Meditation on Psalm 23
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Germany’s Military Expansion Met With Western Relief
BERLIN–You know times have changed when the Germans announce they are expanding their army for the first time in 25 years–and no one objects.
Back when the Berlin Wall fell, Britain and France in particular feared the re-emergence of a German colossus in Europe. By contrast, Berlin’s pledge last month to add almost 7,000 soldiers to its military by 2023, and an earlier announcement to spend up to 130 billion euros, about $148 billion, on new equipment by 2030 were warmly welcomed by NATO allies.
It has taken decades since the horrors of World War II, but Berlin’s modern-day allies and, it seems, German leaders themselves are finally growing more comfortable with the notion that Germany’s role as the European Union’s de facto leader requires a military dimension.
Perhaps none too soon. The United States and others–including many of Germany’s own defense experts–want Germany to do even more for Continental security and to broaden deployments overseas.
President Obama expressed frustration in an interview this year that the United States’ European and Persian Gulf allies were acting too often as “free riders.” Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been even more scathing in his remarks, threatening to pull out of NATO if he is elected.
As a July NATO summit meeting in Warsaw approaches, Germany, Europe’s largest economy, is now key to how the alliance will face the twin perils that have transformed the strategic situation in Europe: a more menacing Russia and the Islamic State’s expansion beyond individual acts of terrorism like executions to seizing territory.
In Europe, where NATO’s easternmost members, particularly Poland and the Baltic States, have clamored for permanent deployment of Allied troops to deter Russian meddling, Germany looks set to take command of a brigade in Lithuania, joining Britain and the United States in leading the effort to marshal a robust presence on Russia’s borders.
Under Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany is also playing a part in NATO programs to pool resources of member states for greater collective security. Defense experts hold up increased German-Dutch cooperation as a model.
The path to even a semblance of collective European defense is littered with unmet promises of better cooperation–for example, the quarter-century-old Franco-German brigade, which remains mostly a paper tiger, and the scramble ahead of the Warsaw meeting to find a fourth country to command a unit in the new NATO deployment in Eastern Europe. Britain and France, both nuclear powers, continue to set their own priorities.
But whether on its own or with others, Germany is showing signs of growing more comfortable with embracing a bigger military role, a gradual but distinct shift away from an instinctive pacifism that took hold starting in 1945, and a post-Cold War tendency to shrink the nation’s military.
The shift started becoming publicly apparent in 2014, when Germany’s president and foreign and defense ministers all urged an increased global security role for the country at the annual Munich Security Conference. Weeks later, Russia’s leader, President Vladimir V. Putin, annexed Crimea from Ukraine.
Since then, Germany has responded by helping to build a NATO rapid response force in Eastern Europe, leading the diplomacy efforts in Ukraine, and training and arming Kurdish pesh merga battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Now, a new government strategy document, the first such “White Book” in 10 years, is being prepared. It is likely both to bolster Germany’s role on the world stage–beyond its traditional sphere of activity in Europe–and to talk explicitly of military contributions.
Another major task is to convince skeptical Germans, particularly in the east, that NATO is keeping its 1997 bargain with Russia that alliance troops would not be stationed permanently at Russia’s edge.
Norway to Return Seized Children to Christian Parents After Int’l Pressure
The Christian parents of five children, who were seized by Norwegian child services seven months ago to “prevent” them from being “indoctrinated” with Christianity, will soon be reunited as the authorities have agreed to return the custody of the remaining four kids to the family.
“We thank you all for your love, support, prayers, and active participation in the reunification of this family. May God richly bless you and repay you for all you have done to bring this family back together,” says a statement from the Romanian Pentecostal parents, Marius and Ruth Bodnariu, who have been living in Norway for more than a decade, according to Romania Insider.
Norway’s Dagen newspaper reported that the decision to return the kids to their family is part of an agreement reached with the family.
The five children were seized by the Norwegian Child Protective Services on Nov. 16 and 17 last year based on a teacher’s concerns about how the kids were being raised by “radical” Christians who were “indoctrinating” their children. Parliamentarians, lawyers and Christian groups from many countries, including the United States, Romania and other part of Europe, raised serious concerns over the action of the Norwegian child services.
