Posted tagged ‘BREXIT’

Nigel Farage CPAC 2017 FULL Speech

February 24, 2017

Nigel Farage CPAC 2017 FULL Speech Via YouTube, February 4, 2017

Draft Two – New Immigration Order Could Come This Week – Nigel Farage – Fox & Friends

February 13, 2017

Draft Two – New Immigration Order Could Come This Week – Nigel Farage – Fox & Friends via YouTube, February 12, 2017


The Trumpocalypse Goes Global

February 2, 2017

The Trumpocalypse Goes Global, Power LineSteven Hayward, February 2, 2017

It isn’t just in the halls of Washington where Trump has everyone in an uproar. In the House of Commons over in Britain, the Corbynite Labour Party had a conniption fit, culminating in this nice exchange between Corbyn and Prime Minister Theresa May, who I must say is reminding me more and more of Margaret Thatcher all the time (about 1:30 long):

There was a similar debate up in Canada this week, too, but much less energetic and colorful, because Canada. (See below.)

Prediction: Trump is going to be a central issue in the upcoming French and German elections. The man’s political brand is going as global as his hotel brand.

What do they debate about in the Canadian parliament? Whether you can say “fart” in debate. Don’t they have a speech and debate clause? (3:38 long.)

Bonus! Nigel Farage gets in on the Trump action in the European Commission:

FULL MEASURE: January 29, 2017 – Rise of Populism

January 31, 2017

FULL MEASURE: January 29, 2017 – Rise of Populism, via YouTube, January 30, 2017


U.K. government loses Brexit case, must consult Parliament

January 24, 2017

U.K. government loses Brexit case, must consult Parliament, Washington Times, Danica Kirka, January 24, 2017

pmmayBritish Prime Minister Theresa May speaks on the third day of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2017. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans to trigger negotiations by the end of March.

The 8-3 ruling forces the government to put a bill before Parliament, giving pro-EU politicians a chance to soften the terms of Brexit — Britain’s exit from the EU. “Leave” campaigners had objected, saying Parliament shouldn’t have the power to overrule the electorate, which voted to leave the bloc in a June 23 referendum.

May had said she would use centuries-old powers known as royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty and launch two years of exit talks. The powers — traditionally held by the monarch — permit decisions about treaties and other issues to be made without a vote of Parliament.

“The referendum is of great political significance, but the act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result, so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the U.K. Constitution, namely by an act of Parliament,” the president of the Supreme Court David Neuberger said in reading the judgement.

“To proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries,” he said.

The case was considered the most important constitutional issue in a generation, clarifying who ultimately wields power in Britain’s system of government: the prime minister and her Cabinet, or Parliament.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller sued to force the government to seek Parliamentary approval before invoking Article 50. Leaving the EU will change the fundamental rights of citizens and this can’t be done without a vote of lawmakers, she argued.

May had argued the referendum gave her a mandate to take Britain out of the 28-nation bloc and that discussing the details of her strategy with Parliament would weaken the government’s negotiating position.

Significantly, the court also ruled that parts of the United Kingdom — Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — do not need to be consulted. Had the court ruled that the “devolved” Parliaments needed a say, a significant delay to the process would have been likely as lawmakers from the regions piled in with concerns.

The decision doesn’t mean that Britain will remain in the EU. But it could delay the process — though May’s Downing Street office said its timetable remained on track.

The government moved quickly to say it would offer its plans in detail to the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon. Legal experts suggest that May will try to keep the scope of the legislation narrow — focusing solely on triggering Article 50 — in order to limit the chance for amendments that could delay a vote.

But opposition became evident immediately. Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the party would seek to amend the legislation to make sure the government is “accountable.” The Scottish National Party, the third largest party in the House of Commons, promised to offer 50 amendments.

“Today’s result comes as a surprise to no one. Unfortunately for businesses and other institutions, Brexit still means uncertainty,” said Phillip Souta, head of U.K. public policy at law firm Clifford Chance. “Parliament remains divided and the outcome of the negotiations remain unknown.”

The bill could also be subject to delay in the unelected House of Lords.

“Defeat in the House of Lords would not stop Brexit from happening, but it could delay it until mid-2020,” Souta said.

Miller, an online investment manager, had argued the case wasn’t about blocking Brexit. Instead, she said, it was about “democracy” and the “dangerous precedent” that a government can overrule Parliament.

For Miller, who brought the case with hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, the Supreme Court judges brought vindication after months of threats to her security that followed her involvement in the case.

“No prime minister, no government can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged,” she said. “Parliament alone is sovereign.”

