Brexit

The Who’s Roger Daltrey Supports Brexit, Badmouths Hillary Clinton

The Who‘s frontman Roger Daltrey continues to be outspoken about his support for Brexit, or more like his support for England getting out of the EU. “We are getting out, and when the dust settles I think that it’ll be seen that it’s the right thing for this country to have done, that’s for sure,” he told NME. He added, “I am not anti-European, but I an anti the present way we are being governed in Europe. “It’s got nothing to do with any of the immigration issues or any of that for me. It was to do with much more. The majority of this country felt that their voices weren’t being heard. It would have been nice to do a deal with Europe but they didn’t want to do a deal, and they sent Cameron back with a bag.” Daltrey went on, “I’m sad we voted how we voted, but I think we have to go with it now. This country will always be alright, I don’t worry about it. You know it’s going to be bumpy on the way—we expected that; the ones that voted to get out. But Iceland had it a bit bumpy when they went bankrupt, but oh not now.” When asked about President Donald Trump, the rocker was less political, commenting on the American president’s highly discussed hair and foul language. “His f—ing haircut! He needs it cut and as my mother would say, ‘wash your f—ing mouth out’. “On other pieces of politics, let’s put it this way: when you say that middle America and the Democrats lost it, but Trump didn’t really win it—because Democrats threw it away by putting [Hilary Clinton] up. A dead dog would have won it against [her], look at that.” The Who will perform at London’s Royal Albert Hall for Teenage Cancer Trust, Thursday, March 30, and Saturday, April 1.

Britain’s Brexit bill receives royal assent, becomes law

British Prime Minister Theresa May is free to officially notify the EU that the UK intends to leave after the Queen granted the Brexit bill royal assent. Following a turbulent passage through both houses and a drawn out court battle, May is expected to take the historic step of starting the process of leaving the 40-year union. Speaking in the House of Commons at the beginning of the week, May said she would trigger Article 50 “before the end of the month” and it is expected she will do so in the last week of March. The prime minister has described it as a “defining moment” for the country but the negotiations that will take place with the EU over the next two years promise to be bitter and bloody. Key players on both sides will now need to set to work thrashing out a Brexit deal alongside a free trade deal that will govern the UK’s future relationship with the remaining 27 members of the EU. Talks between the two sides are not likely to begin in earnest until June. The EU must issue a formal response to May’s formal Article 50 notification and then will need around eight weeks to draw up the full guidelines. The remaining 27 EU members will then need to formally issue a list of negotiating topics and red lines – the earliest they are expected to decide this is at an extraordinary summit in early May. The bill’s passing into law follows a difficult day for the government on Wednesday in which ministers were accused of “driving towards a cliff-edge with a blindfold on”.

Greg Gutfeld: Brexit’s babies: Why the Leavers won and the losers can’t stop crying

