now going to go over and I'm going to show you and point out something that's very very very important and I want people to understand exactly what it is that I'm talking about you so I'm now gonna do another share and I want you to understand what it is that I'm saying to you because this is crucial and when I say crucial I mean that in the legal term in front of you now and I'm going to put a link to it there is the House of Commons library briefing Piper that's very important and it stated the further June 2019 breaks it questions in national and he you codes right so what we're gonna do is we're gonna go down here you can see they've put the European flag in front of our flag and there you have a picture of justice blindfolded with the scows and the sword the problem that we have is if you go down you can see you've got the Miller caisson relevant extras from that and then you've also got 2.3 extended article 50 on page 11 12 and 13 and 11 and 12 is in particular to Robyn chill Brooke you can see that there so I'm just gonna blow that up so you you understand exactly what is there right this is in the briefing so why they'd you to understand quite simply is that the elites your members of parliament house of loads etc the legal in two entities the civil service have all been briefed on this case including 650 members of parliament they know about this case and have decided that you as the electorate that put them there I'm not allowed to know about this cuz they have in effect conspired with the mainstream media who are largely remain that's all broadcast made you in his country and they have conspired with your m pays to stop this information coming out now we know this because there's been – we know this because there has been to do apologize my phone is going off we do we understand this because there have been a number of conversations and a number of complaints to the BBC the BBC channel for ITV sky knows etc all of the broadcast media including Ofcom who have been complained to who are part of this in like establishment will not allow this case to be aired to the public to the electorate to those who voted in the referendum and especially not to those who voted leave why is that because the elites have decided the elites have decided that you shouldn't know about this case and therefore they have said we're not gonna tell you and we're gonna cut this from all mainstream media barring to newspapers one the Daily Express to the Daily Mail type Daily Mail as covered it slightly though the express have covered quite a bit of the story and put videos of myself and Robin discussing the case online on their website so one bit of donair is take you to the point in this document which is page 11 the reason why I'm gonna take you there is because this is very important hopefully I'm gonna find a it feel and as I go down you will see touch wood it's going to come up so then you've got again it starts with this page further reading crown clad justice websites article 50 challenge at least web star UK constitutional law Association and then there's references to a number of cases in particular we have then got a large briefing on Rob until Brooks I'm showing you Reese directly and I want everyone to share this and especially share it in the United States of America because surely someone out there must think to themselves why is it that they can simply get directive don't have to pay any more money to the European Union have literally put a line over the whole situation and walk away and we can get on with building a trade relationship with the United States for America Rob until Brook English Democrats on the 2nd of April the English Democrats issues a claim for judicial review claim in the first article 50 extension was unlawful win domestic EU and international law and that the UK automatically left the EU at 11:00 p.m. on a 29th for March 29 and the original withdrawal died Sarah in the November 2018 withdrawal agreement since amended actually that part of it we're not interested in but we expect some disinformation from even the House of Commons library then there are a number of different applications were with reference to this the Queen on application English Democrats versus this is the actual case by the way so if there's anyone wondering the dizzies case actually exists of course it exists only seem there if the elites know about it I just don't want you to know about you so again it goes down at the heart and the heart of the matter is in there are also press releases from again which we know that they've seen there are lots of information on this particular document there's the the grounds of resistance everything keys in this document I want to put the link in there you can go and read it right and you must understand that there's also links in there to the Daily Express articles to the Daily Mail articles and to various videos right so let me tell you something that's because you keep showing this they let me ask you to do me a massive service and this country a massive service please send this video download you try it download it I will show you ways in which you can do that download the video and send it directly by email to your MP or take your phone book appointment up with your MP take your phone in there have this video ready and say I want you to tell me why it is you are conspiring against us the electorate I want to know why you have conspired you have allowed Gina Miller's case to be water wool and when it is a leaf case and this country can walk away No Deal by law the lords that you passed you don't want to tell us about that law right you need to be able to get this message out you need to share it on all social media sites all social media sites and we need to get this message out it is the elites that have been briefed on this yet you haven't you tell me right people this my five minute rant on justice I am now going to do one more thing and that is hopefully I've covered everything for you and I want to say one thing before we move on and that is the Constitution is the solution I love every one of y'all you know you're doing everything that you can I understand I know I understand that you are all fantastic people keep going we are winning believe it or not we are winning and all we need to do to push this is to get this message out there get it to John be wills get it to Sean Hannity get it to an that every single post it on Twitter all of the people including President Trump post it to anybody you think can help us right so the last sigh is this the Constitution is the solution they lucky and thanks for Europe

Jean-Claude Juncker zum Europa der Regionen

Views:904|Rating:5.00|View Time:5:10Minutes|Likes:7|Dislikes:0

egal ob brüssel straßburg oder luxemburg die machtzentralen der europäischen union sind von uns nur wenige autostunden entfernt dennoch obwohl die entscheidungen etwa des parlaments oder der kommission unser leben spürbar mitbestimmen scheinen sie oft unnahbar ja sogar in einer anderen welt getroffen zu werden europa ein bisschen näher bringen und die diskussion aufrechterhalten das wollte darum jetzt auch luxemburgs premierminister jean claude juncker bei seinem besuch auf dem gut havichhorst in münster und hierbei setzt juncker vor allem auf das europa der regionen fünf davon überzeugt dass für in 30 40 jahren nicht mehr den wettbewerb der nationen sind wettbewerb der regionen haben werden es gibt 70 80 regionen in europa die arbeiten zusammen die arbeit nicht gegeneinander aber ich lege großen wert auf diese regionale dimension über das auch auf die kommunale dimension menschen haben einen direkten bezug zu ihrer sofortigen ehe das heißt wäre doch von zehn städten zu ihren regionen wird diese vielschichtigkeit europäischen union bewusst ignoriert der gesamt wesentlichen vorbei darum setzt die eu auf ihre vielen unterschiedlichen regionen mit denen sich auch die menschen identifizieren etwa dem münsterland ruhrgebiet oder niederrhein als teile nordrhein westfalens und so bietet das land nach innen nicht nur identität und näher sondern nach außen auch eine starke einheit wären wir in deutschland einen föderalistischen staatsaufbau und die bundesländer wirken natürlich eine willensbildung und an der politischen gestaltung außerordentlich stark mit also die region spielen bei uns in deutschland eine große rolle das ist nicht in allen europäischen ländern so dementsprechend zählt die stimme nordrhein westfalens im sogenannten ausschuss der regionen der das europaparlament und die kommission bei ihren entscheidungen gerät zur region hat er seit einigen jahren seine arbeit aufgenommen der macht gute arbeit aber ich glaube es gibt insgesamt für den föderalismus zu werben für die region europa und man sieht ja auch dass bei den ländern bei denen die regionale die regionalen parlamente eine rolle spielen dass in den ländern wie eine bessere infrastruktur haben es ist nicht alles auf ein zentrum ausgerichtet wie das zum beispiel in frankreich der fall ist sondern die bundesländer tragen dazu bei dass auch in den ländlichen regionen der einzelnen länder ist eine positive entwicklung gibt und deswegen sind die regionalparlamente ja auch so wichtig auch als sprachrohr unserer städte darum erinnerte münsters oberbürgermeister markus lewe daran dass die kommunale selbstverwaltung einer der tragenden säule von europas ist und deshalb müssen wir natürlich darauf achten bei allen notwendigkeiten von reglement das zu berücksichtigen was vor ort die menschen auch bewegt und so weit dass es eine grundsätzliche frage ohne solidarität funktioniert europa nicht soll heißen was sie steht und auch am geländer alleine können da sollte sich brüssel möglichst raushalten sonst nämlich könnte der ausschuss der region gegen die entscheidungen des parlaments oder der kommission klagen doch dazu müssen die unterschiedlichen regionen erst noch lernen mit einer stimme zu sprechen ich würde mir vor allem der kooperation wünschen also es ist heute abend hier auch nochmal sichtbar geworden wie wichtig das ist dass man die sprache beherrscht in europa dass man zumindest auch in der lage ist miteinander zu kommunizieren und auch die europäische vielfalt in den kommunen genießen kann dafür beiträge zu leisten werden riesiger fortschritt also bei den abgeordneten landtages von nordrhein westfalen ist diese rolle angekommen wir haben einen europa-ausschuss wir sind eine ein besonders wichtiges exportland das bundesland nordrhein westfalen und ich habe mir auch vorgenommen als nur landtagspräsident dass ich den kontakt zu anderen europäischen regionen auch zu deren regionalparlamente verstärken werde ich habe auch schon einige einladung bekommen und ich werde auch diese parlament in der nächsten zeit besuchen vielleicht ja nimmt er den berg auch den einen oder anderen gedanken der havichhorster gespräche mit das wäre auch ganz im sinne des landwirtschaftsverlags diese brücke zwischen der zwischen der region und der eu immer wieder neu schlagen muss und das ist da auch eine ganze menge verbindungen gibt die es sinnvoll erscheinen lassen die in den regionen bestimmte dinge zu übernehmen aber andere sachen daneben auf eu-ebene und für die landwirtschaft ist das natürlich das zentrum schlechthin die agrarpolitik wird heute wesentlich in brüssel bestimmt nicht nur die denn für den ein oder anderen politiker ist es manchmal nur zu leicht dem weit entfernten brüssel den schwarzen peter zuzuschieben wenn es vor ort mal nicht so recht klappt es ist nicht alles so in europa wäre es sein sollte oder wer sein könnte aber dauernd so zu tun als ob in europa aus aus dem ruder liefen dauernd so zu tun als ob in brüssel in brüssel sitzungen stattfinden würden nur und andere klein zu machen um selbst aus held des tages von der bühne abzutreten dies halte ich für ein schiefes bild dass politiker selbst von der europäischen union einwerfen die dürfen nicht darüber wundern dass dieses bild inzwischen den millionen von europäischen wohnungen entwerfen deshalb sah hingegen europa also ist keine einbahnstraße wie kurz oder lang die wege sind hang letzten endes davon ab wie wir europa auch bei uns vor ort mitgestalten

UK MPs to get vote on second referendum in new Brexit law: PM

Views:84|Rating:1.00|View Time:35Minutes|Likes:1|Dislikes:4
British MPs will be able to vote on whether or not to hold a second Brexit referendum — but only if they approve draft legislation to implement the divorce agreement with the EU, says Prime Minister Theresa May. SOUNDBITE

Renaming our sweets after Brexit – Jack Dee's HelpDesk: Referendum 2016 | Episode 1 – BBC Two

Views:47313|Rating:4.50|View Time:2:28Minutes|Likes:315|Dislikes:35
SUBSCRIBE to the OFFICIAL BBC YouTube channel 👉
LAUNCH BBC iPlayer to watch full BBC programmes online now 👉

Programme website: Jack and his guest panelists tackle the important issue of the names of the nation’s confectionary.


How to convert 1 joule into erg

Views:3167|Rating:3.88|View Time:3:21Minutes|Likes:31|Dislikes:9
Conversion of 1 joule into erg by a very simple method

hi friends welcome to my youtube channel today i am going to show you how to convert one jewelry to organ so let's begin as we we can assume that x equal we will have to find one you'll be equal x or so then as we know that e equal m l 2 t minus 2 so by putting values we can get M one + two ay-one square T one minus two equal x m2 l2 square T two minus two so by solving this equation we get X equal m1 upon M 2 L 1 upon a little hole square T 1 upon T 2 minus 2 this will be cancelled so here we get it's in mass so the Lu will be in gram it will be thousand upon one gram then it's in length so it will be in centimeter so hundred centimeter upon one centimeter whole square so after this by solving this we get thousand in two dates it will be 1,000 it will be equal to n raised to the power 3 into 10 raised to the power 4 so this will be 10 raised to the power 3 plus 4 equal 10 raised to the power 7 so he conclude that 1 June evil and raised to the power 7 arrghh thank you for watching this video please subscribe my channel thank you

Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve

Views:1904940|Rating:4.84|View Time:1:30:12Minutes|Likes:25832|Dislikes:870

What is the Federal Reserve system? How did it come into existence? Is it part of the federal government? How does it create money? Why is the public kept in the dark about these important matters? In this feature-length documentary film, The Corbett Report explores these important question and pulls back the curtain on America’s central bank.