In early April, only the youngest of the five children was returned to the parents. When the other children will be returned is not known.
On Thursday, Romanian parliamentarian Ben Oni Ardelean wrote in a Facebook post that the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe has approved a report on the Bodnariu case.
“Today, the members of the Committee for Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) have decided to elaborate a Draft Report on: ‘Striking a balance between the best interest of the child and need to keep the families together.’ … The report will consider to which extent the abusive measures taken by the Childcare Social Services from Norway are compatible with the Council of Europe’s standards in this specific field, and the resolution, which will draw the main conclusions from the report, will make concrete legislative recommendations to the Norwegian competent authorities,” Ardelean wrote, according to the Insider, which translated the post.
The family appealed the agency’s decision to remove the children last November, but it was rejected.
Officials went to the family’s home, allegedly without documentation, and seized two of the sons and arrested Ruth, who took her baby son, Ezekiel, with her to the police station, the British-based Christian Institute reported at the time. Officials also went to Marius’ work and arrested him.
After being interrogated for several hours, the parents and baby Ezekiel were freed and allowed to go home, but without the other children. The following day, officials went back to the Bodnariu’s home and took Ezekiel into custody on the grounds that Ruth was “dangerous.”
Last month, more than 100 attorneys from the United States and abroad and members of the European Parliament wrote a letter to the Norwegian Prime Minister, saying the government’s act of seizing the children violated domestic and international law, and urging their immediate release.
“We find the facts of this international incident unacceptable not only on legal grounds but also on humanitarian and moral grounds. We view these transgressions as grievous breaches of domestic and international law… Therefore, it is important that Norway immediately release the children back to their biological parents,” the authors of the letter demanded.
Questions about the Boston Marathon Bombing?
Who were the private military operatives hired to 'work' the Boston marathon with black backpacks, radiation detectors, and tactical gear and why were they there?
They say the truth is stranger than fiction. Back in 2013 at the time of the Boston Bombing I posted an article by Natural News. However, recently I have since found out was tampered with so that it could no longer be read. I have been able to recuperate the article although the original article domain by Natural News is no longer available. Here is the original article again as it was published by Natural News in 2013. Why someone would get on my site and make this article unable to be read, I cannot understand. Unless there is some truth to the original author’s questions, which the powers that be do not want the general public to investigate further. Why the author has eliminated the article from his own site also causes suspicions. Was he pressured by the powers to be to do so? Remember, the powers that be that assassinated JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King Jr. etc, are the same people who are ruling our country from behind the scenes. Below is the original article as best as I could recuperate it. I did lose a phrase which was just under a picture. Dennis Edwards
Natural News has now confirmed that at least five private military contractors were operating on scene at the Boston marathon, and that they all carried black backpacks which look very similar to the backpack carrying the pressure cooker bomb (see pictures below).
The mainstream media is completely censoring any mention of these "Craft" operatives, pretending they don't even exist. Only the alternative media is conducting real investigative journalism on these bombings. The mainstream media isn't interested in the truth; they only want to spin the attack into a new way to somehow blame conservative Americans for something they had no part in.
Thanks to the help of researchers posting on 4Chan, plus a bit of our own analysis, we've been able to bring new research to light as you'll see in the photos below.
Who is this guy and what is he holding in his hand?
The following photo was snapped mere moments after the first bomb detonation. Many people are asking, "Who is this guy?" and why is he dressed in combat boots and military BDUs (pants)? More importantly, what is he carrying in his hand?
We were able to get a close-up of the object in his hand:
With a bit of research, we were able to confirm this object is an "Inspector Radiation Alert" device that detects the kind of radiation which would be produced in a dirty bomb attack or a nuclear attack:
This immediately brings up all sorts of questions, such as: Who hired this guy? Whose side is he on?
Why would he anticipate the need for a nuclear radiation detector? What kind of private military operative routinely carries such expensive gadgets?
Four more operatives with the exact same uniforms
As we browsed through the photos, we located four more private military operatives with the exact same dress: Tan combat boots, tan BDUs, black jackets, black backpacks and tactical communications gear.