People (I will politely call them that, when referring to celebrities and media on Twitter) are acting like the Brexit vote is the end of humanity. It’s an online spectacle, this manic hissy fit orchestrated by A, B and C listers who seemingly have ignored the scandalous depravity unfolding in Venezuela, the horrors of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the murderous homophobia of ISIS and assorted other Islamist terror outfits, the barrel bombing of Syrians (which helped foster the Brexit vote). Yes, the Chicken Littles’ pleading for a re-vote are the same ones who CAUSED the vote, through selective outrage, shallow taunts and cowardly ambivalence. Brexit could have been avoided if its critics could have been honest about the present day world. But they weren’t. And so, on that note, here’s why Brexit happened, from a Yank’s eye. The Remainders remained home; the silent ones didn’t If you want to know who didn’t go out and vote – it’s the people hilariously demanding a second chance. The people who were sure Brexit wasn’t going to happen, were so sure it wasn’t going to happen, that they didn’t bother to get off their arses and vote. Now they want a do-over, a redo, calling this election a mulligan. I don’t think it works that way. If you didn’t take it seriously the first time, and everyone else who voted did – that’s on you. You were caught out in your arrogance and ignorance, assuming everyone who was for the exit was a frail, white angry pensioner. Turns out they were people you know – they just never told you so! While you ragged on and on about the bigotry of the leavers at a cocktail party in Chelsea or a pub in Islington, those who disagreed just silently nodded, hoping you’d shut up at some point. The Remainders offended anyone who felt discomfort over mass migration. Fact is, Great Britain has been under siege by the Islamophobia-phobia – the same disease that also grips the American media and body politic. If you express any fears over the rise of Islamism and its assorted toxic doctrines (whose consequences are recently visible in horrific splendor), you are the bad guy – the racist. You are actually worse than the perpetrator of such misdeeds. The sense that control over your own country was now in the hands of impotent bureaucrats in Brussels, and that a vote to leave could wrest your country away from such toadies who are putting your country at risk – is not a symptom of racism or xenophobia. It’s actually a sensible outlook given the state of affairs all over the globe. True , the mass migration is not the refugee’s fault: the west shares blame in its ineffectual response. And many don’t wish to flee – they simply have no choice. But given that over a million who might stream into Germany could then now come to Glasgow or Glastonbury –and within these numbers might sneak a lone ISIS fiend – why shouldn’t you, a British citizen, be concerned? You’d be an ostrich with your head not just in the sand, but up your own butt. The modern human lacks sense of priority. I don’t know whether it’s hilarious or sad that Lindsay Lohan, James Corden and others are expressing outrage over Brexit, as Venezuela descends into an abysmal amalgam of Soylent Green and Lord of the Flies. Bold-faced names are expressing elitist outrage over a vote, while people down south are assaulting each other over toilet paper. Venezuela represents real-time suffering, not the hypothetical hysterias put forth over Brexit. The actual policies of a government – one lauded by Sean Penn and Oliver Stone – are creating a living hell, against the wishes of the suffering people. And yet, the stars in our celebrity skies prefer to wring their soft, precious mitts over Brexit. Here’s why: Venezuela’s demise is caused by an ideology romanticized by the same people fretting over Brexit: socialism. It’s just easier to call a British man who fought in World War II a racist, than it is to condemn an inhuman ideology that he fought and beat. Fact is – Venezuela would LOVE to have a referendum like Brexit – to be able to exercise some autonomy over and away from the tyrannical ideologues who’ve destroyed their once rich country. Instead they starve and/or die, while the media denigrates grannies drinking tea. How did this lead to Brexit? I have a theory. Philosophers who are way smarter than me have studied this perplexing priority — that despite leading moral lives we tend to care more about a small problem in our vicinity (my roof is leaking), than a larger problem far away (a mudslide kills hundreds). Even more, research shows that the larger the suffering, the less we react. Meaning our heartstrings will be pulled harder by the photo of one starving child – than many children equally in pain. It’s weird but true. We care less when there is more. What we are seeing with Brexit is a play on this weird reflex. Because a starlet once lived in London, this compels her to express an oh-so-brave stance against Brexit (even though a week ago she might have thought Brexit was a laxative). Yet, has she said anything about Venezuela, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or the Taliban? I must have missed it. My point: it’s no longer a comparison between one starving child and many, it’s a choice between exercising one’s moral superiority in a risk-free environment (let’s go on Twitter and call pro-Brexit people racist or dumb) – and calling out real horror (islamists chucking gays off bridges and buildings). This moral cowardice as expressed by the most well-known of earthlings is what led to Brexit. Brexit wasn’t just evidence of a natural concern over one’s well being in the face of rising Islamism amidst the European Union’s lax immigration policy, it’s also a big middle finger (or two “middle” fingers, if you’re British) to those who cannot prioritize injustice, or evil. So call those who voted for Brexit bigots or idiots — you’ll only encourage them. And by selectively ignoring greater evils around you — you’ll be making the case for leaving better than the leavers ever could. And you make the world less safe, too. Maybe it’s good you stick to Twitter.

Outstanding!!  Greg just nailed it!!  Consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read just one article here today, then READ THIS!!  Then, forward it on to all your friends and family members.  You can catch Greg over on the Fox News channel’s The Five program during the week, and he has his own show on weekends.