Pozdrav! Ja sam Buck.
Vaš osobni vodič ovdje kod FED-a. Moj zadatak je da vas upoznam sa jednom vrlo komleksnom,
ali učinkovitom institucijom u SAD-u. Ali ne brinite, ja ću se zadržati
na jednostavnim objašnjenjima. Pored mene je plan koji
pokazuje kako ćemo raditi. Zajedno ćemo proći cijeli
sustav Federalnih rezervi. U doslovnom smislu riječi. Usput ću vam pokazati
što je još događa i zašto je to važno. Na kraju ove turneje i vi ćete
također biti u stanju objasniti
Sustav federalnih rezervi jednostavnim riječima. "Ne postoji ni jedna druga vladina institucija,
koja može zaustaviti naše namjere." "To bi bilo izričito jednako da
Kongres preuzme monetarnu politiku." "Nepriznavanje neovisnosti Federalnih
rezervi bi djelovalo vrlo otežavajuće" "na stabilnost financijskog sustava,
dolara i našeg nacionalnog gospodarstva." "Mi ne posjedujemo… Federalne
rezerve uopće ne posjeduju zlato!" "Mi nismo posjedovali
zlato od 1934. godine." "Zabranite FED". Stoljeće porobljavanja –
Povijest Federalnih rezervi 1. Dio
Porijeklo Federalnih rezervi Istina u ovoj stvari je,
kao što vi i ja znamo, da financijski sektor,
u većim centrima, ima moć nad vladom,
od vremena Andrew Jacksonsa. Predsjednik Franklin D. Roosevelt Cijeli naš život nam pričaju
da je ekonomija dosadna. Ona je glupa. Ako je hoćete razumjeti,
to je gubljenje vremena. I cijeli naš život su nam
lagali u tom pogledu. Prijevod: proda Rat. Siromaštvo. Revolucija. Sve to ovisi o ekonomiji. A ekonomija
počiva na jednom ključnom konceptu: Novcu. Novac. To je voda na mlin ekonomije,
oko koje se vrti naš život. Novac teče oko nas i podržava naš život. Ali i povlači neke dolje
sa sobom, kao vrtlog. Mi koristimo novac svaki dan u
gotovo svakoj transakciji koju obavljamo. Radimo cijeli svoj život za novac,
bojimo se za naš novac, štedimo ga, izdajemo ga,
negdje i nekako ga otkidamo. Novac određuje naš status u društvu.
Novac kompromitira naš moral. Ljudi se bore, umiru i ubijaju za novac. Ali što je stvarno novac?
Otkud novac dolazi? Kako novac nastaje?
Tko kontrolira novac? Važno je napomenuti, da bez obzira na značenje,
koje novac zauzima u našem životu, čak ni jedna od sto osoba,
ne može odgovoriti na ovo osnovno pitanje. Kad planirate obitelj,
je li bi rado znali, otkud dolaze djeca? A ovdje se mnogo vrti oko banaka.
Tako da vam postavljam slijedeće pitanje: Otkud dolazi novac? Otkud dolazi novac? Država ga tiska. On se tiska. Otkud dolazi novac? Kako nastaje novi novac?
Radom. Ljudi rade i stvaraju bogatstvo,
a od novca se očekuje,
da odgovara tom bogatstvu. Otkud dolazi novac? Ah, ja gledam novac drugačije. On normalno raste na drveću, zar ne? Zašto je to tako? Kako možemo biti tako ignorantni
prema jednoj tako važnoj temi? "Otkud dolazi novac?" je
osnovno – djetinjasto pitanje. Dakle zašto je naš jedini odgovor
djetinjast – smišljen kao šala: "On raste na drveću." Takvo duboko neznanje
nema prirodno porijeklo. Već kao djeca smo
znatiželjni o svijetu i radoznali, kako sve funkcionira. A što bi moglo dovesti do boljeg
razumijevanja funkcioniranja ovog svijeta, od znanja o novcu,
njegovom nastanku i njegovom uništenju. Još uvijek se diskusija o ovoj temi
u našim školama izbjegava,
a u svakodnevnom životu ignorira. Naše neznanje o pitanjima novca je umjetno,
a postojeća maglena zavjesa je namjera, podržana kompliciranim sustavom i nepodnošljivim,
ekonomski sprovedivim načinom izražavanja. Ali nije potrebno biti ekonomist
da bi se razumjelo značenje novca. Ljudi znaju instiktivno, da su ratovi,
siromaštvo i nasilje, koje primjećujemo oko sebe, povezani sa pitanjem novca. To izgleda kao puzzle od tisuću dijelova,
koje samo čekaju da budu složene. A tako i je. Ispravno sastavljanje dijelova puzzli,
tvore sliku Federalnih rezervi, američke centralne banke i srca
nacionalnih bankovnih sustava. Usprkos centralnom značenju za gospodarstvo,
relativno mali broj ljudi je čuo o tome i usprkos FED-om pokušaju opisivanja,
malo ljudi zapravo zna o čemu se točno radi: "Naše gospodarstvo se bazira na kompleksnom
sustavu razmjene dobara i usluga" "u kojem novac igra značajnu ulogu.
Kovanice, valuta, štednja i bankovni računi;" "sveobuhvatnu ponudu novca
osiguravaju Federalne rezerve." "Novac je sredstvo razmjene, koji
omogućuje gospodarske procese razmjene," "a novac kao mjera vrijednosti nam pomaže
utvrditi vrijednost dobara i usluga." "Upravljanje novcem, odnosno zadatak monetarne
politike je, održati kupovnu moć dolara" "i pritom osigurati da dovoljna količina novca
stoji na raspolaganju, kao podrška gospodarskog rasta." "Federalne rezerve dodatno podržavaju
sigurnost i stabilnost" "institucija, sa kojima
obavljamo bankovne poslove." "FED osigurava da mehanizmi plaćanja,
bilo da je to gotovina, ček," "ili elektronski transferi,
mogu biti čisti i efikasno izvedeni." "I u svojoj fiskalnoj odgovornosti,
FED djeluje kao banka za državu SAD." "Ovi zadaci obuhvaćaju glavne
odgovornosti naše centralne banke." Ali da bi stvarno razumjeli Federalne rezerve,
moramo najprije razumjeti njihovo porijeklo i kontekst. Moramo rastaviti Puzzle. Prvi dio Puzzli leži ovdje,
u Bijeloj kući. To je bilo ovdje, krajem prosinca 1913.,
kad je takozvani "Zakon o Federalnim rezervama",
kasnije nazvan "Valutni zakon", potpisan kao zakon, nakon što je
uspješno prošao Kongres i Senat. New York Times od 24.12.1913.,
opisuje svečani prizor kako slijedi: "Božićni ugođaj je prožeo ovaj skup.
Tijekom same ceremonije, bilo je manje impresivno," "nego kod potpisivanja 'Zakona o porezu',
3. listopada, ovdje u istom prostoru," "kad su entuzijasti bili više oduševljeni i
koristili svaku priliku ua aplaudiranje." Tamo u Bijeloj kući,
te sudbonosne prosinačke večeri, predsjednik Wilson je potpisao
predaju posljednje kontrole o
američkoj opskrbi novcem na jedan kartel; dobro organiziranu bandu prevaranata,
koja je bila tako uspješna,
tako lukava, tako dobro kamuflifana, da čak i danas – stoljeće kasnije –
samo nekolicina zna o njihovom postojanju, da ne govorimo o detaljima njihovih operacija. Ali ti detalji su kroz
desetljeća otvoreno priznati. Ne samo da su nas učili
da je ekonomija dosadna, nas su također učili
da je ta priča dosadna, tako da nije slučajno, da se povijest
Federalnih rezervi priča na slijedeći način: "Sjedinjene države su stajale pred
ozbiljnim financijskim problemom." "Na prelasku iz 19. u 20. stoljeće,
većina banaka je izdavala
vlastitu valutu, zvanu "Banknote"." "Problem je bio da je jedna valuta
u jednoj državi imala vrijednost,
a u drugoj je bila bezvrijedna." "Ljudi su izgubili povjerenje u svoj novac," "jer je njihov novac bio toliko stabilan,
koliko ga je smatrala emitirajuća banka." "U strahu da će njihova banka prestati poslovati,
oni su požurili da promijene svoje novčanice za zlato ili srebro." "Takvim ponašanjem, oni su proizveli
"Paniku u 1907." godini." "Tijekom panike, ljudi su pohrlili
u banku i tražili natrag svoje depozite." "Banke nisu mogle podmiriti ovu potražnju." "One jednostavno nisu imale dovoljno
zlatnih ili srebrnih kovanica." "Mnoge banke su propale.
Ljudi su izgubili milijune dolara," "poduzeća su trpjela, nezaposlenost je rasla,
a stabilnost ekonomskog sustava je ponovo u opasnosti." "Pa tako dalje nije moglo ići.
Ako zemlja treba rasti i napredovati," "onda moraju biti pronađeni putevi,
da se omogući financijska i ekonomska stabilnost." "Kako bi izbjegao financijsku paniku,
kao onu iz 1907. godine," "predsjednik Woodrow Wilson je potpisao
1913., "Zakon o Federalnim rezervama"." Ali to je povijest koju pišu pobjednici: Revizionistički pogled na formiranje središnje
banke da kontrolira ponudu novca u zemlji, je samo dosadna fusnota povijesti,
jednako važna kao izum zatvarača, ili ideja Hula-Hoppa, početkom 20. stoljeća. Istina je da je priča o tajnoj bankarskoj konklavi,
koja je stvorila taj Zakon Federalnih rezervi, isto tako uzbudljiva i dramatična,
kao hollywoodski film, ili detektivska priča, a pri tom utoliko značajnija,
jer je sve istina. Mi smo počeli prepričavanje
odmjereno pod okriljem mraka. U noći 22. studenog, 1910., grupa
najbogatijih i najutjecajnijih ljudi u Americi,
se ukrcava na malom željezničkom kolodvoru u Hobokenu, u New Jersey-ju,
u privatni vlak. Vlak, koji je čekao – da ne bi privukao
znatiželjnike – u zasjenjenom području kolodvora, je pripadao senatoru Nelsonu Aldrichu, tastu
milijarde teškog nasljednika dinastije Rockefeller, Johna D. Rockefellera, Jr. On je centralna figura u najutjecajnijem
financijsom komitetu Senata,
gdje kontrolira nacionalnu monetarnu politiku. Aldrich je bio u medijima označen
kao "generalni direktor" nacije. S njim su te večeri bili i
njegov privatni tajnik Shelton, kao da se zna "tko je tko" u bankovnoj
i financijskoj eliti zemlje; A. Piatt Andrew, zamjenik ministra financija; Frank Vanderlip, predsjednik
National City Banke iz New Yorka; Henry P. Davison, partner J.P. Morgana; Benjamin Strong, Jr., partner J.P. Morgana
i predsjednik firme Bankers Trust Co. i Paul Warburg, nasljednik obitelji
Warburg, kao i zet Solomona Loeba, vlasnik poznate New Yorške
investment firme Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Ljudima je bilo naloženo, da trebaju nakon zalaska sunca,
dolaziti jedan po jedan, da bi izazvali što je
moguće manje pažnje. U stvarnosti tajnost je bila
tako važna za njihovu misiju, da su oni tijekom putovanja
koristili samo osobna imena, da bi sakrili svoje identitete
pred poslugom i osobljem vlaka. Kretanje svakog pojedinca
od njih bi privukao pažnju, osobito kod znatiželjnih
novinara iz New Yorka. Posebno u vrijeme kada je reforma
bankovnog i monetranog sustava smatrana
ključnom temom za budućnost zemlje; istovremeni sastanak svih njih,
bi sigurno bila priča stoljeća. A to je i bila.
Cilj njihovog putovanja? Usamljeni otok Jekyll na obali Georgije,
dom prestižnog "Jeckyll Island Cluba", čiji su članovi bili ljudi kao Morgan,
Rockefeller, Warburg i Rothschild. Njihova namjera? Davison je rekao nekim lokalnim,
neustrašivim novinarima, koji su nešto osjetili, da su oni bili u lovu na patke. Ali u stvari oni su bili – u potpunoj tajnošću –
zaposleni da izvrše reformu bankarske politike zemlje. G. Edward Griffin, autor bestselera
"Kreature otoka Jeckyll" i dugogodišnji istraživač
"Federalnih rezervi", objašnjava: Banke su znale, da će i bez
njih doći do regulacije, koja će kontrolirati njihovu branšu.
Tako da nisu sjedile i čekale, što će se dogoditi i prekrižile ruke, a sve će biti dobro. One su odlučile, kao i mnogi današnji
karteli: Preuzeti vodstvo procesa. I tako bi oni bili ti,
koji zahtjevaju regulaciju i reformu. Oni vole riječ "reforma". Amerikanci
su inače slabi na riječ "reforma". Uzmi tu riječ u vezi s bilo kojim,
korumpiranim dijelom regulacije i nazovi to "reforma" i stanovništvo će reći:
"Oh, da, ja sam za "reformu", tako da oni glasaju za to, ili to akceptiraju.
To je ono što su oni činili u cjelini. Oni su odlučili "Reformirat
ćemo našu vlastitu branšu". Drugim riječima: "Osnovat ćemo
kartel i dati mu moć države." "Dogovorit ćemo se o kartelu tako, da ga
kožemo koristiti za naše vlastite prednosti" "i nazvat ćemo ga 'Zakon Federalnih rezervi’." "Kao slijedeće, dogovor o kartelu ćemo ponijeti
u Washington i ubijediti one idiote tamo,
da on mora biti pretvoren u zakon." Jednostavno rečeno, to je bila strategija.
Bila je to briljantna strategija. Naravno mi te stvari viđamo
stalno, posebno danas saznajemo, da se iste stvari vide u drugim
organizacijama sličnim kartelu. Danas vidimo nešto slično u zdravstvu, ali tada je to bilo bankarstvo. Bankarski kartel napisao vlastita
pravila i propise, nazvali to "Zakon o Federalnim rezervama"
i uspjeli da to postane zakon i bili su oduševljeni,
jer su to sami napisali. U biti, oni su stvorili skup bankarskih pravila,
koji ne samo da je omogućavao regulirati vlastitu branšu,
nego ići još dalje: Doista, čitajući njihovu pismenu
konverzaciju i debate, bilo mi je jasno, da oni nikada ne bi ni sanjali,
da će im Kongres dodatno priznati pravo, obavljati nacionalnu opskrbu novcem. Ne samo da im je priznato pravo samoregulacije,
gdje su mogli raditi što su htjeli, nego su dodatno dobili nevjerojatni poklon,
o kome nisu ni sanjali, da bi ga dobili, iako su pregovarali o tome, a to je da im je Kongres dao ovlasti
za izdavanje nacionalnog novca. Kongres je dao suvereno pravo za izdavanje
nacionalnog novca privatnim bankama. To je sve bilo u sadržaju
"Zakona o Federalnim rezervama" i Amerikanci su bili oduševljeni, jer im je
rečeno – a oni su u to bili ubjeđeni – da je to konačno bio alat za kontrolu
kreatura sa otoka Jeckyll. Dovoljno zapanjujuće, oni su bili uspješni, ne samo u konspirativnom pisanju zakona,
koji će konačno postati "Zakon Federalnih rezervi", nego također u desetljećima čuvanoj
tajni ove konspiracije pred javnosti. O tome je prvi put pisao 1916. novinar
Bertie Charles Forbes, kasnije osnivač "Forbes Magazina", ali to nikad nije bilo u potpunosti priznato, tako da je
tek 25 godina kasnije sam Frank Vanderlip pisao o povremenom ulasku na sastanak,
9. veljače 1935. godine, u The Saturday Evening Postu: "Ja sam bio tako tajnovit, dapače
sakriven – kao svaki zavjerenik." "Mislim da ne pretjerujem, kad govorim o tome
da je naša tajna ekspedicija na otok Jeckyll," "bila prilika za konceptiranje onoga,
što će kasnije biti Sustav federalnih rezervi." Za vrijeme njihovog devetodnevnog
savjetovanja u Jeckyll Island Clubu, oni su osmislili tako sveobuhvatan
i tako ambiciozan plan, da čak ni sami nisu mogli pretpostaviti, da će taj
plan Kongres odobriti. Ili kako je to Vanderlip napisao: "Mi smo znali, da se naš plan ne smije otkriti,
inače bi sav naš dosadašnji trud bio uzaludan." "Kad bi se objavilo, da su se naše 'specijalne'
grupe sastale, da bi napisale zakon o bankama," "ne bi bilo šanse da
Kongres ratficira taj zakon." Što je točno izmislili zavjerenici
tijekom sastanka na otoku Jekyll? Plan za sustav središnje banke u kojem
banke djeluju kao vlasnik Centralne banke, sustav u kojem domaće banke
tvore privatni kartel, za potpunu kontrolu nad
monetarnim sustavom zemlje. Nakon završetka devetodnevnog sastanka, direktori
banaka i njihovi sponzori su se vratili svom poslu, zadovoljni onim što su postigli. Od projekta iz 1910. godine, a kasnije ratificiranog
"Zakona o federalnim rezervama", više puta su se mijenjali detalji, ali osnovni zahtjevi su bili postavljeni. Ali na kraju ova scena na otoku Jeckill,
je samo daljnji, mali dio puno veće slagalice. I kao i svaki mali dio slagalice
i taj dio se mora gledati u cijelom kontekstu, da bi se vidjela cijela slika. Da bismo razumjeli druge male cijelove slagalice
i njihov značaj za uspostavu Federalnih rezervi, morat ćemo putovati natrag u povijest. Povijest FED-a počinje u Europi
u kasnom 17. stoljeću. "Devetogodišnji rat" bijesni diljem kontinenta,
a francuski kralj Ludwig XVI, vidi sebe suočenog sa svojim teritorijalnim, dinastički
uvjetovanim potraživanjima ostatka kontinenta. Nakon razorno izgubljene pomorske bitke, engleski kralj
William III, počinje obnovu engleske flote. Postoji samo jedan problem: Novac! Vladine blagajne su iscrpljene
od vođenja rata, a Williamovi krediti su presušili. Škotski bankar, William Paterson,
ima bankarsko rješenje: Prijedlog: Osnivanje kompanije,
koja će vladi posuditi milijun funti uz 6% kamata plus upravnu pristojbu od 5.000 funti
i zadržavanje prava za proizvodnju novca. Do provedbe u 1694., plan je neznatno promijenjen,
tako da je sada bilo 1,2 milijuna funti uz kamatu od 8%, plus 4.000 funti za troškove upravljanja
i tako je odlučeno. Osnovana je velikodušno
nazvana "Bank of England". Ime je pažljivo konstruirana laž, da bi se