Here's a picture of three of these men reacting to the explosion. The one in the middle is the same guy in the radiation detector photo, above:
There are several things worth noting in this image:
1) All three of the men look surprised, even shocked by the events. This might argue against their prior knowledge of the bombings.
2) The object in the right hand of the man in the middle may resemble a small handgun, but I'm sure it isn't. Why? Because no highly trained private military operative would carry a handgun with a "pincer" grip as appears in the photo. A proper grip on a handgun is far deeper into the palm. This object is most likely the same radiation detector shown above, just captured from a weird angle with a flapping leather case of some sort.
3) The man on the left, an older gentleman, appears to be holding an object in his right hand which seems capable of being actuated with his thumb.
4) The man on the right reveals "The Craft" skull logo on his shirt because his jacket just happened to open up for this photo (see below).
Here's a photo comparison of "The Craft" logo on his shirt:
Here are two more operatives on the scene, wearing the exact same uniform:
If you look at the hat for one of these men, you can clearly see "the Craft" skull logo on his hat:
Here's Chris Kyle on national TV wearing the "Craft" hat:
As we browsed through the photos, we located four more private military operatives with the exact same dress: Tan combat boots, tan BDUs, black jackets, black backpacks and tactical communications gear.
Here's a picture of three of these men reacting to the explosion. The one in the middle is the same guy in the radiation detector photo, above:
There are several things worth noting in this image:1) All three of the men look surprised, even shocked by the events. This might argue against their prior knowledge of the bombings.
2) The object in the right hand of the man in the middle may resemble a small handgun, but I'm sure it isn't. Why? Because no highly trained private military operative would carry a handgun with a "pincer" grip as appears in the photo. A proper grip on a handgun is far deeper into the palm. This object is most likely the same radiation detector shown above, just captured from a weird angle with a flapping leather case of some sort.
3) The man on the left, an older gentleman, appears to be holding an object in his right hand which seems capable of being actuated with his thumb.
4) The man on the right reveals "The Craft" skull logo on his shirt because his jacket just happened to open up for this photo (see below).
Here's a photo comparison of "The Craft" logo on his shirt:
Here are two more operatives on the scene, wearing the exact same uniform:If you look at the hat for one of these men, you can clearly see "the Craft" skull logo on his hat:
Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle was also a member of The Craft. He was murdered by
one of his close friends a few months ago. The appearance of The Craft
operatives at the Boston marathon bombing raises new questions about Chris Kyle's
death:
Here's Chris Kyle on national TV wearing the "Craft" hat:
ere's the Craft motto, which says "Violence does solve problems."
Here's the Craft motto, which says "Violence does solve problems."
still
|
The Craft website where all these images, logos and uniforms are instantly confirmed.
Bomb bag resembles the black backpacks worn by The Craft operatives
Here's where all this gets incredibly spooky: The backpack that carried the pressure cooker bomb looks very similar to the black backpacks worn by The Craft operatives:
Here's another view of the "Craft" skull logo on a training shirt, taken from their own website:
This photo shows The Craft operatives at a trade show. Everybody is wearing the trade-mark tan combat boots and tan BDUs:
First off, let's get the attacks of the moron trolls out of the way -- people who will say these photos are a "conspiracy theory."
How are photos of actual people at the event a conspiracy theory?
They aren't. In real police work, they're called "evidence," and the people in these photos should be persons of interest.
But they aren't. The entire mainstream media and law enforcement apparatus is now pretending these men don't exist. (Now that's their conspiracy theory!)
We all know, however, that The Craft operatives don't work for free. They aren't a band of volunteers. And that means somebody paid them to be at the event.
Who paid The Craft to be there? And what was their mission?
Why is their existence at the Boston marathon being memory-holed? Why are they not "persons of interest" in the investigation?
Why do they carry radiation detectors? What's in their backpacks? (A ham sandwich?)
The fact that the media refuses to even acknowledge the existence of these private military operatives is quite telling all by itself.
Panama Papers Show How Rich United States Clients Hid Millions Abroad
Over the years, William R. Ponsoldt had earned tens of millions of dollars building a string of successful companies. He had renovated apartment buildings in the New York City area. Bred Arabian horses. Run a yacht club in the Bahamas, a rock quarry in Michigan, an auto-parts company in Canada, even a multibillion-dollar hedge fund.