The case revolved around an argument that dates back almost 400 years to the English Civil War as to whether power ultimately rests in the executive or Parliament.

Underscoring the importance of the case, May put Attorney General Jeremy Wright in charge of the legal team fighting the suit. Wright had argued the suit is an attempt to put a legal obstacle in the way of enacting the referendum result.

The decision is a bad defeat for the government and means that the government “still does not have control of the Brexit timetable,” said David Allen Green, lawyer at London legal firm Preiskel & Co.

“The appeal decision is, however, a victory for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and a vindication of an independent judiciary,” Green said. “The Supreme Court has told the government to get back into its box: A proper process has to be followed.”

Trump Fires Up Europe’s Anti-Establishment Movement

January 22, 2017

Trump Fires Up Europe’s Anti-Establishment Movement, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, January 22, 2017

The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not.” — Geert Wilders, MP and head of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands.

A growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.

Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.

“In many respects, France and Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis.” — Ambassador John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

“There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values…. This is a genuine political revolution.” — Nigel Farage, former head of Britain’s UKIP party, who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU.

“This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.” — Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, Switzerland.

Inspired by the inauguration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, the leaders of Europe’s main anti-establishment parties have held a pan-European rally aimed at coordinating a political strategy to mobilize potentially millions of disillusioned voters in upcoming elections in Germany, the Netherlands and France.

Appearing together in public for the first time, Marine Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, Frauke Petry, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s Northern League and Harald Vilimsky of Austria’s Freedom Party gathered on January 21 at a rally in Koblenz, Germany, where they called on European voters to participate in a “patriotic spring” to topple the European Union, reassert national sovereignty and secure national borders.

2226The leaders of Europe’s main anti-establishment parties appearing together in public for the first time, on January 21 in Koblenz, Germany. (Image source: Marine Le Pen/Twitter)

The two-hour rally was held under the banner of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), a group established in June 2015 by Members of the European Parliament from nine counties to oppose European federalism and the transfer of political power from voters to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union.

Referring to the June 2016 decision by British voters to leave the European Union, and the rise of President Donald Trump in the United States, Le Pen said:

“We are living through the end of one world, and the birth of another. We are experiencing the return of nation-states. 2016 was the year the Anglo-Saxon world woke up. 2017, I am sure, will be the year in which the peoples of the European continent rise up.”

Wilders added:

“The world is changing. America is changing. Europe is changing. It started last year with Brexit, yesterday there was Trump and today the freedom-loving parties gathered in Koblenz are making a stand. The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not. The people of the West are awakening. They are throwing off the yoke of political correctness.”

Polls indicate that the political sea change engulfing the United States is fueling support for anti-establishment parties in Europe. In addition to anger over eroding sovereignty, a growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.

In France, a new Ipsos poll for Le Monde shows that Marine Le Pen is now poised to win the first round of the French presidential election set for April 23, 2017. Le Pen has between 25% and 26% support among likely voters, compared to 23% and 25% for François Fillon of the center-right Republicans party. In December 2016, Fillon held a three-point lead over Le Pen.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is now leading polls ahead of the general election scheduled for March 15, 2017. The PVV has the support of between 29% and 33% of the electorate. By contrast, support for the ruling People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) has fallen to between 23% and 27%.

In Germany, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has become the third-largest party the country, with support at around 15% percent. The AfD had gained representation in ten of Germany’s 16 state parliaments, and the party hopes to win seats in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) for the first time in national elections set for September 24, 2017.

Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.

In Germany, for example, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, in an underhanded effort to silence criticism of the government’s open door migration policy, called for German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD.

The German Interior Ministry is now proposing to establish a “Defense Center against Disinformation” (Abwehrzentrum gegen Desinformation) to combat “fake news.” Critics have described the proposed center as a “censorship monster” aimed at silencing dissenting opinions.

Enter Trump. If sufficient numbers of European voters are inspired by the political transformation taking place in the United States, the balance of European political power may begin to shift in favor of the anti-establishment parties. European political and media elites will therefore surely view Trump as a threat to the Europe’s established political order.

In a January 16 interview with the Times of London and Germany’s Bild, Trump said he believed that Brexit is “going to end up being a great thing.” He added that German Chancellor Angela Merkel made an “utterly catastrophic mistake by letting all these illegals into the country.”

In the same interview, Trump said that the NATO alliance “is very important to me” but he called it “obsolete” for failing to contain the threat posed to the West by Islamic terrorism. He also complained that some countries “don’t pay what they should pay.” Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five — Britain, Estonia, Greece, Poland and the United States — meet the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

European commentators roundly criticized Trump for his comments and some accused the United States of being an “unreliable partner.” European leaders repeated calls for a pan-European Army, a long-held goal of European federalists, which would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to the European Union.