dobio dojam da će banka biti državno tijelo. Ali ona to nije. To je privatna banka, u vlasništvu privatnih dioničara,
za njihovu osobnu korist, s poveljom od kralja, koja im dozvoljava stvarati novac
iz ničega i posuđivati državi. Rođenjem "Bank of England", 1694. godine, je stvorena predloška, koja se sada ponavlja
diljem svijeta, od zemlje do zemlje: privatno kontrolirana središnja banka,
koja posuđuje novac državi uz kamate, novac, koji je stvoren iz ničega. Ali dragulj u kruni za međunarodne bankare,
koji će proširiti taj proces, je budući gospodarski pokretač
svijeta – Sjedinjene Američke Države. U mnogim važnim aspektima je povijest SAD-a, povijest američkog naroda u borbi protiv bankara,
koji žele kontrolirati njihov novac. Dok se u 1780.-ima kolonije još uvijek
bore za neovisnost o britanskoj kruni, oaa želja bankara se ispunjava. 1781. godine, Sjedinjene Države
su u financijskoj krizi. "Continental", papirna valuta, koju je
izdao kontinentalni kongres za plaćanje rata, je propala zbog prevelike emisije i
britanskog falsificiranja novčanica. U očajničkoj potrazi financijskog rješenja za
posljednje faze rata, Kongres se obratio Robertu Morrisu, imućnom trgovcu, protiv koga je dvije godine prije
vođen proces zbog sumnje za ratno profiterstvo. Sada kao "inspektor financija" u SAD-u,
od 1781. do 1784. godine, on se smatra za najmoćnijeg čovjeka
u Americi pored generala Washingtona. U svojstvu inspektora financija, Morris se zalaže za
stvaranje središnje banke u privatnom vlasništvu, namjerno po uzoru na Bank of England,
protiv koje su se kolonije zapravo borile. Kongres, satjeran u ćošak zbog ratnih dugova
i time prisiljen raditi zajedno sa bankarima, točno kao kralj William u 1690-im godinama, pristaje i osniva "Bank of North America",
kao središnju banku nacije. I baš kao što je Bank of England nastala
pozajmljivanjem britanskoj kruni 1,2 milijuna funti, "BNA" ulazi u posao pozajmljivanjem
Kongresu 1,2 milijuna dolara. Do kraja rata, Morrisov politički
ugled je konačno pao, a valuta BNA nije uspjela
zbog javnog skepticizma. BNA se pretvorila od
nacionalne središnje banke, u privatnu poslovnu banku, koju je
osnovala savezna država Pennsylvania. Ali bankari se još nisu predali. Čak i prije nego se tinta osušila za Ustavu, već je jedna grupa, pod vodstvom Alexandera Hamiltona,
radila na sljedećoj privatno vođenoj središnjoj banci, za novoformirane Sjedinjene Američke Države. Hamilton je tako hrabar kod provedbe svog
plana da on nije ni pokušao prikriti svoj, ili interese bankara: "Nacionalni dug je, ako nije pretjerano,
nacionalni blagoslov za nas", piše on 1781. godine,
u jednom pismu Jamesu Duane-u. "Oni će biti snažan cement naše Unije." "To će također stvoriti potrebu
održivog oporezivanja, do stupnja koji ne tlači," "a bit će poticaj za industriju." Protivljenje Hamiltonovom sustavu za utvrđivanje
financiranja SAD-a, baziranom na dugu, je žestoko. Predvođeni Jeffersonom i Madisonom,
bankari i njihove ideje dužničkog ropstva, su optuženi kao destruktivne snage. Thomas Jefferson piše o tome: "To odgovara duhu rata i optužnice,
[…] da moderna teorija trajnosti duga," "zemlju natapa krvlju i lomi njene
stanovnike rastućim opterećenjem." Ipak, Hamilton je pobjednik.
Prva banka SAD-a je osnovana 1791. godine, a slijede gotovo po istom obrascu,
Bank of England i Bank of North Amerika; središnje banke u privatnom vlasništvu, sa pravom posudbe novca vladi,
novca, koji je stvoren iz ničega. U stvari, iza ove nove banke su isti ljudi,
koji su bili odgovorni i za staru BNA. To su bili Alexander Hamilton,
bivši savjetnik Roberta Morrisa, kojeg je Morris prvi predložio za
poziciju financijskog inspektora i direktor stare Bank of North
Amerika Thomas Willing, koji je sada postao direktor
"First Bank of the Unites States". Upoznaj novw šefove, baš kao i one stare. U prvih pet godina poslovanja američka vlada je posudila 8,2 milijuna $
od banke, a cijene su porasle za 72%. Kad je Hamiltonov mandat kao
ministar financija u 1795. završio, novi ministar financija je objavio,
da će vlada trebati još više novca i prodao njen skromni bankovni udio od 20%,
tako da je postala potpuno privatna tvrtka. Još jednom je američko gospodarstvo opljačkano,
dok se privatni bankarski karteli do gore, do središnje banke, koju su stvorili, smiju. Kad je 1811. godine došlo vrijeme
za obnovu statuta banke, stavovi oko novca od strane
banke su se promijenili. Hamilton je umro nakon što je
pogođen u dvoboju sa Aaronom Burrom. Stranka federalista, koja je podržavala
postojanje banke je izgubila vlast. Javnost je bila nepovjerljiva prema stranom
vlasništvu središnje banke, a što je još teže nisu bili u stanju organizirati
središnju banku u doba mira. Kao rezultat toga, proširenje statuta banke
je odbijeno u Senatu, a banka je 1811. zatvorena. Nepunu godinu kasnije, Sjedinje države
su ponovo u ratu sa Engleskom. Nakon dvije godine naporne borbe, javni dug
Sjedinjenih država se utrostručio, od 45,2 milijuna $,
na 119,2 milijuna $. Sa oslabljenom trgovinom, stalnim rastom cijena,
zbog rastuće inflacije i brdom dugova, predsjednik Madison potpisuje, 1816. godine,
osnivanje nove središnje banke, druge "Banke Sjedinjenih država". Kao i obadvije prethodne i ova središnja banka
je bila u većinskom privatnom vlasništvu i sa zagarantiranim pravom posuđivanja novca vladi,
novca koji je stvoren iz ničega. Rok isteka statuta banke, koji je napravljen
za 20 godina, se približio 1836. godine, kad je predsjednik Jackson već u svom prvom mandatu
priznao, da je produženje statuta izostalo. Vjerujući da Jackson neće riskirati svoj reizbor
1832. godine zbog ove teme, bankari forsiraju u srpnju iste godine,
zakon o obnovi statuta središnje banke,
četiri godine prije planiranog roka. Zanimljivo je da je Jackson glasao protiv produženja
roka i na taj način se oslanja na javnu potporu za njegov reizbor. U svom opravdanju odbijanja, Jackson jasno piše
o svom protivljenju protiv ove banke: "Bez obzira na vrstu interesa ili utjecaja –
bilo da su javni ili privatni – porijeklo ovog zakona," "nije temelj za želje ili potrebe izvršne vlasti" "i nije pogodan za trenutni pristup,
kako se čini razumno" "i tako je prenos ovlasti na članove kartela,
ne samo nepotrebno, nego opasno za vladu i zemlju." "Žalosno je, da su bogati i moćni prečesto reinterpretirali
zakone vlade za svoje vlastite, sebične svrhe." "Ako ne možemo jednom zauvijek nepravdu, koja je nastala
nepromišljenim zakonodavstvom, učiniti pravednom stvari," "a vladu učiniti onakvom, kakva bi trebala biti," "onda možemo barem biti protiv
dodijela novih monopola i privilegija;" "protiv svake prostitucije naše
vlade u korist manjine," "a na teret većine, a umjesto toga
radije za kompromis i pažljive reforme," "u okviru našeg prava i
sustava političke ekonomije." Nacija stoji na strani Jacksona, a on će
zahvaljujući svom sloganu "Jackson, a ne banke," biti ponovo biran". Predsjednik
koristi svoje predizborno obećanje. 1833. on najavljuje, da će vlada obustaviti rad banke,
a nastali dugovi trebaju biti vraćeni. 1834. bankari vrše odmazdu pokretanjem financijske
krize, za koju žele napraviti Jacksona odgovornim, ali to ne funkcionira. 8. siječnja 1835., predsjednik Jackson
uspješno završava otplatu dugova i po prvi i jedini put u povijesti, Sjedinjene
države su oslobođene lanca dugova bankara. 1836. ističe rok statuta, a banka gubi
status Američke središnje banke. Prošlo je još 77 godina prije nego što su
bankari mogu povratiti dragulj na svoju krunu. Ali to nema veze sa brojem pokušaja. Odmah nakon kraja središnje banke, bankarska oligarhija
je vladala u Engleskoj sa ograničenjem trgovine, povratkom kapitala iz Sjedinjenih država,
zahtjevom za plaćanje svih izvoza pravim novcem
i pooštrenim uvjetima kreditiranja. To je sve završilo financijskom krizom,
poznatom kao "Panika iz 1837.", i opet je za to Jacksonova kampanja protiv
središnje banke učinjena odgovornom. Tijekom 19. stoljeća, Sjedinjene države su
više puta uzdrmane bankovnim panikama, koje su uzrokovane bankarsim špekulacijama
i pooštrenim uvjetima kreditiranja. Krajem 19. stoljeća težište količine
novca američkog gospodarstva je centralizirano u rukama male
klike industrijskih magnata, a svaka od njih s približno monopolskim
položajem u svojim industrijama. To su bili Astori u imobilijama,
Carnegie i Schwabi u čeliku, Harrimani, Stanfordi i Vanderbilti sa željeznicama;
Melloni i Rockefelleri sa naftom. A kad su sve te obitelji učvrstile svoje bogatstvo,
to ih je povuklo u bankarsko poslovanje. I sa tim karakteristikama, pni su oformili
mrežu financijskih interesa i institucija,
koje su se gotovo isključivo koncentrirale oko jednog čovjeka, Bankarskog naslijednika i američkog
neslužbenog središnjeg bankara, Johna Pierponta Morgana (J.P. Morgan). John Pierpont Morgan ili "Pierpont",
kako je on radije htio biti nazivan, je rođen 1837. u Hartfordu u Connecticutu,
kao sin uspješnog bankara Juniusa Spencera Morgana. Morgan je ušao u bankarsko poslovanje svog oca
i 1871. postaje partner u očevoj firmi, koja je kasnije prerasla u firmu
"J.P. Morgan i Partner". Morgan je taj, koji je financirao "New York
Central Railroad", za Corneliusa Vanderbilta. Morgan je taj, koji je osigurao financiranje
osnivanja gotovo svake veće tvrtke tog vremena, od AT&T, preko General Electrica,
do General Motorsa i Duponta. Morgan je taj, koji je otkupio dionice firme Carnegie,
i osnovao "United States Steel Corporation", prve firme sa tržišnom
kapitalizacijom od 1 milijarde $. Morgan je taj, koji je posredovao u jednom poslu
sa predsjednikom Groverom Clevelandom,
da bi "osigurao" nacionalne rezerve zlata, gdje je zlato u vrijednosti od 62 milijuna dolara prodano državnom trezoru,
a državne obveznice su priznate kao sredstvo plaćanja. I Morgan je taj, koji je 1907. uzrokovao krizu,
koja je trebala dovesti do osnivanja "Federalnih Reservi". Te godine Morgan je širio glasine o navodno nesigurnoj
financijskoj situaciji "Knickerbocker Trust Company", jednog Morganovog konkurenta i u to vrijeme
najveće financijske institucije SAD-a. Kriza, koja je iz toga rezultirala – poznata kao panika iz 1907. –
je uzdrmala američke financije do temelja. Morgan se ponaša kao heroj koji
osigurava sigurnost klimavim bankama i čuva financijskog maklera od propasti. Nakon nekog vremena i turbulencija preko
financijske branše, osniva se kongresni odbor, da istraži "money trust", čiji su bankari i financijeri doveli
naciju blizu financijskog dna i koji su imali toliku moć nad
nacionalnim financijskim sektorom. Javnost je sa zanimanjem pratila istragu,
a na kraju je identificirana šačica bankara kao ključne figure novčanog kartela, među kojima su Paul Warburg,
Benjamin Strong i J.P. Morgan. Izdavač "The People's Book" projekta,
Andrew Gavin Marshall objašnjava: Početkom 20. stoljeća, kao posljedica ove najveće
financijske panike – panike iz 1907. – pokrenuta je istraga; ova istraga je imala za predmet "the money trust". Rezultat je bio, da su tri glavne banke,
J.P. Morgan, National City Bank i City Bank New York, kontrolirale cijeli financijski sustav. Tri banke. Mržnja javnosti prema tim
institucijama je bila bez presedana. U zemlji je postojao veliki konsenzus
da treba uspostaviti središnju banku, ali bilo je mnogo različitih
interesa da bi to pogurali, a svatko je imao svoj vlastiti plan,
za zagovaranje središnje banke. Tako da bi predstavljali većinu ljudi, morate uzeti
u obzir interese seljaka, populista, naprednjaka, koji su htjeli središnju banku,
jer ne bi mogli nositi sa daljnjim panikama, ali oni su htjeli središnju banku
samo pod kontrolom vlade. Htjeli su središnju banku pod strogom javnom kontrolom,
jer su prezirali New Yorške banke i bojali su se da one teže za većim utjecajem, tako da bi središnja banka za njih bila mogućnost
ograničiti moć privatnih bankovnih interesa. S druge strane, ti isti financijski interesi su
zagovarali središnju banku da služi kao izvor stabilnosti za kontrolu
njihovog financijskog sustava, te da služi kao zajmodavac
u krajnjoj nuždi za njih same, tako da oni nikada više ne bi bili
suočeni sa financijskim kolapsom. Ali da bi u svakom slučaju mogli vršiti
više kontrole kroz jednu središnju banku, privatna New Yorška bankarska scena je htjela
jednu središnju banku pod svojom kontrolom. To je glupost. Tako konvergiraju
svi ti različiti interesi. Naravno, najveći utjecaj je došao
od bankarskih kuća u New Yorku, koje su imale više zajedničkog sa europskim
bankarskim kućama, nego sa bilo kim u američkom društvu. Najvažnija figura kod osnivanja
Federalnih rezervi je bio Paul Warburg, koji je bio partner europske banke
"Kuhn, Loeb i Partner". Njegov brat je u to vrijeme bio poznati bankar
u Njemačkoj i naravno njegovao je uske veze sa svakom većom financijskom kućom, ili industrijskom firmom
u Sjedinjenim državama, kao i sa najvećima u Europi. Tako da je diskutirao o svim ovim idejama sa svojim
istomišljenicima sunarodnjacima propagirajući središnju banku. 1910. Warburg je dobio podršku jednog
senatora po imenu Nelson Aldrich, čija je obitelj kasnije bila povezana
jednim brakom sa obitelji Rockefeller.
Ja sam siguran, da se radilo o slučaju. Aldrich je pozvao Warburga i nekoliko drugih bankara,
na jedan privatni, tajni sastanak na otok Jekyll, na obali Georgie. To je bilo 1910. godine, da diskutiraju o osnivanju središnje
banke u Sjedinjenim državama, ali koja bi, naravno, bila u njihovom
vlasništvu i služila interesima privatne banke. Aldrich je 1911. godine prezentirao
takozvani "Aldrich-Plan" američkom Kongresu, ali je bio nadglasan. Javnost, kojoj je bila poznata
bankarska veza sa senatorom Alldrichom, je odbacila takozvani "Alldrich-Plan",
bande sa otoka Jekyll. Ali banda se nije predavala.
Oni su preradili i dali mu novo ime i novo javno lice, ono od senatora Roberta Owena
i kongresnog zastupnika Cartera Glassa. Na kraju money trust, kao uzročnik
panike iz 1907. godine, koristi bijes javnosti protiv njih
i završava formiranje kontrole nad bankarskim sustavom. Taj novo nazvani "Zakon Federalnih rezervi",
je donešen navečer 23. prosinca 1913. godine, a FED preuzima njegovo poslovanje sljedeće godine. 2. Dio
Prevara Proučavanje novca, iznad svih drugih područja u ekonomiji,
je ono u kojem se koristi složenost da se prikrije istina,
ili izbjegne istina, a ne da se otkrije. – John Kenneth Galbraith Kako sada radi sustav Federalnh rezervi?
Kako to točno funkcionira?
Tko je vlasnik i tko to kontrolira? To su osnovna pitanja koja će dovesti
do jezgre temeljnog pitanja: Što je novac? I to je razlog zašto je odgovor na ova
pitanja umotan u neprobojni ekonomski žargon. Čak i vlastitoj obrazovnoj propagandi FED-a, koji ima neobičnu sklonost za slatke
animacije i snishodljiv način prema javnosti, teško pada da rezimira misiju i
odgovornosti FED-a. Prema FED-u: Za postizanje ciljeva, onda i sada,
FED kombinira centralizirana državna tijela putem Upravnog odbora sa zdravom dozom
regionalne samostalnosti rezervi banaka. Treća organizacijska jedinica, Savezni komitet na otvorena tržišta,
spaja obadvije spomenute i tako određuje nacionalnu monetarnu politiku. Na kakav točno način imaginarnih studenata
se usmjerava ovo ekonomsko frfljanje? Jednostavna istina – skrivena iza trikova
ekonomskog žargona i magistralnih titula – je, da je bankarski kartel osvojio monopol nad
najvažnijim dobrom našeg cjelokupnog gospodarstva: Novcem. Nas su učili da novac gledamo kao
komad papira, koji tiska vlada, ili kao kovanice iskovane od
strane državnih nadležnih ustanova. To je dijelom istina, ali danas, novčanice