Now, as he neared retirement, Mr. Ponsoldt, of Jensen Beach, Fla., had a special request for Mossack Fonseca, a Panama-based law firm well placed in the world of offshore finance: How could he confidentially shift his money into overseas bank accounts and use them to buy real estate and move funds to his children?
“He is the manager of one of the richest hedge funds in the world,” a lawyer at Mossack Fonseca wrote when the firm was introduced to Mr. Ponsoldt in 2004. “Primary objective is to maintain the utmost confidentiality and ideally to open bank accounts without disclosing his name as a private person.”
In summary, the firm explained: “He needs asset protection schemes, which we are trying to sell him.”
Thus began a relationship that would last at least through 2015 as Mossack Fonseca managed eight shell companies and a foundation on the family’s behalf, moving at least $134 million through seven banks in six countries–little of which could be traced directly to Mr. Ponsoldt or his children.
These transactions and others like them for a stable of wealthy clients from the United States are outlined in extraordinary detail in the trove of internal Mossack Fonseca documents known as the Panama Papers. The materials were obtained by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and have now been shared with The New York Times.
In recent weeks, the papers’ revelations about Mossack Fonseca’s international clientele have shaken the financial world. The Times’s examination of the files found that Mossack Fonseca also had at least 2,400 United States-based clients over the past decade, and set up at least 2,800 companies on their behalf in the British Virgin Islands, Panama, the Seychelles and other jurisdictions that specialize in helping hide wealth.
Many of these transactions were legal; there are legitimate reasons to create offshore accounts, particularly when setting up a business overseas or buying real estate in a foreign country.
But the documents–confidential emails, copies of passports, ledgers of bank transactions and even the various code names used to refer to clients–show that the firm did much more than simply create offshore shell companies and accounts. For many of its American clients, Mossack Fonseca offered a how-to guide of sorts on skirting or evading United States tax and financial disclosure laws.
These included locating an individual from a “tax-convenient” jurisdiction to be the straw man owner of an offshore account, concealing the true American owner, or encouraging one client it knew was a United States resident to use his foreign passports to open accounts offshore, again to avoid scrutiny from regulators, the documents show.
If the compliance department at one foreign bank contacted by Mossack Fonseca on behalf of its clients started to ask too many questions about who owned the account, the firm simply turned to other, less inquisitive banks.
And even though the law firm said publicly that it would not work with clients convicted of crimes or whose financial activities raised “red flags,” several individuals in the United States with criminal records were able to turn to Mossack Fonseca to open new companies offshore, the documents show.
Federal law allows United States citizens to transfer money overseas, but these foreign holdings must be declared to the Treasury Department, and any taxes on capital gains, interest or dividends must be paid–just as if the money had been invested domestically. Federal officials estimate that the government loses between $40 billion and $70 billion a year in unpaid taxes on offshore holdings.
Experts in federal tax law, money laundering and offshore accounts–asked by The Times to examine certain documents or at least to identify legal issues raised by the money management techniques that Mossack Fonseca advocated–said the law firm at times had come up with creative, but apparently legal, strategies to save clients money. A common tactic: selling real estate as a shift of corporate assets, instead of as a piece of property subject to transfer taxes.
While the experts were reluctant to declare that the law firm or its clients had broken any laws given that no charges have been filed, they said they were surprised at how explicitly Mossack Fonseca had offered advice that appeared carefully crafted to help its clients evade United States tax laws.
“The more correspondence that you have between a U.S. person and a bank or law firm discussing tax issues and efforts at concealment, the stronger the government will see it as a potential case worth prosecuting,” said Kevin M. Downing, the lead Justice Department prosecutor in the UBS offshore banking and tax evasion cases, now at the Washington law firm Miller & Chevalier.
Mossack Fonseca has said repeatedly in recent weeks that its lawyers and staff members have honored international tax and banking laws, and that it is the victim in this case of an illegal hacking attack.
But presented with summaries of several cases by The Times, Mossack Fonseca did not try to explain its actions. It simply said that its standards had improved in recent years, as rules internationally had tightened.
The firm’s American client list does not appear to include the sort of high-profile political figures who have emerged from reporting on the Panama Papers in many other countries around the world.