Gatestone Institute Chairman Ambassador John R. Bolton, has provided much-needed context to the debate over NATO. In a recent article for the Boston Globe, he wrote:

“NATO has taken intense criticism this year from Donald Trump, evoking howls of outrage from foreign-policy establishment worthies. The worthies know, however, that Trump is simply using his bullhorn to say what they themselves say more quietly: NATO’s decision-making is often sclerotic; its mission has not been adequately redefined after the Cold War; and too many members haven’t carried their weight financially or militarily for long years…. Trump has emphasized that his complaints are intended to encourage debate about improving and strengthening NATO, not sundering it. The debate is well worth having.”

Bolton added:

“In many respects, France and Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis: every failure of closer integration by the ‘European project’ leads only to calls for more integration. Whether it is establishing a currency without a government; pledging military capabilities that collectively the EU never achieves; or pretending to an EU role in world affairs that no one outside of Brussels takes seriously, ‘more Europe’ is always the answer.”

European Reactions to President Trump’s Inauguration

Trump’s presidential inauguration speech was greeted with formal politeness by European leaders — most of whom will have to work with the new leader of the free world — and with unbridled derision by European commentators and media elites — many of whom appear to be in denial about the anti-establishment fervor sweeping the United States and Europe.

Much of the European commentary about Trump has consisted of name-calling and anti-Americanism. A handful of European analysts, however, have called for introspection and self-criticism.

What follows is a brief selection of European commentary on Trump’s inauguration:

In Britain, reactions to Trump were evenly divided between those who do and do not support British membership in the European Union. Prime Minister Theresa May said:

“From our conversations to date, I know we are both committed to advancing the special relationship between our two countries and working together for the prosperity and security of people on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson wrote:

“I think that the new president has made it very clear that he wants to put Britain at the front of the line for a new trade deal and obviously that’s extremely exciting and important.”

Nigel Farage, the politician who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU, was one of the few Europeans to understand the magnitude of Trump’s rise. He wrote:

“There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values. For this inauguration is not just a change from the 44th President to the 45th President of the United States. This is a genuine political revolution.”

In France, President François Hollande advised Trump to stay out of European affairs — this a few days after the French government tried to impose a “two-state solution” on Israel. He said: “Europe will be ready to pursue transatlantic cooperation, but it will be based on its interests and values. It does not need outside advice to tell it what to do.”

Marine Le Pen said: “Clearly, the victory of Donald Trump is another step toward the emergence of a new world, whose vocation is to replace an old order.”

Jean-Marie Colombani, the former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, articulated Europe’s geopolitical predicament, which is the direct consequence of a failure to prioritize French defense spending:

“From an American point of view, Vladimir Putin is a secondary problem: Russia is a medium power, which can certainly create problems for the United States, but only marginally, as in Syria, for example. China is the only power to rival the United States. It will be, already is, the only obsession of Trump’s America.

“Vladimir Putin represents a problem, if not a threat, for Europe. In fact, the Russian President has set the goal of weakening the European Union, in order to restore the role of guardian that the USSR exercised in the East of Europe, in countries that are now members of the EU and NATO. Everything suggests that Trump shares the same objective: to weaken Europe.

“Indeed, Trump’s European policy is inspired by Nigel Farage, who spearheaded the campaign for Brexit, and whose political aim is now to achieve the dismantling of the European Union. This explains the prediction formulated by Trump on the soon-coming demise of Europe, and his anti-German undertones. In the new American president we find the language and elements of all the populist and extremist parties whose common doctrine is hostility towards the European project. Here, then, in the East and the West, Europe is squeezed as in a vise!”

In Germany, which is wholly dependent upon the United States for defense, and which has steadfastly refused to meet its commitment to pay 2% of GDP on defense, reaction to Trump’s speech was overwhelmingly negative.

Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to work with Trump to preserve the transatlantic relationship. “The trans-Atlantic relationship will not be less important in the coming years than it was in past years,” she said. “And I will work on that. Even when there are different opinions, compromises and solutions can be best found when we exchange ideas with respect.”

Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel was far less diplomatic. He said: “We have to take this man seriously. What we heard today were highly nationalistic tones. I think we have to prepare for a rough ride.” He called on Europeans to unite to “defend our interests.”

Writing for Deutsche Welle, commentator Max Hofmann admonished Europeans to stop complaining about Trump and instead put their own house in order:

“What do you do when your closest partner just disappears on you? You do what the EU should have done long ago: you fix up your home, regardless of what ‘The Donald’ is doing in the USA. There is enough work that needs to be done in Europe with regard to ‘putting your own house in order’ — Brexit, migration and refugee policies, the euro. If Europeans were honest to themselves and viewed what is happening on the old continent from the American perspective — and not just that one — then the situation would not be comprehensible to them. If US parliamentarians were to call European dissent ‘madness’ or ‘nonsense,’ no one could blame them.”