i kovanice, koje su u opticaju prezentiraju samo mali dio mase novca u opticaju. Preko 90% mase novca je u stvari kredit,
koji se mora vratiti uz kamate,
a u opticaj ga puštaju privatne banke. Iako ovu jednostavnu činjenicu čarobnjaci
sa Wall Streeta i bogovi novca sakrivaju, jer oni žele učiniti proces stvaranja
novca nekom posebnom umjetnosti alkemije,
pažljivo nadgledane od strane vlade, istina nije sakrivena od javnosti. U prosincu 1977., Federal Reserve Bank of New York
objavljuje jedan od svojih zaglupljujućih, komičnih pamfleta za javnost i pokušava objasniti funkcije
sustava Federalnih rezervi. Tamo se – crno na bijelom – oprezno
objašnjava proces nastanka novca: "Poslovne banke stvaraju depozitni
novac odobravanjem kredita," "kod toga se jednostavno dolar pripisuje kontu dužnika,
kao razmjena za obavezu vraćanja kredita." "Banke stvaraju novac "monetizacijom"
privatnih dugova tvrtki i pojedinaca." To je to, oni stvaraju novac u
protuvrijednosti preuzetih obveza otplate. Tamo stoji, rečeno jednostavnim jezikom:
Veliki dio količine novca u gospodarstvu, je "depozitni novac", što vidimo na izvodima banke,
koji mi transferiramo ili alektronski uplaćujemo, a nije ga stvorila vladina tiskara,
nego su ga stvorile banke. On je stvoren iz ničega, kao dug i dug se mora
vratiti banci koja ga je stvorila, sa kamatama. To znači da bankovni krediti nisu iz
depozita drugih bankovnih klijenata, nego je novi novac jednostavno čarobno prizvan
u postojanje i stavljen na vaš konto. I tako je banka u mogućnosti stvoriti mnogo više novca,
nego što ima gotovinskih depozita na kontima kojima upravlja. FED tvrdi da je subjekt za nadzor
i sigurnosni savjet za bankarstvo. On je bio osnovan na osnovu
svoje vlastite propagande da bi se izbjegla situacija kao panika iz 1907. Tijekom gotovo cijelog 19. stoljeća, svaka
organizacija je mogla proizvesti svoj vlastiti novac. To je rezultiralo time da su neke države,
banke, pa čak i apotekari izdavali novac. U stvari kratko vrijeme je postojalo
30.000 raznih valuta u opticaju. Pretpostavite si tu zbunjenost.
Nije bilo samo to mnoštvo valuta, neke su se mogle zamijeniti za zlato i srebro,
neke su bile osigurane obvezom plaćanja regionalne države. Za ljude nije bilo neobično da izgube povjerenje
u svoju valutu i u cjelokupni financijski sustav. Kad su ljudi odjednom htjeli
podići sav svoj novac, moglo se dogoditi, da banke ne mogu
isplatiti sve klijente. Kad bi zalihe gotovine došle do kraja, banke bi
obustavile isplatu, ili jednostavno zatvorile. Ljudi gube cijelu svoju ušteđevinu,
a regionalno gospodarstvo trpi. Očito se moralo nešto učiniti.
I to se dogodilo 1913. godine. Te godine predsjednik Woodrow Wilson je potpisao
takozvani Zakon o Federalnim rezervama. Ovaj zakon je stvorio sustav Federalnih rezervi,
da bi održao siguran i stabilan monetarni i bankarski sustav. Ali ako je to doista bio njegov cilj,
onda je to očigledno propalo, jer je u 20-tim godinama – desetljeće nakon osnivanja –
to dovelo do najvećeg mjehura u američkoj povijesti. Pucanje tog mjehura je izravno
dovelo do "Velike depresije", najdužeg razdoblja masovnog siromaštva
u američkoj povijesti. Ekonomisti su dugo zastupali tvrdnju,
da je FED sam bio uzročnik depresije, jer je u potpunosti zakazao
u upravljanju ponude novca. Kao bivši predsjednik Federalnih rezervi,
Ben Bernanke, je priznao u govoru povodom
90. rođendana FED-ovog kritičara Miltona Friedmana: "Što se tiče velike depresije, bili ste u pravu.
Mi smo to učinili i zbog toga nam je jako žao." "Ali zahvaljujući vama
nećemo to više učiniti." "Stabilnost cijena" je daljnji često
citirani zadatak Federalnih rezervi. Ali i u ovom pitanju FED je u potpunosti
zakazao zbog svojih vlastitih standarda: "Osim bankarskog sustava, Federalne rezerve
imaju još jednu odgovornost, koja je možda još važnija." "One su odgovorne za još nešto
što se zove "Monetarna politika"." To u biti znači da cijene ostaju stabilne
da bi se izbjegla inflacija. Recimo da danas kupite jedan CD za 14$. Ali što se događa, ako cijena ovog CD,
slijedeće godine skoči na 20$, ili čak na 50$, ne zbog promijene ponude i potražnje,
nego zbog porasta cijena. To je inflacija.
Postoji mnogo različitih uzroka inflacije, ali najvažnija je previše novca u opticaju. FED može regulirati ponudu novca
uvođenjem sustava elektroničkog novca, ili povlačenjem novca iz gospodarstva. Razmislite o tome: Federalne rezerve imaju
mogućnost stvoriti novac, ili učiniti da nestane. Ali najvažniji je rezultat. Wann immer die die Geldversorgung geändert wird,
sind die Effekte davon in der Wirtschaft spürbar. FED-ove metode su se promijenile tijekom vremena,
koristeći najnovije kompjutere i elektroniku, ali misija ostaje ista: Stabilne cijene,
puna zaposlenost i rastuće gospodarstvo. "Prije sto godina, 1913., osnovan je FED
i mi smo tu godinu markirali vertikalnom linijom." "Danas su potrošačke cijene 30 puta veće,
nego u godini osnivanja FED-a." I opticaj novca je u odgovornosti FED-a. Zbog toga dolarske novčanice u opticaju nisu
državne obveznice, ni kreditna sekuritizacija, nego banknote Federalnih rezervi, bazirane na dugu,
koje su osigurane konačnim, budućim vladinim obećanjem plaćanja, "državne obveznice", koje su osigurane
samim poreznim obvezicima. U jednom trenutku su banke Federalnih
rezervi zakonom zaustavljene držati velike zalihe zlata,
kao osiguranje zaliha banknota, ali taj zahtjev je napušten i danas su banknote
najviše osigurane državnim garancijama. FED u svojim knjigama više
ne prikazuje zalihe zlata, ali prikazuje "zlatne certifikate", koje izdaje
ministarstvo financija, a koji ne odgovaraju
trenutnoj tržišnoj vrijednosti od 1300 $ po unci zlata, nego po jednoj samovoljnoj i fiksnoj
"zakonskoj cijeni", od 42,22$ po unci. Moram postaviti jedno pitanje:
Tijekom krize 2008. godine,
ili u bilo koje vrijeme koje je vam je poznato, jesu li Federalne rezerve, ili ministarstvo financija,
učestvovali u poslovima razmjene zlata? Federalne rezerve uopće ne posjeduju zlato. Od 1934. mi više ne posjedujemo zlato, dakle
nismo učestvovali u poslovima razmjene zlata. Ali zlato je prikazano u vašim knjigama
prikazali kao zlatne zalihe. Ono što je prikazano u knjigama
su zlatni certifikati. Kad smo se okrenuli… prije 1934.,
posjedovali smo… ,
Federalne rezerve su posjedovale zlato. Mi smo zlato predali, kao što je to zakon predvidio,
ministarstvu financija, a kao protuvrijednost
smo dobili zlatne certifikate. Kad je u međuvremenu došlo ministarstvo financija…
jer pod promjenom stabilnosti tečaja ja bih pretpostavio, da vi vjerojatno
imate zakonske ovlasti da to provedete…
vi tada niste bili u mogućnosti to učiniti, jer ste vi odgovarali za sigurnost svog zlata? Ne, mi nismo zainteresirani za zlato
u vlasništvu ministarstva financija. Mi jednostavno imamo knjigovodstveni dokument,
koji je nazvan zlatni certifikat koji predstavlja vrijednost po zakonskoj stopi,
koji je izdalo ministarstvo financija 1934. godine. A po tome je zlato još uvijek procijenjeno
sa 42 dolara po unci što nema smisla. Jasno je da postoji raskorak između onoga
što smo mi vjerujemo da bi FED trebao raditi i onoga što FED stvarno radi. Da bi se razumjelo ono što
FED zaista namjerava raditi, je prije svega važno razumjeti,
da Federalne rezerve nisu banka
u doslovnom smislu, nego je to sustav. Ovaj sustav utvrđuje, institucionalizira,
nadgleda i podređuje sebi oblik bankarstva
pod nazivom frakcijsko rezervno bankarstvo, u kojem je bankama dozvoljeno da puste u
opticaj više novca, nego što imaju u trezorima. Proces propadanja i korupcije počinje s nečim
što se zove "frakcijsko rezervno bankarstvo". To je tehnički stručni pojam za to.
A što to stvarno znači, je da se sa razvojem bankarstva tijekom
stoljeća, što je naravno počelo u Europi, razvilo legaliziranje neistinite
knjigovodstvene procedure. Grugim riječima, na samom početku,
ako se stvarno želite vratiti na početak, ljudi su donosili zlato i srebro
u baknu da bi ga tamo držali ba sigurnom. Rekli su "Dajte nam priznanicu, mi ne želimo
zlato ili srebro držati kod sebe," "netko može provaliti u sred noći
i prijetiti nam ili nas ubiti" "i onda nam otmu zalato i srebro.
Dakle ne možemo ga sami čuvati i donosimo ga u banku" "i ostavljamo ga da ga banka
čuva i trebamo priznanicu," "tako da možemo doći do svog
zlata u svako doba." Tako je u početku novac bio priznanica banke. Tada su kao sredstvo plaćanja koristili
priznanice, a ne zlatni novac. Ljudi su akceptirali priznanice isto kao zlato,
jer su znali da je 'iza' priznanica bilo zlato. I tako su priznanice u opticaju bile
prvi primjer papirnog novca. Banke su u ovoj igri vrlo rano shvatile
da sjede na velikoj količini zlata, a sve priznanice su bile u opticaju.
Ljudi su rijetko dolazili razmjenjivati priznanice, samo vrlo malo ljudi je dolazilo,
možda 5%, možda 7%, mijenjati priznanice za zlato. Tako su banke mislile "Ah ha! Zašto ne bi
izdali više priznanica, nego što imamo zlata? Oni to neće nikada saznati, jer u najgorem
slučaju će doći 7% ljudi i zahtjevati svoje zlato. Tako možemo izdati više priznanica,
nego što imamo zlata. I možemo na njih zahtjevati kamate,
jer mi to posuđujemo gospodarstvu. Mi ćemo obračunati kamate na novac,
koji u stvari nemamo. I to je dobar trik, zar ne?
A svi bankari: "Da, odličan!" I to je početak sustava
frakcionalnih rezervi. I sada je to institucionalizirano
i oni to podučavaju u školi. Nitko nikada nije postavio
pitanje integriteta ili morala. Oni kažu "Tako funkcionira bankarstvo
i nije li prekrasno, da mi sada imamo" "tu fleksibilnu valutu i to
blagostanje i sve te stvari." To dakle počinje sa konceptom
sustava frakcionalnih rezervi. Problem kod toga je da to
funkcionira većinu vremena. Ali tu i tamo dolazi do
nekoliko manjih valova, koji su malo veći od ostalih valova.
Možda je jedan od njih pravi val, kada dođe više od 7% ljudi
i pitaju za svoje zlato. Možda 20%, ili 30% ljudi. Sada su banke neugodnoj situaciji,
jer je otkrivena prijevara. Tada banke kažu: "Eh, mi nemamo vaše zlato."
– "Što to znači, vi nemate naše zlato!!" "Ja sam vam ga dao na čuvanje,
a vi ste obećali da ćete ga čuvati." "Pa, mi ga nemamo,
jer smo ga posudili kao kredit." Onda se to pročuje i sada stvarno svi dolaze
u banku i naprave kolonu, kako bi podigli zlato. I naravno one ga nemaju, banke su
zatvorene i imaju praznike. Banke su u neugodnoj situaciji,
ljudi gube svoju ušteđevinu. Onda imate te strašne propasti banaka,
koje su prije toga harale širom svijeta. I to je ono što zabrinjava američki narod. Ljudi to više ne žele.
Oni žele da se to završi. A, navodno, cijela svrha sustava
Federalnih rezervi, je bila da se to zaustavi. Ali budući da su ljudi, koji su krizu izazvali,
bili također oni, koji su sustav projektirali, ne možete biti iznenađeni njihovim rješenjem, oni u svakom slučaju – što se tiče
američkih građana – nisu bili dobri. Njihovo rješenje je predviđalo proširenje.
Ne to kontrolirati, nego ga proširiti. Vidite, prije su se ove male igre "frakcionalnih rezervi"
odvijale na razini saveznih država. Svaka savezna država je upravljala svojim
malim sustavom frakcionalnih rezervi. Svaka savezna država je imala svoje
vlastite Federalne rezerve. Središnje banke su na osnovu lokalnih
propisa ovlaštene za te stvari. I to je prouzrikovalo ovaj problem.
Onda bi došle Federalne rezerve i rekle: "Ne, ne, mi to više nećemo obavljati na lokalnoj
razini, jer je to prouzrokovalo sve te probleme." "Mi ćemo to sastaviti zajedno i
obavljati na nacionalnoj razini." Ključ ovog sustava je naravno pitanje
tko regulira ovu nevjerojatnu moć,
koja kontrolira gospodarstvo, time što utvrđuje
frakcionalne rezerve i kamate. Odgovor na ovo pitanje je
također namjerno prikriven. Sustav federalnih rezervi je namjerno
zbunjujuća mješavina javnih i privatnih interesa, središnjih banaka banke, odbora i uprava,
centraliziranih u Washingtonu i raširenih širom SAD-a. Dakle, imate kontrolni savjet Federalnih
rezervi u Washingtonu koji imenuje predsjednik. To je jedini dio sustava,
koji je pod izravnim utjecajem vlade, to je "javni" dio, u koji vlada,
posebno predsjednik, imenuju
nekoliko odabranih direktora. Dvanaest regionalnih banaka, od kojih je
najutjecajnija Federal Reserve Bank of New York, čije je sjedište na Wall Streetu,
da bi reprezentirala Wall Street, ona zastupa velike banke Wall Streeta,
koja posjeduje udjele privatno, ne federalno, nego privatno
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Sve ostale regionalne banke
su isto tako privatne banke. One se razlikuju po tome, koliko
utjecaja mogu unovčiti;
na primjer Kansas City FED je jako utjecajan, isto tako St. Louis FED, Dallas FED;
ali New York FED je stvarni centar ovog sustava, upravo zato jer zastupa banke Wall Streeta,
koje opet imenuju vodstvo New York FED-a. Tako da New York FED ima puno javne moći,
ali ne i javnu odgovornost ili nadzor. On ne odgovara Kongresu na način na koji
to čini predsjednik Odbora federalnih rezervi, guverneri, pa čak ni sam predsjednik
odbora Federalnih rezervi, kojeg imenuje predsjednik SAD-a,
ne obavještava predsjedika ni Kongres. On odlazi u Kongresu da bi nešto posvjedočio,
ali postavljena politika je samostalna. Dakle, ne postoje nalozi iz vlade. Vlada im ne može dati nikakve
pravne savjete i ona to i ne čini. Mislite li da bi uzrokovalo probleme za FED,
ili za gospodarstvo ako ti propisi prođu? Moja zabrinutost zbog zakona je
da ako Government Accountability Office revidira ne samo operativne aspekte
naših programa i pojedinosti programa, nego donese prosudbu o našim strateškim odlukama,
što bi bilo preuzimanje monetarne politike od strane Kongresa, nepriznavanje nezavisnosti Federalnih rezervi,
što bi imalo vrlo razoran učinak na stabilnost financijskog sustava, dolara
i naše gospodarske situacije. Federal Open Market Committee je
odgovoran za određivanje kamatne stope. Ovaj odbor, koji je nevjerojatno moćan,
ima za članstvo guvernera i
potpredsjednika Uprave federalnih rezervi, a većina članova Federal Open Market Committee-a,
su predsjednici regionalnih FED-ova, koji zastupaju privatne interese.
Oni imaju značajan utjecaj na određivanje kamatnih stopa. Kamatnu stopu ne određuje suverena instanca,
nego privatni financijski i poduzetnički krugovi. I naravno one služe ovim krugovima. Razlog zbog kojeg Federalne reserve idu tako daleko,
kako bi učinile svoju organizacijsku strukturu konfuznom što je više moguće, je prikriti masivne
sukobe interesa, koji su u središtu tog sustava. Činjenica je da se sustav Federalnih
rezervi sastoji od Odbora guvernera, 12 regionalnih banaka i jednog
Federal Open Market Committee-a. Regionalne banke Federalnih rezervi u privatnom vlasištvu,
biraju većinu direktora regionalnih banaka Federalnih rezervi, a direktori biraju članove Federal Open Market
Committee-a, koji onda određuje monetarnu politiku. Čak štoviše, Wall Street ima
privilegirano mjesto za stolom, sa tradicijom da drži predsjednika
moćnog New York FED-a, s time da je on zamjenik predsjednika Federal
Open Market Committee-a i stalni član povjerenstva. U stvari, privatne banke su
ključne odrednice u sastavu FOMC-a, koji regulira cjelokupno gospodarstvo. Prema FED-u, "odluke o monetarnoj politici
ne mora odobriti predsjednik," "ili bilo tko drugi u izvršnoj,
ili zakonodavnoj grani vlasti," "jer to ne sadrži sredstava
uz odobrenje Kongresa," "a uvjeti članova Upravnog odbora obuhvaćaju
više predsjedničke i kongresne uvjete." Ili riječima Alana Greenspana: "Kako bi trebao izgledati korektan odnos između
predsjednika Federalnih rezervi i predsjednika SAD-a?" "Pa, prije svega, Federalne rezerve su