But the services offered by Mossack Fonseca, with 500 employees in more than 30 offices worldwide, were in high demand by the rich and famous in the United States.
For its best customers, like the Ponsoldts, who declined repeated requests to discuss their work with Mossack Fonseca, the firm’s ministrations went far beyond legal services and banking. It acted as a concierge for “all details regarding your properties and worldwide business affairs,” for example, helping the family confidentially purchase (and dispose of) luxury condominiums at resort destinations and even arranging repairs for a car stored at a vacation home and hiring a contractor to fix broken poolside tiles, the documents show.
The firm’s American clients often expressed disbelief at how much they could lighten their tax burden by using the techniques advocated by Mossack Fonseca.
“At hearing that he can make nearly $8 million per year just on tax savings,” a client from Pennsylvania “was now wide awaken,” a Mossack Fonseca staff member wrote. “I could even detect sweats coming down from his forehead and his cheeks were beginning to blush with crimson excitement. Noticing his interest, I went in for the kill.”
Monday, June 6, 2016
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Israel’s settlement drive is becoming irreversible, diplomats fear
MITZPE YERICHO, WEST BANK–In the hills east of Jerusalem, overlooking the Palestinian city of Jericho and the Jordan Valley, stands a religious Jewish settlement whose red-tile roofs, neat gardens and brightly colored playgrounds give the sense of permanence.
Mitzpe Yericho has stood on this escarpment close to the Dead Sea–the lowest point on earth–since 1978. It is one of more than 230 settlements Israelis have built on occupied land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the past half-century.
Diplomats and international monitors are increasingly concerned that the drive, which has seen Israel settle more than half a million of its people at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, may be reaching the point of irreversibility.
The ongoing expansion further diminishes the prospect of any significant progress being made when foreign ministers from 20 countries meet in Paris this week to discuss how to revive Middle East peace efforts, given the settlements have been a central obstacle for at least two decades.
If a peace deal were magically struck tomorrow, the Palestinians would expect the Israelis living in Mitzpe Yericho to leave. But its 3,000 residents, nearly all whom are religious nationalists, have no such intention. To them, the settlement enterprise is God-given and irreversible.
“If there’s peace with the Palestinians we’re staying and if there’s no peace we’re staying,” said Yoel Mishael, 65, who has lived in Mitzpe Yericho since its founding. “It’s part of Israel, according to the Bible. It’s something from God.”
The foreign ministers will meet on Friday with the aim of paving the way for a summit later in the year that they hope the Israeli and Palestinian leaders will attend.
On Monday, in a sign that he is aware of the growing international pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was in favor of parts of the Arab peace initiative, a proposal put forward by Saudi Arabia in 2002 that would grant Israel recognition in exchange for withdrawing from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, among other steps.
Yet while some momentum may be building, there is scant indication the settlement enterprise can be halted, let alone reversed, leaving a fundamental barrier in the path to peace.
The settlement project began after Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the 1967 war. In the 1970s, with the government’s encouragement, large number of Jews began moving onto the occupied land. There are now 550,000 of them.
Many live in large blocs near Jerusalem or the ‘green line’ that separates Israel from the Palestinian territories, while others live deep inside the West Bank, in highly protected enclaves or pre-fabricated ‘outposts’ perched on hill tops. All the constructions are considered illegal under international law. Israel disputes this, and plays down the term occupation.
Calculating the financial cost of settlements to Israel is difficult; as well as the capital required to build there are defense and infrastructure costs and the price of tax breaks for residents who move there. But the Macro Center for Political Economics, an Israeli think-tank, estimates building alone has cost around $30 billion over the past 40 years.
Barely a month goes by without a fresh announcement from the government or one of its ministries about West Bank territory being declared “state land”, a precursor to settlement building, or a decision to allow new construction to proceed.
At the same time, Palestinians living in a part of the West Bank known as Area C, which accounts for 60 percent of the total and is where most settlements are located, are being uprooted from the land in increasing numbers.
During a visit to a sensitive part of the West Bank near the Palestinian city of Nablus, where settlements occupy almost every hilltop and are steadily expanding their footprint, U.N. diplomats studied maps and pointed out how the Israeli enclaves were spreading east toward the Jordan Valley.
