BREXPULSION, OR BREXIT?: CHOICES AHEAD FOR GREAT BRITAIN

I've been suggesting in some recent blogs that Great Britain would be a crucial country to watch in coming European geopolitics, not the least of which is because Britain has had a long history of holding aloof from schemes of continental union. From a strictly personal point of view, I have always had reservations about British involvement in the latest schemes, from the Common Market to the current European Union, for like it or not, the old great power rivalries in Europe still simmer below the surface, as the most recent example of Greece seems to demonstrate. Beyond this, as I've been attempting to argue - how successfully is for the reader to decide - that Britain is in a unique cultural position vis-a-vis global geopolitics and the increasingly cultural turn that they are taking, especially given Russia's efforts to point out shortcomings and hypocrisies in American leadership not only of the western alliance system, but in its wider cultural influence and deep domestic cultural crisis manifest in the rampant corruption and unipolarism of Washington's foreign policy.

Britain's unique position comes from its cultural position as the head of the British Commonwealth, a largely defunct notion, and as it has also constructed the largest off-shore banking havens around the world.

More importantly, as Catherine Austin Fitts has pointed out, the BBC's recent and highly thought-provoking Worricker Trilogy, and specifically the second episode thereof, Turks and Caicos, seems on the surface to be a typical political thriller, but whose message, on deeper analysis, might be a clear case of London sending messages to Washington that it is clearly unhappy with the direction American policy has gone since 9/11. As I pointed out recently, Britain's Economist magazine - a mouthpiece for the British oligarchy - ran a lengthy op-ed piece on the calcification of the American oligarchy by pointing out the re-run of the Bush-Clinton dynasties yet again in the upcoming presidential (s)election cycle. For the moment, Mr. Trump appears to be tapping into popular cycnicism in America, but whether this can be translated into actual electoral power and governing policy remains to be seen.

In that respect, Mr. T.M. shared this thought-provoking article of analysis of Mr. Cameron's attempt to renegotiate the terms and conditions of Britain's continued presence in the EU:

Push or jump? Why the UK could be facing a ‘Brexpulsion’ rather than a ‘Brexit’

While the article is quite lengthy, I want to draw attention to these paragraphs towards its end:

In UK labour law there is a concept of ‘constructive dismissal’ which refers to circumstances in which the employer makes life so unpleasant for the worker – for example by giving them demeaning tasks, or subjecting them to forms of bullying – that the latter quits. Where it is proven in an industrial tribunal, the employer becomes liable for having unfairly dismissed the employee, even though an actual firing did not occur.

This concept may be useful in examining how a Brexpulsion might occur. If the UK repeatedly finds its position on key political or policy issues rebuffed, or is excluded from decisions, it may be the Brits who pull out, but it will be for reasons akin to constructive dismissal. The UK government’s advice to employees who think they have a case for constructive dismissal therefore makes interesting reading:

If you do have a case for constructive dismissal, you should leave your job immediately – your employer may argue that, by staying, you accepted the conduct or treatment.

If the constructive dismissal parallel holds, the implication may well be that the UK should jump out of the EU before being pushed, but there should be no doubt that it would still constitute Brexpulsion, rather than a reasoned choice to exit, because the patience of the UK’s partners will have become exhausted. We are still some way from such a scenario, but the illusion that the forthcoming referendum on Brexit is a choice for the UK voters alone needs to be dispelled. We have to talk about it.

In other words, the core issue seems to be the behavior of the Eurocrats in Brussels, and the fact that, beneath the surface, Britain is being told what it must do, rather than having a real voice. This brings home a point I tried to make in my most recent book, The Third Way: The Nazi International, The European Union, and Corporate Fascism, the actual structure of the EU has very little in common with an actual democracy or republican or parliamentary system, since the European Parliament has very little real power, that power being invested in a commission whose commissioners are appointed by the various national governments of Europe.

In effect, this means that the European Union is essentially a Franco-German axis, and when push comes to shove, as we've seen recently with Greece, the ultimate final decision-making power lies in Berlin, not Paris or Brussels. Even France, readers will recall, expressed its displeasure with Berlin's (read Herr Schaueble's) handling of the Greek situation. And, turning the clock back further, it was Mrs. Thatcher who warned of similar dangers before the Eurocrats in her own Conservative party turned on her and brought her government down. That process - one involving the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson John Major et al. - is too long and complicated a story to review here, but the point seems to be that the chickens have come home to roost, and now Mr. Cameron has to deal with it, yet again.

My high octane speculation - and prediction - is that Mr. Cameron might successfully negotiate more favorable terms for Britain's membership in the EU, but that in the long run, without fundamental structural changes in the EU mechanism itself, Britain will simply face "more of the same." Fundamentally, the French bureaucrats and technocrats and the German corporations will remain in charge. As I pointed out in The Third Way, it was fundamentally those French cultural and German financial fears of the corrupting Anglo-American cultural and financial influences that led to the current situation in the first place, and hence we had the flurry of secret negotiations between then French President Valery Giscard-d'Estang and Chancellor Helmut Kohl leading to the eurozone and EU.

And that means Britain will face the choice once again. Maybe it's time for Britain to consider its own "third way." In a sense, it certainly seems to have been sending some very peculiar signals across the pond. Maybe it needs to send some across the Channel as well.

See you on the flip side...