neovisna institucija, a to znači," "da ne postoji druga vladina agencija,
koja može spriječiti radnje koje poduzimamo." FED ide dalje u svojoj samo-mitologizaciji
kad kaže da on "nije privatna profitna institucija". Ovaj opis je u najboljem slučaju neiskren,
a u najgorem slučaju potpuna laž. Regionalne banke su privatna poduzeća,
kako navodi presuda Saveznog suda iz 1928. godine: "Posrednici kao što su središnje banke,
ili regionalne banke Federalnih rezervi," "kojima dominiraju privatne investicije,
nisu dijelovi vlade." "Oni su privatne korporacije
u kojima država ima učešće." Ovu činjenicu je čak priznala
viša savjetnica Federalnih rezervi. Naši propisi određuju samo uvjetne
okvire kreditnog poslovanja, ali svakodnevno poslovanje obavljaju
regionalne banke Federalnih rezervi. To su banke i sigurno izdaju kredite. Dakle, one su same agencija,
u biti, u tom pogledu. One nisu agencije, časni sude, one su "osobe",
u smislu "Zakona o slobodi informacija". Dionice svake banke Federalnih rezervi
su 100% u privatnom vlasništvu banaka članica, to su privatni odbori direktora. Većinu mjesta
u nadzornim odborima postavljaju nezavisne banake, to su privatne banke iz okruga.
To nisu agencije. Ove privatne tvrtke emitiraju dionice iz
portfelja banaka članica i time sustav određuje da su tako banke vlasnici Federalnih rezervi. Čak i ako se dobit FED-a prenosi
svake godine na ministarstvo financija, privatne banke zadržavaju kao dioničari FED-a,
dividendu (na svoj dio) od 6% godišnje. Prema FED-u, fiksni karakter tih vraćanja pokazuje,
da on to ne radi za profit. Bez obzira na neiskren sadržaj ovog opisa,
važno je da se razumije, da bankari, koji posjeduju Federalne rezerve,
svoj novac stvarno "ne prave" sa FED-om. Umjesto toga, prednosti su mnogo
manje očite i mnogo lukavije. Najjednostavniji način da se to može
shvatiti je jedno stoljeće povijesti i specifičan primjer posljednje
financijske krize iz 2008. godine, da je FED korišten kao sredstvo za operacije
spašavanja tih banaka, koje su su dioničari FED-a. To u jednom od najočitijih fašističkih dosluha,
koji se može samo zamisliti. Nekoliko financijskih institucija se obogatilo
kao posljedica institucionalnih špekulacija, u velikom stilu i isto tako manipuliralo tržišta. A onda su oni otišli u vladu i konstatirali: "Eh, mi smo u vrlo teškoj situaciji
i morate nam nešto posuditi…" "morate nam dati novac, tako da možemo
ponovo uspostaviti stabilnost financijskog sustava." A tko stvarno posuđuje novac,
ili trguje javnim dugovima? Iste financijske institucije, koje su
također primatelji mjera spašavanja. I tako imaš pred sobom ponavljajući
proces. To je začarani krug. Ti posuđuješ novac… Ne, ti daješ novac
velikim financijskim institucijama, a to zatim dovodi do gomilanja
javnog duga u rasponu od bilijuna. I onda kažeš financijskim institucijama: "Moramo izdati nova trezorska
uputstva i državne obveznice itd.," koje će naravno biti prodane javnosti, ali oni su uvijek
zastupani financijskim institucijama koje uspostavljaju da bi dokazali svoju korisnost i tako dalje. I te financijske institucije će
možda kupiti dijelove javnog duga, tako da vlada na kraju plati njihove
vlastite dugove sa tim mjerama spašavanja. Vlada daje novac bankama, koji je nastao
vlastitim zaduživanjem kod tih banaka, onda vlada kaže: "Sada se moramo jako zadužiti.
Da li bi nam mogli pomoći?" Banke odgovaraju:
"Pa, vaše bilance nisu sasvim čiste." Vlada odvrati: "Naravno da bilance nisu OK, jer smo
vam upravo uplatili 1,4 bilijuna dolara kao mjere spašavanja" "i sada smo u teškoj situaciji." Dakle, moramo posuditi novac od istih ljudi,
koji su upravo bili primatelji mjera spašavanja. O tome se danas stvarno radi.
Radi se o ponavljajućem procesu. Financijska kriza iz 2008. i mjere spašavanja,
koje su slijedile, su samo besramni
primjeri temeljnog sukoba interesa u jezgri američkog sustava
privatnih središnjih banaka. Počevši sa propasti Lehman Bros. banke,
u rujnu iste godine, Federalne rezerve su otvorile put za do
tada neviđene programe mjera spašavanja
i posebnih instrumenata nula-kamata, za spašavanje istih banaka, koje su
odgovorne za slom u području nekvalitetnih kredita. Sa kartelizaciju strukture Federalnih
rezervi, a stoga nije slučajno, to su bili upravo menadžeri banaka,
koji su nadzirali kreditnu politiku svojih banaka, koji su završavali na direktorskim pozicijama
banaka Federalnih rezervi, koji su glasali o tome
gdje usmjeriti bilijune dolara novca za spašavanje. I – što stvarno nije iznenađujuće –
oni su pomoć usmjeravali na svoje vlastite banke. Zaoanjujujće izvješće istrage vladinog Accountability Offica,
iz 2011.godine, navodi objekte spašavanja
u ukupnoj vrijednosti od 16 bilijuna $, koje je FED proširio na početku krize,
pokazuje veliki broj primjera jasnih sukoba interesa. Jeffrey Immelt, direktor General Electrica, je služio kao direktor Federalnih
rezervi Bank of New York u isto vrijeme kad je FED stavio na raspolaganje
16 milijardi $ za financiranje General Electrica. Izvršni direktor JP Morgan Chasa, Jamie Dimon,
je u isto vrijeme bio član upravnog odbora New York FED-a, kad je njegovoj banci odobren hitni
kredit od 391 milijun dolara. Sve u svemu, članovi nadzornih odbora
Federalnih rezervi su dali četiri
bilijuna dolara svojim vlastitim bankama. Ta sredstva nisu korištena samo da bi
se te banke održale na površini, nego da bi usko "spojene" banke sa FED-om,
dovela do razdoblja rekordne zarade; razdoblja koje je u isto vrijeme dovelo
do smanjenja plaća prosječnih radnika, a zaustavilo gospodarstvo za ostatak društva. Ben Bernanke, u to vrijeme predsjedavajući
nadzornog odbora Federalnih rezervi, je bio suočen sa sukobom interesa
prema izvješću suda u lipnju 2012.,
od senatora Bernie Sandersa. Senatore, vi ste pokrenuli važnu točku, a to je
da to nije nešto što su stvorile Federalne rezerve. To je u statutu. Kongres je to rekao
u zakonu o Federalnim rezervama:
To je upravljanje Federalnim rezervama. Točnije rečeno, to će biti
bankari u nadzornom odboru. "6 od 9 mjesta".
Ben Bernanke: "Molim?" "6 od 9 mjesta u odgovarajućim odborima
regionalnih banaka za banke članice." "To je točno. I to je po zakonu. Ja ću ipak odgovoriti na vaše pitanje.
Odgovor na vaše pitanje je,
da je to postavio Kongres. Mislim da smo to upotrijebili
u nešto korisno i vrijedno. Mi iz toga izvlačimo naše informacije.
Ali ako to Kongres želi promijeniti, mi ćemo naravno s njima
surađivati i naći alternativu. Bernanke je potpuno u pravu.
Ovi sukobi su u stvari dio same institucije. Strukturalno svojstvo FED-a, koje je
stvoreno Zakonom o Federalnim rezervama, prije više od 100 godina od bankara, koji se se
urotili da karteliziraju ponudu novca nacije. Ne možete tražiti više sažet razlog
zašto same Federalne rezerve, ovaj priznati kartel bankarskih interesa,
mora biti ukinut. Ali bi mogao postojati jedan. Treći dio
Kraj Federalnih rezervi "Oni koji kontroliraju kreditiranje
nacije, određuju politiku vlade" "i drže sudbinu naroda u svojim rukama."
Reginald McKenna Mi sada znamo da se američko stanovništvo
već stoljećima nalazi u ratu
sa internacionalnom bankarskom oligarhijom. Ovaj rat je bio izgubljen, naizgled zauvijek,
kada su 1913. godine uvedene Federalne rezerve. Stupanjem na snagu zakona o Federalnim rezervama, predsjednik Woodrow Wilson je uveo američko
stanovništvo u stoljeće, u kojem je ponuda novca ovisila o hirovima bankarskih gangstera. Stoljeće poleta i ekonomskih kriza,
špekulativnih mjehurića i depresija, što je rezultiralo potpunom preraspodjelom bogatstva,
prema onima koji su na apsolutnom vrhu sustava. Na dnu su se mase mučile u relativnom siromaštvu. Iz nužde, kućanstva s jednim dohotkom
postaju kućanstva sa dva dohotka, čija je kvaliteta života erodirala,
kad su note Federalnih rezervi, koje prolaze za dolare i same devalvirale. Što je još gore, da je ta prijevara ažurirana
od ??Alexandera Hamiltona, da je državni dug uopće potreban. Sjedinjene države su sada zatvorene u sustavu,
u kojem vlada mora izdati državne obveznice,
da bi dobila sredstva za svoje programe, državne obveznice, koje su osigurane
radom vlastite javnosti. Dok glavni počinitelji ove
prijevare ostaju u sjeni, u velikoj mjeri ignorirani od opće javnosti,
koja bi odmah prepoznala najnoviju
holivudsku zvijezdu, ili pop idola, ali nemaju pojma tko je glava Goldman Sachsa,
ili New York FED-a, a kamoli tko su oni. Ovi kriminalci se ne oslanjaju na nacionalnost,
filozofiju, vjerovanje, ili moralni kodeks. Oni čak nisu motivirani pohlepom, nego moći. Moć koju kontrola nad ponudom
novca neminovno donosi sa sobom. Ako jedan čovjek ima sav novac na svijetu
i može kupiti sve, što još može poželjeti? Što bi po tvom mišljenju još preostalo?
Odgovor je naravno: Moć. Moć nad ljudima. Novac je danas moć nad ljudima,
ali postoji druga moć nad ljudima. A to je politička moć, društvena moć. I ja mislim da je to dominantna
pokretačka snaga ovih ljudi. Oni već imaju novac koji se čuva na sigurnom.
Sada oni teže "Novom svjetskom poretku". To se tako zove. Oni žele svijet kao jednu
političku jedinicu, kojom će moći dominirati. Ne samo novcem, nego vojnim nasiljem
i psihološkim sredstvima. Obrazovanje i medijska propaganda. Oni hoće
totalnu kontrolu nad svakim čovjekom na ovoj planeti. I do vraga! Oni se kreću vrlo brzo u tom smjeru. Nije prošlo puno vremena da se oformi
glava za ovu pohlepu za moći. 1921. godine, samo sedam godina
nakon što je FED počeo s radom, isti J.P. Morgan, povezan sa bankarskom elitom,
koja je osnovala Federalne rezerve, osniva organizaciju pod imenom
"Vijeće za vanjske odnose" (CFR), sa ciljem preuzimanja poslova vanjske politike
SAD-a, uključujući i State Department. U tom pogledu
CFR je iznimno uspješan. Iako danas u ovoj organizaciji
postoji samo oko 4.000 članova, nekad je bilo 21 ministara obrane,
18 ministara financija, 18 ministara vanjskih poslova, 16 direktora CIA-e i mnogo drugih visokih
vladinih dužnosnika, vojnih časnika, poslovne
elite i naravno članova kolegija bankara. Prvi direktor CFR-a je bio John W. Davis, odvjetnik J.P. Morgana i njegov
povjerljiv čovjek i sam milijunaš. Zajedno sa svojim sestrinskim organizacijama u
Velikoj Britaniji, Chatham House i drugima u svijetu, ove grupe su radile na nečemu,
što oni zonu "Novi svjetski poredak", jednom poretku totalne financijske i političke
kontrole, pod vodstvom banaka. Kao što je to opisao u svom radu iz 1966.,
Carroll Quigley, poznati povjesničar na
Sveučilištu Georgetown i pristalica Billa Clintona, "Tragedija i nada – Povijest
svijeta iz današnje perspektive": "Snage financijskog kapitalizma
imaju jedan dugoročni cilj," "gdje one predviđaju ništa manje od svjetskog
sustava financijske kontrole u privatnim rukama," "u kojem su one u stanju kontrolirati politički
sustav svake zemlje i gospodarstva kao cijelinu." "Ovaj sustav bi trebale kontrolirati,
na feudalan način, središnje banake
u svijetu koje djeluju zajednički," "a to bi postigle tajnim ugovorima, na
redovitim privatnim sastancima i konferencijama." "Na vrhu sustava je Banka za međunarodna
poravnanja u Baselu u Švicarskoj," "privatna banka u vlasništvu i pod kontrolom
svjetskih središnjih banaka,
koje su i same privatne korporacije." To je razlog zašto su se bankari i
njihovi partneri u vlasti i biznisu,
urotili da dovedu do krize 2008. godine. Ne zbog novca, nego zbog više moći. Na isti način kako su bankari koristili paniku
iz 1907., za jačanje kontrole nad opskrbom novca, oni su se nadali iskoristiti krizu 2008. i
naknadne posljedice, koje su sami stvorili, da učvrste svoju političku kontrolu. "Krizni vrh je produžen sa G7 na G20," "jer vodeće industrijske zemlje
nisu mogle same riješiti krizu." "Ovo proširenje sastanaka dovodi do pitanja,
treba li stvoriti novi svjetski financijski sustav." "Je li to sada Novi svjetski poredak,
koji je Gordon Brown htio izbjeći?" Britanski premijer Gordon Brown je
na sastanku naveo vodeća načela, to su: transparentnost, stabilno bankarstvo,
odgovornost, integritet i – !Pažnja! – globalno vodstvo. Mislim da će Novi svjetski poredak
doći i sa njim osnove za progresivno
doba međunarodne suradnje. Neizbježan zaključak, koji danas proizlazi
iz stvarnog razumijevanja situacije, je da sustav Federalnih rezervi treba
završiti u kanti za smeće povijesti. Nakon stoljeća ropstva, vrijeme je za američku
javnost da konačno skine lance duga bankarima. Ako je ikada postojao trenutak u ljudskoj povijesti,
da se pokrene pitanje alternative, to bi bilo sada. Razmišljati o tome gdje smo
sada je već najbolji izbor. A misliti gdje smo… i jednostavno reći: "O, pa to je
najbolja od naših opcija". Koliko je najboljih opcija
dovelo do samouništenja? To ne izgleda najbolja opcija. Mislim da u svijetu sa sedam milijardi ljudi,
vjerojatno možemo smisliti nešto bolje, nego sustav u kojem manjina tako
jako profitira na račun većine. I to na štetu moguće budućnosti čovječanstva.
Oni koriste našu budućnost u svoju korist. I tako dugo dok mi akceptiramo ovo mišljenje,
tako dugo dok mi akceptiramo ove institucije,
tako dugo ćemo zadržati ovu dominaciju. To je pravac u kojem moramo ići. Reforma bi
bila dobar put za ovo ugušiti i uzvratiti udarac, izravno protiv širenja i
razvoja ovih struktura moći, ali stvarno je potrebna radikalna promjena,
a ona bi trebala krenuti odozdo. Ali mislim da ta dva procesa mogu
i trebaju koegzistirati paralelno. Ako ste uspjeli tako daleko, čestitam! Sada ste bolje informirani o
gospodarskoj povijesti SAD-a i istini o Federalnim rezervama,
nego 99% stanovništva. Ako ne radite ništa drugo nego dalje širite
ovaj materijal, to već ima veliki učinak. Kada je prijevara jednom otkrivena, mnogi su
motivirani nešto učiniti i šire to dalje. To je virusna priroda potisnute istine
i razlog da je više ljudi svjesno i naelektrizirano temom Federalne rezerve
i prirodom novca, nego ikada prije. Možda je čak i više iznenađujuće, da se ovaj
pokret širi na druge dijelove svijeta. Prepoznavanje isprepletenosti prirode
moderne globalne ekonomije i
međunarodne prirode bankarske oligarhije, pokreti za ukidanje FED-a, su nikli u Europi, gdje se protesti protiv kartela središnjih banaka, održavaju u više od 100 gradova,
sa preko 20.000 učesnika. Ja sam osnovao ovaj pokret, jer sam shvatio,
da je zakon o Fedralnim rezervama, po mom mišljenju, jedan od najgorih zakona u cijelom svijetu. Jedna privatna banka posuđuje Americi novac,
a to, po mom mišljenju, više nije demokratski. FED govori vladi što da učini, a to je problem. To je problem posebno u Sjedinjenim državama. Zašto je to globalna tema i zašto se
ljudi u Njemačkoj opterećuju s tim? Kad shvatite da je financijski
sustav globalni sustav, onda morate ići na sami početak tog sustava. A, po mom mišljenju, radi se o Svjetskoj banci
i Međunarodnom monetarnom fondi (IMF) i takvim stvarima, ali početak je taj zakon iz 1913. godine. Woodrow Wilson je to potpisao i to je početak
"hardcore" kapitalizma, pod kojim mi sada patimo. A jedini način da se to spriječi,
je možda ukinuti taj zakon. Ali što će se dogoditi ako ti rastući pokreti,
koji žele ukinuti FED, budu uspješni? Kakav sustav će ti ljudi
predložiti kao odgovor? Postoje razni prijedlozi s različitim
konceptima od raznih istraživača. Neki propagiraju na američke kolonijalne korijene
sa novcem bez duga, koji izdaju državne organizirae banke i upućuju na Bank of North Dakota (BND),
koja već uspješno funkcionira. Mi smo imali od 1860-tih godina
dva bankarska sustava, državnu banku
i regionalne banke Federalnih rezervi. Sustav banaka Federalnih rezervi
se sastoji posebno od banaka velikog Wall Streeta.
One dominiraju sustavom Federalnih rezervi. One su ovdje odlučujuće. U Kaliforniji,