“It starts to look irreversible,” said one official, a view separately supported by half a dozen foreign diplomats.
Under the Oslo accords of the mid-1990s, Israel retains full control over Area C, where large tracts have been declared closed military areas. As a result, Israeli courts tend to approve the removal of Palestinians from the area and the demolition of their homes, even though the accords did not change the illegal status of settlements there.
“Settlements are the vehicle for taking control of the land,” said Catherine Cook, an official with the U.N. office for the coordination of humanitarian assistance and an authority on settlements, speaking last month.
Asked whether she believed the settlement enterprise was irreversible, she replied: “Some of it has to be reversible.”
If a peace deal were struck, many settlements would undoubtedly remain. While not openly acknowledged, Palestinian negotiators accept that land swaps, in which the Israelis would keep major settlement blocs along the green line and near Jerusalem, and the Palestinians would receive equivalent amounts of land from Israel in return, would be part of the deal.
But that would still leave vast areas of the West Bank, where 2.8 million Palestinians live in major cities such as Hebron, Nablus and Ramallah, dotted with more than a hundred settlements, many large and protected by the military.
Within Israel’s right-wing government, there is little appetite to cede any ground to the Palestinians.
Education Minister Naftali Bennett is an ardent supporter settlements and wants Israel to annex all of Area C rather than allowing a Palestinian state to emerge. Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman lives in a settlement and is similarly wary of Palestinian statehood, even if like Netanyahu he has welcomed elements of the Arab peace initiative.
Hagit Ofran, a senior official at Peace Now, an Israeli NGO opposed to settlements, believes lines could be drawn that would allow a Palestinian state to emerge even if Israel kept many of its enclaves. But even then she estimates that as many as 150,000 settlers may have to be uprooted.
While some might leave willingly if offered the right compensation, many others would not. The removal of just 8,500 settlers from Gaza in 2005 caused violence and outrage.
Many of the settlers in the heartland of the West Bank are religious nationalists who believe all the land, which they call Judea and Samaria, was gifted to Israel in the Bible. They are not interested in financial incentives to leave.
On the northern edge of Mitzpe Yericho, a lookout point provides sweeping views of Jericho and the Jordan Valley. An audio recording gives visitors a selective history of the region, with an English narration explaining how in the Bible God spoke to Joshua after the death of Moses, saying:
“Prepare to cross the River Jordan together with all these people into the land which I am giving the Israelites. Every spot on which your foot treads, I will give to you.”
At the end of the account, the narrator adds: “Today, more than 3,000 years later, Israeli settlements have once again renewed this Biblical landscape … We wish you a pleasant visit.”
Britons, Feeling Apart From E.U., May Make It So With ‘Brexit’
LIVERPOOL, England–Just as many Britons feel emotionally apart and even alien from Europe, so they see the European Union as an opaque, bewildering abstraction, a mysterious bureaucratic behemoth that hoovers up their money and independence while giving little (or nothing) in return. British understanding of its workings and purpose has not been helped by the over-the-top arguments being thrown around in the debate over the referendum, scheduled for June 23.
But underlying all the dire predictions of doom–that staying or going will cause Britain to fall apart in various apocalyptic ways–is a deeper emotional issue that speaks to the country’s sense of self. Who does it think it is, and where does it think it belongs? Has it ever felt like it’s part of Europe?
Separated from the Continent by language, tradition, historic antagonism and an inhospitable body of water, Britain has always seemed to be an uneasy participant in the wider European project. It took years to sign up, and its agreement was always marked by caveats and exceptions to the rules. Even when it did join, it felt to many Britons as if someone had given a British pub owner a bunch of fancy French Champagne bottles and said, “Here, use these for your British ale from now on.” The trappings might be different, but the beer is still the same.
In the 15 years I lived in London (I returned home to the United States three years ago), I was constantly struck by the sense of otherness with which many English people regarded Europeans. (It’s more complicated for Scots, who are by nature anti-English and thus pro-anybody else, and for younger people and Londoners, who generally feel part of a wider world.)
But travel around England, talking to older people, and you find below the surface a sense of unease, of distrust. Even people who believe that Britain should stay in the European Union, for economic and trading purposes, do not feel very European.