Commentator Hubert Wetzel said that Trump posed a threat to European security and called for European unity to weather the next four years. In an essay laced with hyperbole, he wrote:

“Europeans will have to adapt to a new tone in dealing with America. Trump has made it clear in his speech that he will pursue a nationalist foreign policy, and his speech contained no reference to America’s allies. [Trump actually said: ‘We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones,’ and ‘We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world’]. His willingness to spend money on the defense of other countries is limited. He does not see the USA as a protective power of democratic values in the world; and he is the first U.S. president since the end of the Second World War who has openly expressed doubts about the value of European unity and the existence of NATO. At a time when Russia is trying to weaken the West by means of diplomatic, intelligence, and military means, it is an attitude that is a serious threat to united Europe.”

In Spain, geopolitical analyst Rafael Bardají wrote:

“President Trump promised that a new era is beginning today. In his inaugural speech he made it very clear that he despises Washington and hates the way the establishment has ruled the country up until now, defending its privileges at the expense of citizens. Yes, a speech that can be called populist, but one that nevertheless is true. Democracy, after all, emerged as the government of the people for the people, something that, at present, is far from being a reality in America as well as in Europe. The great social contract of liberal democracy, namely, growing prosperity and peace and security for the citizens, is no longer being fulfilled. This is due to the inability of our elites to deal with the [economic] crisis, due to their obsession with pacifism and due to the subordination of the interests of nationals in favor of immigrants.”

In Switzerland, Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, warned against efforts by European elites to belittle Trump. He wrote:

“Trump’s election was a healthy shock. The shock was necessary. Not only power cartels, but also worldviews are breaking down. This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.”

If you Brexit, You Own it

January 17, 2017

If you Brexit, You Own it, Power LineSteven Hayward, January 17, 2017

Forget all the attention on Trump and trade and China and Trump smashing china and China dealing a trump and all that. It is possible that the most salient event of the next few years will be the breakup, or least dramatic restructuring, of the European Union. Now that British PM Theresa May has pronounced that Britain  proceed to a “clean break” or “hard Brexit,” attention will begin to shift to the other weak members such as Italy, etc.

Or perhaps we’ll revive the Greek financial crisis, which has never really gone away. There was a stunning little detail in a story about Greece in the Wall Street Journal last Friday, in particular how Greeks are slowly depleting what little savings they have trying to keep up with a sinking ship of state:

Financial strains extend even to the wealthier suburbs of Athens. Retirees Ioanna and Petros Kokkalis never had debts, nor feared losing their home. But now the 87-year-old former economist and his 81-year-old wife are unable to repay the property tax imposed on their 70-year old house, a family inheritance. The annual tax is around ‎€33,000, but Mr. Kokkalis’s pension—already cut by half—is €28,000 a year.

The couple borrowed money when the tax was imposed, initially as a temporary austerity measure in 2011. But they are already behind on nearly €200,000 of tax payments and can’t borrow more. Mr. Kokkalis says the state is calculating tax based on outdated property prices that have since collapsed, and that if he tried to sell the house now, nobody would be interested. “They impose taxes on an imaginary value,” Mr. Kokkalis says. “This is confiscation.”

€33,000 a year in property taxes? In most states in the U.S. that would surely be a house with a value between $3 and $4 million. I’m sure there are such houses in Greece, but as this story hints, the amount is likely something like a surtax imposed as a “temporary” measure in 2011. This can’t possibly work, and won’t be paid. At some point, the finance ministers of the other EU countries that imposed austerity on Greece will notice that the revenues aren’t coming in, and the Greek bond market will collapse again, and Greece will ponder withdrawing from the EU, and Germany won’t want to bail them out this time, especially with the Euro-peso sinking on currency markets.

Maybe time for someone to come along in Athens with the slogan, “Make Greece great again!”



Watch: PM Theresa May’s Speech Invoke BREXIT, Pound Soars 2,5%

January 17, 2017

Watch: PM Theresa May’s Speech Invoke BREXIT, Pound Soars 2,5%, Gatestone EUVincent van den Born, January 17, 2017

UK prime minister Theresa May has just given her speech on Britain’s departure from the European Union. The essence seemed to be that from now on, British people will decide on British laws, interpreted by British judges. They will regain control over their borders, leave the EU single market and establish separate free trade deals, alleviate as many barriers to trade as possible, and Britain will stop contributing large annual sums of money to the EU apparatus. May also warned against countries seeking a punitive Brexit, emphasising that if Britain suffers, Europe will suffer economically as well. May said:

“We will leave the EU, but we will not leave Europe.”