na primjer, nemamo više lokalnih banaka. Imali smo dvije i ja sam
imala konta kod obadvije, a sada je jedna Chase Manhattan Bank,
a druga je U.S. Bank. Dakle, one su obadvije velike
Wall Street banke, koje su preuzele. Dakle, lokalne banke imaju interes
ulagati u lokalne tvrtke. Velike banke nemaju interesa davati kredite
lokalnim tvrtkama, jer je to riskantno;
zašto bi se opterećivale nepotrebnim problemima. Oni dobiju ovaj virtualni besplatan
novac od FED-a i nekih drugih i to je više isplativo za njih,
tako da mogu špekulirati sirovinama,
ili drugim stvarima u svijetu, ili što je također dobro za njih je
kupovina državnih obveznica, uz 3% kamata, jer ove investicije nemaju
kapitalnih zahtjeva. Kapitalni zahtjevi za državne obveznice su nula.
Možete ih kupiti toliko koliko hoćete. Dok se kod kredita za kupnju
nekretnina i poslovnih kredita morate brinuti o kapitalnim zahtjevima,
dok niste dosegli granicu kapitalnih zahtjeva. Kod zakonski minimalnih kapitalnih zahtjeva,
u visini od 8 dolara, možete izdati samo
kredite u visini od 100 dolara – onda ne možete izdavati daljnje kredite,
jer morate čekati 30 godina
dok kredit ne bude otplaćen. Dakle oni radije kupuju hipoteke
i prodaju ih investitorima i to je cijela prijevara osigurana hipotekama,
koju smo primijetili 2008. godine. Oni nisu bili motivirani
ispitati solventnost dužnika; oni su htjeli samo ostvariti promet.
Tako su prodali hipotekarne sekuritizacije
nepoznatim investitorima, čiji je mirovinski fond bio na Islandu ili Švedskoj. To nije dobro proizašlo. Državna banka s lokalnim bankama
može osigurati kapital. Ona vam može pomoći kapitalom.
U Sjevernoj Dakoti, državna banka
garantira kredite lokalnim bankama, što im dozvoljava izdavati veće kredite,
nego što bi inače mogle. Državna banka osigurava likvidnost malih banaka. Razlog zašto domaće banke ne izdaju
kredite malim poduzećima, je nesigurnost, da li oni uopće mogu
dobiti potreban novac od drugih banaka. Način na koji bankarstvo radi je
da na prvom mjestu izdaju kredite. Znači ako izdaš kredite na više poduzeća, a oni ne mogu otplaćivati rate,
onda ti izgubiš novac. Dakle ti nećeš izdati kredite, osim
ako znaš da ćeš dobiti kratkoročne
kredite od drugih banaka. I tako trenutno imamo prekomjerne
rezerve od 1,6 bilijuna $, koje stoje u knjigama velikih banaka,
a nisu na raspolaganju malim bankama, jer FED garantira 0,25% kamata na ove rezerve. Dakle ne postoji motivacija da se
novac posudi malim bankama. Zašto posuđivati novac,
kad možeš dovoljno zaraditi,
ako zadržiš novac i rezerve, koje držiš kao dodatnu sigurnost,
da bi kupio državne obveznice,
ili nešto što donosi još više? Dakle, cijeli sustav je zabrljao
gore, ali u Sjevernoj Dakoti, Bank of North Dakota osigurava
likvidnost za ove lokalne banke. Drugi zagovaraju decentralizirani sustav
alternativnih i konkurirajućih valuta, koje uvelike smanjuju, ili čak
eliminiraju potrebu središnje banke. Pa, prije 22 godine sam primjetio
u Ithaci u New Yorku, da ima
puno ljudi, posebno prijatelja, koji su imali sposobnosti i vrijeme,
ali nisu bili zaposleni, ili poštovani
od prevladavajućeg gospodarstva. Iako smo imali želju stvarati stvari,
razmjenjivati ih sa drugima i razmjenjivati druge usluge,
ali nismo imali novca. Dakle, budući da poznam grafički
dizajn, novinarstvo i bahatost, koristio sam svoj kompjuter i razvio
papirni novac za Ithacu u New Yorku. Dizajnirao sam novac veselih boja sa
slikama djece, slapovima i kolicima za kupovinu,
a njihova vrijednost je bila izražena radnim vremenom. 1 sat nota, 1/2 sata nota,
8 sati nota i jedna nota od 2 sata. Onda sam počeo ove note izdavati
prvim odvažnijim trgovcima,
koji su pristali biti na listi učesnika. To je bila specifična početna
količina i igra je počela. Jedan sat je odgovarao
protuvrijednosti od cca 10 dolara, što je u to vrijeme, dakle prije 20 godina,
odgovaralo duploj minimalnoj plaći. Ljudi koji su navikli zarađivati ??više
od 10 $ 10 po satu za svoje usluge,
mogu naplatiti više sati za sat, ali nazivna vrijednost, koja je postavljena
između nas kao stanovnika i zajednice, nas podsjeća da smo sugrađani,
a ne samo pobjednici,
ili gubitnici u borbi za dolar. To nas stavlja jedne protiv drugih na
temelju tih vještina i usluga koje imamo, što nas čini ponosnima što smo tu
jedni za druge, nego što bi to ikad
bilo moguće s konvencionalnim poslom. Upravo je to ono da se zaradi
dovoljno novca za plaćanje računa. Dakle, kroz taj proces trgovanja,
dolazi do intimnijih procesa u zajednici, lakše možemo postati prijatelji,
ljubavnici ili politički saveznici. To je inspirirajuća priča. Recite nam
koliko novca je u opticaju u zajednici. Mislim da je važno, da ljudi razumiju,
kako je to do sada bilo uspješno. Budući da nismo sustav baziran na kompjuterima,
nemamo podatke o tome
koliki je točno volumen razmjene, ali prema glasinama, telefonskim anketama
i godišnjim promatranjima kretanja novca, možemo seriozno reći, da je razmjena ekvivalentna
iznosu od više milijuna dolara tijekom godine. Pri tom je izdano beskamatnih kredita
u visini od skoro 30.000 $, što je fundamentalna novčana
revolucija u našem sustavu. Ovi krediti su izdani na više
od sto organizacija zajednice. Neki propagiraju valute čija matematička
priroda ih štiti od toga da budu samo upotrebljene kad jedna vlada opet hoće voditi rat, ili se čini da žele izmisliti daljnju vezu
sa još bezbroj tiranija i zlostavljanja. Ono što ljudi moraju znati o Bitcoinu je,
da je potpuno decentralizirana mreža. Ne postoji središnje računalo,
nema nadzorne tvrtke, nema ureda, to je jednostavno slobodni software,
koji svako može skinuti i bilo gdje
na svijetu instalirati na svoj kompjuter. I Bitcoini se mogu prenijeti,
od bilo koga, bilo gdje na svijetu, i nemoguće je za bilo koju banku,
ili vladu, ili "trećega",
blokirati slanje ili primanje tih Bitcoina. Ponuda Bitcoina je limitirana, neće
postojati nikada više od 21 milijun Bitcoina. Kao i kod svega drugoga, cijena
je određena ponudom i potražnjom. S obzirom da je količina Bitcoina limitirana,
a potražnja za Bitcoinima raste,
sve više i više ljudi to počinje koristiti, a sve više i više web stranica to prihvaća, cijena Bitcoina u smislu
dolara će se morati povećati i to više od 500$, koliko danas
(srpanj, 2014.) vrijedi. Ima li kakvih posljedica za sve od
ideje korištenja kripto-valuta? Ako ste član moćne elite,
koja jednostavno može tiskati novac kad god hoće,
da bi bilo što platila, onda DA, ako svijet prijeđe na Bitcoine,
oni neće profitirati. Ali ako pripadate normalnim ljudima,
koji ne rade za Federalne rezerve, ili bilo koju drugu središnju banku,
koja tiska novac, da bi platila svoje prijatelje i druge stvari, onda je Bitcoin za vas prekrasna stvar. Stabilni novac. Kripto valute. Državne banke. Kružni programmi razmjene.
Osobno izdane pozajmice. Predlažu se ova i mnoga druga riješenja,
a mnoga su već u raznim mjestima u upotrebi. Informacije o svim ovim idejama i kako
se mogu upotrijebiti u raznim dijelovima svijeta,
najvećim dijelom se mogu naći na internetu. U osnovi toga je pitanje, što je novac
i kako bi on trebao biti stvoren, a to je možda najveće pitanje sa
kojim se čovječanstvo konfrontiralo, a ipak je ovo pitanje potpuno nestalo
iz odgovarajućih nacionalnih rasprava… do nedavno. "Kraj FED-a" Spaljivanje pravog papira.
Što je, dovraga! "Kraj FED-a" Još nisam ni stigao na tu temu.
Hoće li to opet učiniti, kada dođem na tu temu? I tako ostatak priče leži u našim rukama. Kad jednom budemo razumjeli
prijevaru, koja se odvija, postupna konsolidacija bogatstva i moći
u rukama nekoliko bankovnih oligarha i rastuće siromaštvo masa, sve u ime bankarskog smiješnog novca,
koji se stvara iz ničega i posuđuju javnosti uz kamate, možemo birati između akcije,
ili ne činiti ništa. Za one, koji se odluče nešto učiniti,
postoji nekoliko koraka, koji mogu pomoći
promijeniti pravac sadašnjeg sustava: 1) Slijedi link i izvore transkripata ove dokumentavije
na stranicama:, da bi saznao više o povijesti, vezama
i zadacima sustava Federalnih rezervi. Ako vi sami sebi ne možete objasniti taj materijal,
nećete moći objasniti ni drugima. 2) Počnite sa time, da pronađete
druge i da se bave ovom problematikom. To može biti jako jednostavno,
da ponedjeljkom u jutro u kuhinji poduzeća podijelite kopije, ili pošaljete
linkove o ovoj dokumentaciji. Uključite ovu temu u vaše rezgovore. Kad ljudi govore o državnim dugovima,
ili stanju gospodarstva, ili drugim političkim temama,
oni pitaju za uzroke tog stanja i zašto uopće postoje državni dugovi. 3) Kada ste u stanju osnovati grupu
istomišljenika u svom području, počnite sa proučavanjem teme
i mogućim rješenjima. Studijska grupa može pomoći oko izvora alternative,
ili uspostavljanja dopunske valute u lokalnom području, ili, ako već ništa od toga, grupa može poslužiti
kao osnova za zajednicu lokalnih tvrtki i kupaca, koji su spremni učestvovati u početku
eksperimentiranja o načinima odvikavanja
od novca Federalnih rezervi. 4) Koristite izvore na stranici:,
tamo ćete naći i letak o Federalnim rezervama, ili održavajte filmske večeri sa predavanjima o ovoj dokumentaciji,
da potaknete interese grupe, ali i drugih,
kako bi se pozabavili ovom tematikom. Izrada alternative postojećem sustavu može
biti zastrašujuća, čak ponekad i neodoljiva. Važno je podsjetiti se, da sustav
Federalnih rezervi, koji danas izgleda tako monolitno, postoji tek 100 godina. Središnje banke su već prije poražene
u Americi i one mogu biti ponovno poražene. Pitanje kako ćemo odlučiti promijeniti
ovaj sustav nije retoričko; odgovor dolazi ili od jednog informiranog,
angažiranog, aktivnog stanovništva, koje surađuje u pronalaženju živuće
alternative i demontaže postojećeg sustava, ili dolazi od iste bankarske oligarhije,
koja je oduvijek kontrolirala opskrbu novcem i time bila generacijama žila kucavica zemlje. Sada, stoljeće nakon stvaranja
sustava Federalnih rezervi, mi moramo izabrati:
Treba li slijedeće stoljeće, biti kao proteklo, stoljeće ropstva, ili ćemo to promijeniti, prosvjetljeni do sada
stečenim znanjem, našim akcijama i odabirom, u stoljeće osnaživanja. Pozdrav, ja sam James Corbbett od,
autor, producent, režiser, komentator i sve drugo, što možete pretpostaviti u ovoj
dokumentaciji, koju ste vidjeli do kraja. Stoljeće ropstva – Povijest Federalnih rezervi. Kao što sam naveo na kraju dokumentarca,
vi ste prešli dugi put, ako ste uspjeli doći dovde, sada ste bolje informirani
o Federalnim rezervama, njihovom porijeklu, kako one rade
i zašto ih treba pobijediti, nego 99% ukupne javnosti. A ako ste uspjeli tako daleko, onda ste
očito jedan od rijetkih revanih i motiviranih, da bi sudjelovali u izlazećem suncu slobodnog čovječanstva,
koje se želi otresti lanca dugova banaka, u Sjedinjenim državama i svuda u svijetu. A ako ste tako motivirani, onda
imam nekoliko "poslastica" za vas. Imam nekoliko materijala,
koje vam želim staviti na srce. Kako sam naveo na kraju dokumentarca,
postoji nekoliko materijala na stranici:, za koje se nadam, da će vam pomoći
u traženju boljih informacija, da bi bolje informirali druge o
sustavu Federalnih rezervi, jer drugima možete objasniti samo onda,
ako to možete objasniti sami sebi. Dakle, mislim da bi se početak traganja
trebao sastojati u tome, da se potrudimo poboljšati naše razumijevanje o sustavu
Federalnih rezervi i njihovom načinu rada i onda proširiti informacije drugima. Još jednom samo na znanje, ako idete na stranicu:, tamo ćete najprije naći ovaj dokumentarac,
koji je naravno 100% na raspolaganju, što vi već znate, jer upravo to
gledate, onda ćete tamo naći linkove za Youtube verzije ovog dokumentarca, ili mp4 verziju sa moje web-stranice,
ali također audio verziju kao mp3 datoteku. Sve ovo je besplatno na raspolaganju za javnost
i ja vas želim ohrabriti, da to podijelite drugima,
ako već sami smatrate da je vrijedno. I ako ste već na stranici:,
nećete naći samo ovaj dokumentarac, nego i potpuni transkript sa linkovima, za sve izvore dokumenata, videa,
članaka i svih drugih informacija,
koje su povezane sa ovim dokumentarcom. Dakle, nadam se, da je ovo za vas vrijedan materijal, za ljude koji žele samostalno sastaviti
materijal na način kako to njima samima čini smisao. To je transparentno,
otkud dolaze sve informacije. Mnogo materijala dolazi
od samih Federalnih rezervi. Nadam se, da su povezani
transkripti vrijedni za ljude vani, za one, koji žele proširiti svoje
razumijevanje za ovu temu. Osim toga tamo ćete naći letak, koji sam sastavio uz pomoć Mika Krentza,
od, grafičkog dizajnera. Mike mi je jako puno pomogao, kao što
možete vidjeti na grafici u dokumentarcu. Budući da nisam ni školovani,
ni samouki grafički dizajner, rado sam prihvatio Mike-ovu
pomoć kod dizajniranja letka. Na ovom letku je istaknuto nekoliko aspekata,
koji su spomenuti u videu,
to su informativni aspekti o Federalnim rezervama, pa čak i male "poslastice" da bi pobudile ljude. Ovaj letak možete skinuti,
tiskati i koristiti kako želite. Dati ljudima na ulici u ruke, koristiti kao
osnovu diskusije, ili prilog jednoj večernjoj prezentaciji. Možete ga također objesiti na
javnim mjestima, naravno ako je dozvoljeno. Još jednom, ovo je sve na
raspolaganju za skidanje i tiskanje, za proširivanje informacija
o sustavu Federalnih rezervi. To je dostupno u boji i crno / bijelo
i trebalo bi također naći mjesta,
bez promjene, na listu A4 formata. To je sve na web stranicama,
dodatno sa jednim DVD-om ovog dokumentarca. Dakle, ako smatrate da su ove informacije vrijedne,
nadam se da ćete ih pokušati proširiti. Mnogi ljudi više vole online linkove,
ali postoji mnogo ljudi,
koji nemaju pristup internetu. Za te ljude i možda i za vas same,
ako to želite, postoji fizička
kopija na DVD-u, koju možete naručiti na stranici:,
za 2.000 Y, što je manje od 15 €. Na žalost, mi smo zarobljeni u ovom sustavu,
baziranom na dugovima, vođenom od banaka i moramo trgovati sa ovom vrstom novca,
da bi zadržali krov nad glavom i imali jelo na stolu. Dakle, vaša podrška je dobro došla. A za ovih 2.000 Y, skoro 15€,
vi dobijete ovaj dokumentarac na DVD-u. DVD 1 sadrži dokumentarac, a DVD 2 puni
jednosatni intervju sa gospodinom Edwardom Griffinom. Mislim, da je to vrijedan materijal za ljude,
koji traže više informacija o sustavu Federalnih rezervi. Dostupan na stranici:,
zajedno sa materijalima, koje smo upravo predstavili, letkom, transkriptima sa online
linkovima i raznim video formatima. Da podsjetim, pokušao sam skratiti temu
koliko je to moguće, a istovremeno
ostati detaljan koliko je to moguće, tako da vi možete početi sa svojim vlastitim istragama
i ključevima ovog sustava, sa kojim smo suočeni. Još jednom, svaki put koji izaberete,
koji daje informacije drugima, je dobrodošao. Ako šaljete linkove, najbolji link je ovaj: Tamo je dokumentarac u Youtube formatu
i datoteke za skinuti (mp4 i mp3), transkript, letak i link gdje se može kupiti DVD.
To sve možete naći na stranici: Ako igdje možete uputiti svoje prijatelje, onda tamo. Dakle, moram vam sada iskazati veliko poštovanje,
da ste si tijekom napornog dana
i svih obaveza, uzeli vremena, pogledati dokumentarac,
da bi naučili i razumjeli materijal i time pomogli proširiti informacije
i druge senzibilizirati, jer je moguće samo zajednički stvoriti pokret, koji se konačno okreće protiv banaka i Federalnih rezervi i pobjeđuje sve slične,
privatno kontrolirane entitete, u cijelom svijetu. Hvala za vaše vrijeme i pažnju. Moje ime je James Corbett, od Preuzeto sa
Preveo proda na nagovor antete
(još sam mu htio platit, al ne želi lovu…
…šta reći, kapa do poda proda).