 

11 thoughts on “BREXPULSION, OR BREXIT?: CHOICES AHEAD FOR GREAT BRITAIN”

  1. England does not participate in the Euro and never will simply because england has its own commonwealth union that it exploits. Fact is America is an honorary member of englands commonwealth whether we like it or not. Remember it was Tony Blair that turned over the critical intel on Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction which legalized our entry into a war with Iraq,which we now know was falsified intel. Germany said as much at the time. Remember also when we were considering entering Vietnam Australian soldiers,sent by England(the royal house), were already fighting alongside the South Vietnamese but were getting their butts kicked. Protecting the commonwealths lands or sphere’s of influence seems to fall on America every time England can’t (or won’t) defend them herself. Englands Royal house is Nazified as are all the european royal houses. The Nazi int. has the blackmail on all of them for their financial and political support of Hitlers third reich in a bid to defeat royalty’s greatest fear,Communism where royal houses are deposed and taken out and shot like dogs in the street, a fate that could easily befall any of them if the people are given the chance to administer their own justice. A fitting end for dictators and tyrants.

  2. On “the re-run of the Bush-Clinton dynasties yet again in the upcoming presidential (s)election cycle,” I am curious whether there will be another ‘Bilderberg moment’:

    For those with longish memories, both Barack and Hillary disappeared from public view for several hours, prior to the Democratic Convention. Both of them were last seen in the general area of the Bilderberg ‘convention’, which just happened to be in Virginia in that pivotal election year. After that potential ‘selection’, Barack’s political star ascended, while Hillary’s went into eclipse.

    I wonder whether Jeb and Hillary will need to physically-attend a Bilderberg ‘convention’ this time around, or whether the ‘choice’ has already been made by the Bilderberg ‘inner circle’…

  3. You can bet that the London elites don’t like being told what to do by a bunch of Nazi International fascists. There are some pretty “heavy batters” in London, and that “tiny” island has been a world power for a very long time.
    In Joseph’ latest book, “The Third Way”, he leaves little doubt, that the Martin Bormann “rule book” laid down all those years ago, is still being followed by Frau Merkel ,and Wolfgang Schaeuble.
    If the UK does decide to leave the Euro, then possibly some other nations, who have smelt a rat in the EU, will pull the rip cord.

  4. The Bank of England recently admitted that banks create 97% of the currency[around the world].
    Why any country[including the U.S under the Fed’s thumb would willingly loose her sovereignty to an extra state organization[international banking cartel, EU, etc.] is beyond me?[unless these Judas’s believe selling off their countrymen is just too profitable to ignore]. Perhaps, their is an agreement to come under an umbrella of a privatized world government that would be unaccountable to the public? The public’s bite is being defanged in numerous ways. Most anything called public is being put up on private auction blocks. Just ask the Greek people.

  5. Dear Joseph, I’m 1/3 way through your book and being very impressed with it. I’m looking forward to the part about Mitterrand, whom historical Gaullists (meaning not the clowns passing themselves as Gaullists from Jacques Chirac onwards) have always considered a traitor. I agree Britain will be key. I believe the so-called Franco-German axis, Franco-German “friendship” (sic) is in fact a Germano-German axis where the French have been s…d over and over – may the French wake up to that fact sooner than later. Once you start to understand the full scope of what Germany has done to France in the XXth century it is very painful. We (the French) have a much richer history with Britain than with Germany. The Germans and the French, in actual fact, have little to say to each other. It’s an unnatural alliance. I favor a French-British-US revived alliance based on a germane (!) understanding of human freedom and political philosophy. The role of France in the American revolution in that light is a powerful legacy. It’s not for nothing that the etymological meaning of France is “land of the free”. I’m getting carried away. Thank you Joseph, I consider you a hero.

  6. The Pound Sterling and the US Dollar have become a safe haven for criminals of all sorts. Governments, Corporations, Crime Syndicates National and International Worldwide.

  7. As a British expat living in Canada I am following this very closely.

    A key point in British geopolitical behaviour and its relations with the EU is currency. Tony B,Liar was in favour of the UK joining the euro currency, he was talked down by then chancellor Gordon brown and it was a very smart move for the UK economy. I would argue that it would never have happened anyway because perhaps the single biggest asset the UK has, especially England, is its currency, the Pound Sterling.

    Its mystifying that the pound is such a strong currency. The GDP of the UK is small compared to other economies. UK exports are also small, on a world scale. The Pound remains one of the strongest currencies. I suggest its because of the ancient power of the City of London, the finance & banking autonomy that is a separate entity, managing vast power, well explored by Doc.

    1. Tony B,Liar — wonderful!

      Well, as for the pound being a strong currency, as they say, ‘Among the blind, the one with one eye is king.’

      George Soros, that odious tick, wrecked the pound and it has never recovered, but yes, that exclusive, extra-territorial financial-corporate tax haven and money-laundering centre aka the City is what keeps the currency afloat.

      A massive case of wag the dog. Otherwise “Great” Britain doesn’t have that much to offer, sad to say, except remarkably resiliant canon fodder and effective administrators, as the Empire has amply proven.

      As for BRexit, the UK has danced around this issue for over a decade — heck literally since the inception of the new, improved EU (a Franco-Teutonic project which it never bargained for) — and at this point, after the example of Greece — which was the moment when the whole world got a good, long look at who really is behind that curtain — there is no way that the UK political class can continue to fence-straddle. The public, which has always been highly leery of the EU, is now firmly against. You need only look at the stunning surge in UKIP, and the Calais crisis will only add fuel to this fire. BRexit will occur; either by referndum or when the next PIIGS domino falls.

      1. Agreed Basta. Ive yet to read Doc’s latest as amazon are dragging their heels, but the old German British elites will continue to ally and fight, depending on the age and probably the cosmos.
        I cannot take credit for ‘Tony B,Liar’ that must go to my old friend LPY

Comments are closed.