At every turn, Britain proclaims its singularity. Most countries fly the European flag next to their national flags; Britain doesn’t. Most of Europe uses euros; Britain uses pounds. When you arrive at a British airport, you’re given a British landing card and directed to a passport line that says “British and E.U. Passports,” even though that is redundant: British passports are by definition European Union passports. British politicians in the last 20 years have increasingly talked about British values and British traditions, about what sets Britons apart from Europeans rather than what they have in common.
British people don’t speak the same language as other people in the European Union–not literally, not metaphorically. This is a country where one of the main railroad stations, Waterloo, commemorates Napoleon’s defeat by the British, where a serious objection to building the Channel Tunnel was that it might encourage rabid animals to sneak in from France, and where Beauchamp Place in London is pronounced “BEECH-am.”
The idea that things are easily lost in translation is reflected in the opening line of P. G. Wodehouse’s “The Luck of the Bodkins,” as a Briton confronts the daunting prospect of having to make himself understood on the Continent.
“Into the face of the young man who sat on the terrace of the Hotel Magnifique at Cannes,” Wodehouse writes, “there had crept a look of furtive shame, the shifty, hangdog look which announces that an Englishman is about to talk French.”
The so-called special relationship with the United States isn’t providing much comfort to the Brexit side these days; President Obama’s recent admonition to vote no in the referendum enraged many people who believe America should stay out of it and let their country think for itself.
As for Europe, some of the British sense of dissonance comes from loss of empire and the country’s complicated feelings about World War II, a moment that showed Britain at its shining best while simultaneously stripping it of its position as a major international power. And some of it stems, simply, from an island-centric sense of otherness.
“I might be part of the E.U., but I live on an island,” said Alan Lyon, 49, who shovels cullet–broken glass–in a glass factory. Mr. Lyon’s great-great-grandfather lost both legs in World War I; his grandfather fought in World War II. “We couldn’t mention Germany or France around him, he hated them so much,” he said.
Britain’s populist tabloids have a long history of slipping happily into anti-European remarks. “Up Yours Delors” read a famous headline in 1990 in The Sun, urging its readers to tell Jacques Delors, then the French head of the European Commission, to “frog off.” (Mr. Delors supported increased European economic integration, which The Sun did not.)
Prince Harry once wore a Nazi commandant costume to a party. And in 2006, officials specifically warned fans traveling to Germany for a soccer match not to do things like shout “Sieg heil” at the referees, or to put their fingers under their noses in a way meant to evoke Hitler’s mustache. Perhaps the favorite television episode here is one on “Fawlty Towers” when a hotel owner, played (again) by Mr. Cleese, responds to a group of German guests by lapsing into xenophobic insanity, goose-stepping around the dining room and referring to prawn cocktail as “prawn Goebbels.” (“You started it,” he says when the traumatized customers object. “You invaded Poland.”)
The pro-Brexit side has successfully tapped into anti-foreign feeling by conflating the European migrant crisis with what many Britons see as a local immigration crisis caused by lax European laws and porous European borders. In their view, the country is being overrun by foreigners who not only take their jobs and welfare benefits, but also bring fundamentally different values into Britain.
Recently, Britons were appalled at the news that a German comedian who went on television and recited a rude poem about Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish president, is to be prosecuted under a German law prohibiting the insulting of foreign leaders. As a way to thumb its nose at both Germany and Turkey, the influential right-leaning Spectator magazine started a “President Erdogan Offensive Poetry” competition, inviting readers to submit anti-Erdogan limericks.
The winner was Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and leader of the Brexit campaign, who implied in his poem that Mr. Erdogan was overly fond of goats. Announcing the winner in the magazine, Douglas Murray, who organized the competition, said the existence of the poem (and of Mr. Johnson) showed Britain’s superiority over Germany, which is part of the European Union, and Turkey, which would like to be.
“I think it a wonderful thing that a British political leader has shown that Britain will not bow before the putative caliph in Ankara,” he said. “Erdogan may imprison his opponents in Turkey. Chancellor Merkel may imprison Erdogan’s critics in Germany. But in Britain we still live and breathe free.”