Nigel Farage Debates Vince Cable For The European Elections 2019

Views:3581|Rating:4.88|View Time:33:17Minutes|Likes:124|Dislikes:3
Become A Patron –
Donations –


Crypto Is The New Currency –


LIVE: MILO & Sargon of Akkad on UKIP, Facebook and more

Views:176118|Rating:4.85|View Time:3:25:59Minutes|Likes:11429|Dislikes:363
Milo and Sargon talk about Sargon’s UKIP candidacy, Milo’s upcoming trip to the UK, the recent Facebook and Instagram bans and Milo’s plans for a new weekly late-night chat show.





Bernhard Brink – Popourri

Views:275|Rating:4.33|View Time:20:38Minutes|Likes:13|Dislikes:2
Bernhard Brink (Mai 1952 in Nordhorn) ist ein deutscher Schlagersänger sowie Fernseh- und Radiomoderator.

Bernhard Brink, 2014
↙Studioalben 25
↙Kompilationen 33
↙Singles 101
↙Videoalben 2
↙Musikvideos 4
↙Weihnachtsalben 1
↙Hörbücher 1


1976 Ich bin noch zu haben
1977 Erinnerungen
1980 Ein Schritt nach vorne
1982 Einfach so
1988 Ich denk an dich
1990 Ich fühle wie du
1991 …Hast du Lust
1995 Ich bin immer da
1997 Mitten im Leben
1999 Alles auf Sieg
2000 Direkt
2001 Direkt mehr
2002 Es ist niemals zu spät
2004 Unkaputtbar
2005 Verdammt direkt
2006 33
2007 Stier
2009 Schlagertitan
2010 So oder so
2012 Wie weit willst du gehn
2014 Aus dem Leben gegriffen
2017 Mit dem Herz durch die Wand


2003 Das Beste
2016 Unendlich

weitere Kompilationen

1983: Du natürlich
1984: Starportrait
1989: Das große deutsche Schlager-Archiv (mit Benny)
1990: Ich bin noch zu haben – 16 unvergessene Hits
1990: Frei sein
1993: Du entschuldige – Ich kenn’ Dich
1993: Die schönsten Seiten der Erinnerung
1995: Und wär’s eine Sünde
1996: Premium Gold Collection
1996: Einfach das Beste
1996: Bernhard Brink
1997: Ich komm zu dir zurück
2000: Carmen Nebel präsentiert
2001: Frei und abgebrannt
2002: Das Beste
2002: Music Star
2002: Doch ich will mehr
2003: Schlager & Stars
2003: Der goldene Schlager Club
2005: Alles klar!
2006: Grosse Erfolge
2007: Star Edition
2007: Schlagerdiamanten
2008: Carmen Nebel präsentiert: Mit dir und für immer
2008: Die Hits 1972-1989
2009: Best of Bernhard Brink
2009: Schlager Party mit Bernhard Brink
2011: All the Best
2012: Essential
2012: Glanz Lichter
2012: Flügel aus Glas

1995: Weihnachten mit Bernhard Brink

2004: Bohlen…mein Fahrer


1973 Ich hör’ ein Lied
1974 Liebe kann man nicht verbieten
1975 Ich bin noch zu haben
1976 Liebe auf Zeit
1977 Danielle
1978 Alles braucht seine Zeit
1979 Frei und abgebrannt
1980 Viel zu jung
1981 Du entschuldige – Ich kenn’ dich
1990 Blondes Wunder
1992 Hast du Lust
1997 Heute habe ich an dich gedacht
2008 Caipirinha