According to the EU, there will be no negotiating the four EU “fundamental freedoms.” Nor is there any inclination in EU countries to be very forthcoming in helping with Brexit: “It’s not up to Europe to figure out Brexit for Britain,” according to Christophe Caresche, French Socialist MP, “They need to present a clear framework, and we will respond within the negotiation process.

With president-elect Trump going on record saying how good an idea he thinks Brexit is, and offering a bilateral trade deal, Brussels can’t rest easily. In an interview with German Welt, UK finance minister Philip Hammond didn’t mince words either. When told that in Germany, many still hope that the UK chooses to remain in the EU, Hammond was unequivocal: “That will not happen. Those of us who, like me, have campaigned to stay in the EU and tried to reform it from within have moved on. To put it frankly: since the referendum on the European side, we have seen a movement away from British positions. This suggests that the underlying driving force on the European side is still towards more political integration, towards a defence component for the European Union – things which are an abomination to the UK.

The UK front, thus, is solid. The same is not the case in Brussels. While Germany sounds a harsh note, in the person of Norbert Röttgen, MP of Angela Merkel’s CDU, by engaging aggressively with Hammond’s firm assertions that he will do everything to make Brexit work: “The U.K.’s two main economic weaknesses are its considerable trade deficit and a big budget deficit, (…) As such, Hammond’s threats with duties and tax cuts would primarily damage the U.K. and should be regarded as an expression of British cluelessness.” But ‘British cluelessness‘ is not what Caresche is scared of: “What we definitely don’t want is a negotiation that will create an attractive standard for leaving the EU that other countries would want to imitate. It’s not just a British issue — it’s also about not creating incentives for other countries to leave.”

A sentiment that is shared in ‘New Europe‘, as Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjartó makes clear: “If the U.K. will be able to sign economic and trade agreements with many serious actors of the world economy, and [at the same time] if the EU is not able to build this kind of cooperation with the U.K., then is going to be a very unfavorable position for us.”

Trump Likely to Move Britain to the Front of the Queue

January 16, 2017

Trump Likely to Move Britain to the Front of the Queue, Power Line,  Paul Mirengoff, January 16, 2017

(Despite BREXIT, Britain has been moving with painful slowness and caution in getting out of the EU. Perhaps’s Trump’s assurances will speed things along. — DM)

President Obama famously warned the British that Brexit would put the United Kingdom at the “back of the queue” when it comes to trades deals. Fortunately, Obama will be out of the White House in a few days, and his successor has other ideas.

President-elect Trump, in his first interview with the British press, said:

I will be ­meeting with [Prime Minister Theresa May]. She’s requesting a meeting and we’ll have a meeting right after I get into the White House and it’ll be, I think we’re gonna get something done very quickly.

We’re gonna work very hard to get it done quickly and done properly. Good for both sides.

Naturally, Boris Johnson, the UK’s foreign minister, was upbeat about this news:

We hear that we are first in line to do a great free trade deal with the United States. So, it’s going to be a very exciting year for both our countries.

Trump may drive a fairly hard bargain. After all, the hostile stance of Britain’s former partners in the EU gives the U.S. considerable leverage.

But Trump seems well-disposed towards the UK — something of an Anglophile — and thus may not be inclined to squeeze too hard. Trade deals aren’t always just about economics. They may also have a diplomatic dimension.

In the case of Britain, Trump says he hopes that a trade deal will “make Brexit a great thing.”And if Brexit turns out to be even a good thing for Britain, it may encourage other nations to leave the EU — something Trump appears to favor.

Bilateral trade agreements will likely be the order of the day under Trump. The demise of the TPP may lead to such deals between the U.S. and certain key Asian nations, starting perhaps with Japan.

When Congress scotched the TPP, it passed a related bill providing “fast-track” trade promotion authority to the White House. This legislation allows a trade deal to be ratified with just a simple majority of votes in Congress during the next six years.

Thus, Trump will be in a strong position when it comes to ratifying whatever deals he reaches.

In any event, it looks like we will very soon will have a president who fully values the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the UK, not just in word but also in deed — a president who reportedly plans to reinstall that bust of Winston Churchill in the oval office.

UKIP Leader Paul Nuttall’s New Year’s message for 2017

January 1, 2017

UKIP Leader Paul Nuttall’s New Year’s message for 2017UKIP Official Channel via YouTube, December 17, 2016