Weitere Veröffentlichungen

1971: Bombenfest
1972: Wo steht das geschrieben?
1973: Bist du einsam und allein
1973: Auf der Straße des Glücks
1975: Dann sag’ ja
1976: Wenn aus Freundschaft Liebe wird
1978: Bevor das letzte Glas zerbricht
1979: Madeleine
1980: Wenn and’re schlafen
1981: Dich vergeß’ ich nie
1982: Du natürlich
1982: Say You Want Me (Engl. Version von Du natürlich)
1982: Ich komme zu dir zurück
1983: Ich kämpfe um dich
1983: Dafür leb ich
1983: Geh’ oder bleib’
1984: Liebe ist
1984: Willkommen im Dschungel
1985: Unverwundbar
1985: Nikita – Du in deiner Welt
1986: In einem anderen Land
1987: Amanda’s Augen
1988: Komm ins Paradies (mit Gilda)
1988: Von Casablanca nach Athen
1988: Danke, liebe Mutti
1989: Griechische Nacht
1990: Ich fühle wie du
1991: Ich glaub’ dir jede Lüge
1991: Geh’ (eh’ ich den Kopf total verlier)
1992: Der letzte Traum
1992: Du gehst fort (mit Ireen Sheer)
1993: Du, ich bin immer da
1993: Die Flügel meiner Träume
1994: Und wär’s eine Sünde
1994: Komm’ und führ’ mich in Versuchung
1995: Nie mehr (will ich ohne dich sein)
1996: Marie-Christine
1996: Mit dir werden Wunder noch wahr
1997: Vergiss mein Herz nicht, wenn du gehst
1998: Alles auf Sieg
1999: Verrückt nach dir
1999: Erst willst du mich, dann willst du nicht
1999: Domenica
2000: Vorbei ist vorbei
2000: Wo bist du
2001: Lieder an die Liebe
2001: Erst machst du auf Liebe…
2001: Ich lieb’ zuviel
2002: Es ist niemals zu spät (mit Ireen Sheer)
2002: Was ist denn jetzt kaputt?
2002: Alles klar!
2002: Du hast mich verhext
2003: Geiz ist geil
2003: Ich will…
2003: Liebe auf Zeit 2003
2003: Ich will die Nacht mit dir
2005: Geh doch
2005: Sag ihr mal “danke”
2005: Am allerliebsten
2006: Die Zeit heilt keine Wunden
2006: Eine Nacht verzeih’n
2006: Mein Traum
2007: Alles durch die Liebe (mit Simone)
2007: Ausgerechnet Du
2007: Liebe XXL
2008: Offene Arme
2008: Wie kann man so bescheuert sein
2008: Super geile Zeit
2009: Geliebt, gehasst, geweint
2009: Ich bin nicht gut für dich
2010: Vorbei ist nicht vorbei
2010: 7 Tafeln Schokolade
2010: So oder so
2010: Die Liebe
2011: Der glücklichste Mann der Welt
2012: Wie weit willst du gehn
2012: Kein anderes Wort für immer
2012: Gefallene Engel
2013: Es geht auch anders
2013: Te ne vai (mit Allessa)
2013: White Christmas
2013: Aus dem Leben gegriffen
2016: Von hier bis zur Unendlichkeit
2016: Giganten
2016: Wenn der Vorhang fällt
2017: 100 Millionen Volt

1992: Chanson d’amour (Ireen Sheer, Bernhard Brink, Gitti Goetz & Tommy Steiner)

Videoalben und Musikvideos

2004: Meine Erfolge aus der Original ZDF Hitparade
2009: Schlagertitan


2010 7 Tafeln Schokolade Erik Lattwein
2013 Te ne vai
Aus dem Leben gegriffen
2016 Von hier bis zur Unendlichkeit

DUP leader lashes out at Irish government over Belfast agreement – Daily Mail

Views:367|Rating:0.00|View Time:51Minutes|Likes:0|Dislikes:1
Theresa May’s attempt to strike a Brexit deal last night was de-railed by a phone call with DUP leader Arlene Foster (inset). Irish Prime Minster Leo Varadkar said Britain had been poised to sign an agreement that was acceptable to him and other EU states at lunchtime. But as details of a major concession that critics say would leave Northern Ireland effectively bound by EU rules, Mrs Foster denounced any settlement that split the province from Britain. The PM (pictured with Jean-Claude Juncker left before the call and right after it) then spoke to Mrs Foster by telephone during a break in talks in Brussels before she and Juncker announced a deal had not been reached.

Original Article:
Original Video:

Daily Mail Facebook:
Daily Mail IG:
Daily Mail Snap:
Daily Mail Twitter:
Daily Mail Pinterest:
Daily Mail Google+:

Get the free Daily Mail mobile app:

European Elections Explained

Views:15189|Rating:4.79|View Time:3:51Minutes|Likes:449|Dislikes:20
The European elections are coming up, but what exactly are we voting for and why bother anyway? We explain the basics of the EU elections and give you some pointers to make up your mind.

Useful links:
Volt Europa:
Basic info on current EU political groups:

See which MEP voted what:

More info:

In this series we explain complex aspects of the EU in a comprehensive and understandable way. If however, despite our diligence and help of Dr. Jan Oster, we have left something out or made a mistake, please be so kind to tell and forgive us.


With Ciceroni we seek to be a guide to European culture and history. We make videos on little known subjects as well as more ubiquitous ones, ranging from current affairs like the European Union, to historic events like the Tulip Mania, and even mythological stories like those of the Greek Gods. In all these videos we strive to present the subjects in a objective manner and within their complex context.

Become a Patron:

Brexit Anxiety Disorder! (BAD)

Views:4475|Rating:4.87|View Time:6:54Minutes|Likes:489|Dislikes:13
Could it be that Remainers are suffering from some sort of Brexit Anxiety Disorder or BAD for short?


FACEBOOK: @JeffTaylorBrexit

LIKE THIS? PLEASE SHARE IT using the url –

*SUBSCRIBE* to Jeff Taylor Here:

How to *SUPERCHARGE* your YouTube videos – start for FREE:

Now there’s a psychological malady for you. A condition based on Remainers feeling done down by all those leave voters.

And according to, getting angry is not working for Remainers, so it’s time to see a shrink! So they put Remainers on the couch and said the results of Brexit Anxiety Disorder are not pretty.

“They are acting no differently to what psychologists would expect from those suffering from chronic anxiety caused by loss of control and insecurity, Dr. Philip Corr, professor of psychology and behavioural economics at the University of London, and Dr. Simon Stuart, a clinical psychologist, told POLITICO.”

And the article goes on to say that:

“According to Corr and Stuart, this emotional response is “standard psychological stuff.” To find solace and some level of security amid the disorder, Remainers are following a well-trodden path to polarized group think, dismissing their social “inferiors” who voted for Brexit as stupid, racist and easily misled.”

And the more that Remainers talk and rage about it, the more they will wind themselves up.

Maybe they just need to calm down and relax a bit more.

Anyway, next time you see a wound up Remainer, please be pleasant and polite, and just ask if they’re feeling a bit BAD today?

As Nigel Farage found out, being a Brexiteer is risky enough on terra firma, but up there in the sky it’s much more dangerous.

First we had Nigel Farage crashing to earth and getting injured when the ‘plane he was in nose-dived into the ground while towing an election banner on the day of the 2010 general election.

Now we have former Brexit minister Steve Baker being forced to resort to his reserve parachute when the main ‘chute failed during a skydive in Portugal.

“Pleased my reserve parachute… worked as advertised after a main malfunction last week,” he said on Instagram. “Emergency landing on nearby golf course perfect, next to clubhouse. Wished you were there etc.”

To all Brexiteers, stay safe – keep your feet planted firmly on the ground!

Now, according to that arch-Remainer, Lord Adonis, the Labour Party would be finished if it went into a snap general election backing Brexit.

Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he.

But he is basing it on a new poll that suggests that Labour’s support relies heavily on voters who favour Remain.

The YouGov poll of 4,900 people conducted for the anti-Brexit group ‘Best for Britain’ and ‘Hope Not Hate’, said that The Tories would be ahead of Labour by four points if Labour backed Remaining in the EU, but if Labour backed Brexit then the Tories would have a huge nine point lead over Labour.

Also, the poll indicates that a Brexit backing Labour Party would lose votes to the Lib Dems to the extent of ten points.

“If Labour becomes an accomplice to Brexit, it is finished.” Said Lord Adonis.

The trouble is that there are many working class Leave voters that may well jump ship if the party takes Remain as its new policy. And there are also the Labour Brexiteer MPs to consider, but you have wonder if they will find themselves de-selected by the time of any election – even a snap one.

Finally, what of the party leader himself? Jeremy Corbyn does seem to have been very quiet on Brexit these days.

But it seems that the Labour Party needs his name at the helm, even if he does favour the leave argument – but I wonder how long that will last.

But funnily, both the Tory and Labour Party leaders actually look quite secure in their jobs at present. Not because of what they are or are not doing or supporting, but because a leadership election in either camp would probably be disastrous for their respective parties right now.

The leader of Best for Britain, Eloise Todd, said:

“…it’s time for the opposition to give people what they want: a clear choice on Brexit between leaving and staying and reforming the EU, not a fudged deal that works for Westminster elites and no one else.”

Now, I’ll agree with her that the Chequers deal is a fudge. But I cannot agree that ‘staying and reforming the EU’ is an option. It is not.

Apart from the referendum result itself, the UK cannot reform the EU! And no-one has ever shown me how the UK can reform the EU.


'Brexiteers are being VILIFIED' – Chloe Westley Brexit interview

Views:745|Rating:3.64|View Time:12:21Minutes|Likes:8|Dislikes:3
My interview with Chloe Westley, Campaign Manager for the Taxpayers Alliance and prominent young Brexit campaigner & former Vote Leave staffer.

You can follow Chloe on Twitter via @LoveWestley
You can follow me on Twitter via @JBickertonUK

Apologies once again for filming the interview out of focus. It was not, I think it’s fair to say, my proudest moment.


Views:1439|Rating:4.89|View Time:1:22:44Minutes|Likes:85|Dislikes:2

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research

Brexit referendum: Britain's love-hate relationship with Europe

Views:3891|Rating:4.52|View Time:1:49Minutes|Likes:19|Dislikes:2
Subscribe to France 24 now :

FRANCE 24 live news stream: all the latest news 24/7

Millions of people across the UK will vote Thursday in a bitterly fought, too-close-to-call referendum on whether the islands should remain a member of the EU, potentially sparking the most severe crisis in the bloc’s 60-year history.

Visit our website :

Subscribe to our YouTube channel :

Like us on Facebook :

Follow us on Twitter :

Is our democracy broken? – BBC Newsnight

Views:26759|Rating:4.25|View Time:4:35Minutes|Likes:221|Dislikes:39
Is our democracy broken? And if so, how do you give power to those who feel they have none?
Subscribe to our channel here:

Newsnight is the BBC’s flagship news and current affairs TV programme – with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.


Aaron Harris – NIGHT (Official Music Video)

Views:1405|Rating:5.00|View Time:1:57Minutes|Likes:26|Dislikes:0
DP: Heng Theng
Dir: Aaron Harris
Editor: Heng Theng
Produced By: Double Moses

“Ocean Waves 2” available on all platforms

Connect with Aaron Harris


Views:7082|Rating:4.84|View Time:54:27Minutes|Likes:179|Dislikes:6
Presque trois ans après le vote de 2016, le Royaume-Uni n’est toujours pas sorti de l’UE. Le Brexit est-il encore possible ? La crise du bipartisme britannique traditionnel pourrait-elle faire les affaires d’un populisme transversal comme celui du Brexit Party, la nouvelle formation de Nigel Farage ?

Russeurope Express
Jacques Sapir avec Catherine Mathieu, économiste à l’OFCE, spécialiste du Royaume-Uni et des questions européennes, Agnès Alexandre-Collier, politologue, chercheuse en délégation CNRS à la Maison française d’Oxford, et Paul Thomson, vice-président des Conservateurs britanniques en France.
Une émission co-animée par Clément Ollivier et préparée avec Jean-Baptiste Mendès.

Retrouvez tous les épisodes de #RusseuropeExpress sur le site de Sputnik :

Abonnez-vous au podcast pour ne jamais manquer un épisode :
Sur iTunes et appareils Apple, cliquez ici :
Sur Android et autres applications, copiez le flux RSS :

George Galloway: Support for Nigel Farage is the UK voters' way of demanding Brexit

Views:74050|Rating:4.79|View Time:3:46Minutes|Likes:1255|Dislikes:55
The new Brexit Party, led by Nigel Farage, is on course to cause a political earthquake at next month’s EU Parliament elections, with a new survey showing his anti-EU group ahead of both Labour and the Tories.

YouGov, one of Britain’s main polling companies, has Farage’s Brexit Party at 27 percent, five points ahead of Labour and well ahead of PM Theresa May’s Conservatives at 15 percent, with just a few weeks to go until elections on May 23.



Check out

Subscribe to RT!

Like us on Facebook
Follow us on VK
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
Follow us on Google+
Follow us on Soundcloud

#RT (Russia Today) is a global #news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

Robert Hill UKIP Ireland Local Council Elections Campaign 2019

Views:329|Rating:5.00|View Time:9:46Minutes|Likes:26|Dislikes:0
Robert Hill is a UKIP candidate in the 2019 local Council elections.
They have just launched their campaign in the Clayton Hotel, Belfast.

The Meteoric rise of The Brexit Party. Farage`s fledgling Party tops the polls

Views:328|Rating:4.27|View Time:1:36Minutes|Likes:35|Dislikes:6
Please click the like and Subscribe if you would like to see more videos like this.
Feel free to comment but trolls posts will be removed.
IamSpartacus on Twitter ….

'May has failed to challenge the DUP': says Mary Lou McDonald

Views:1347|Rating:3.53|View Time:2:47Minutes|Likes:12|Dislikes:5
Diplomats in Brussels have said they are ‘very close’ to agreeing a divorce package after months of bitter wrangling over the Irish border. But chief negotiator Michel Barnier is expected to make clear he is playing hardball by publishing a draft ‘declaration’ on post-Brexit trade arrangements that falls far short of her blueprint. The move seems designed to impose maximum strain on the PM as she prepares to table revamped proposals for a ‘backstop’ to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. There are expected to be concessions on how regulations can be enforced – although Mrs May will hold the line that the province cannot be split from the rest of the UK’s customs jurisdiction. However, doubts over whether Mrs May will be able to win approval for her new plan at home were fuelled today as the DUP’s Westminster leader Nigel Dodds repeated warnings that it will not tolerate ‘tariffs, checks or anything else between one part of the UK and the other’.

Original Article:
Original Video:

Daily Mail Facebook:
Daily Mail IG:
Daily Mail Snap:
Daily Mail Twitter:
Daily Mail Pinterest:
Daily Mail Google+:

Get the free Daily Mail mobile app:

The nastiest things the EU has said about Brexit

Views:3034|Rating:4.19|View Time:1:32Minutes|Likes:72|Dislikes:14
Since the UK voted to leave the European Union, the relationship between the two has become increasingly strained and at times things have got hostile. 

It seems the saying ‘if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all’ has fallen on deaf ears within the EU. 

Watch the video above to see the worst things they’ve had to say about Brexit. 

Subscribe to our politics channel for the latest Brexit news: and are websites of The Telegraph, the UK’s best-selling quality daily newspaper providing news and analysis on UK and world events, business, sport, lifestyle and culture.