THE AFTERMATH OF BREXIT: BUCKINGHAM PALACE VERSUS BRUSSELS?July 5, 2016
As the reader has gathered, I have been devoting my blogs this week to the BREXIT and its implications, and although I certainly do not intend to make this week's blogs exclusively about this subject, there has been so much to comment about that this focus has been necessary.
In the previous week's News and Views from the Nefarium, I outlined two very different analyses of the run-up to the referendum, and its likely consequences. In terms of the likely consequences, I have advanced the speculations that (1) this allows Britain much more latitude and freedom to pursue international global markets and trade much more aggressively than under the sluggish EU bureaucracy and its business-choking regulations, (2) this would position Great Britain to take advantage of its soft-power culture-power position and pursue trade within the British Commonwealth, and reassert its leader ship position within it, with the Commonwealth possibly becoming a new trading block with real global weight, and that because of this (3) Britain could position itself as a cultural alternative to the USA to the rest of the world, and finallly, (4) this would position Britain to take advantage of the new horizons for commerce in the development of space, since free of the EU, Britain no longer has to deal excluseively with the European Space Agency, but can pursue - perhaps in conjunction with other Commonwealth nations - its own space initiatives, or negotiate them with other space-faring powers.
As I also argued, there were significant "tells" or "clues" that something major was afoot within the British deep state prior to the BREXIT, and that if one was paying attention to these clues and tells, the BREXIT vote's results were not all that surprising. The first of these, I have been arguing, was the intriguing op-ed piece in The Economist in July of last year. The Economist is, so to speak, the "official magazine" of the British elite. In that op-ed piece, you'll recall, The Economist blasted the American plutocrats and oligarchy for being "calcified" and unable to come up with a new vision for a way forward. The reason? The then front runners of the two halves of America's one political party, the Dummycrooks and Republithugs, were none other than Shrillary Clinton and Jeb remove-the-9/11-flight-school-records-before-no-one-sees-them and no-hanging-chad-here Bush. From the British elite's point of view, the op-ed piece was a way of saying "Really? You're doing this again!? You can't come up with anything better or more genuine?" Enter Sanders and Trump, which probably didn't assuage the anxieties at the Carlton Club in London or the Salisbury Group in Oxford.
Then came Britain's decision to join in the board of China's Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, and that was in my mind the clue that Britain was pivoting away from Brussels and to the Pacific, though obviously not the same way as Washington; Britain's carriers and submarines, so far as I know, aren't making huge mass demonstrations in the South China Sea nor is London attempting to provoke Beijing. Then came two more significant tells. The first was the episode, which was widely reported in the British tabloids, and almost completely ignored by the American lamestream media, that Queen Elizabeth II had invited various political dignitaries, including Britain's vice premier, around to the palace for dinner and conversation, which, as it was alleged in the tabloids, turned out to be on the subject of the European Union, and the Queen asking what, exactly, was benefitting Britain by being in it. THat in itself was another huge clue, as was the visit of Chinese premier Xi Kinping to Britain, including a bit of "quiet downtime" with the Queen herself. Subject of discussion? Nobody knows for sure, but you can bet your bottom soon-no-longer-to-be-sole-reserve-currency dollar that it wasn't about the weather; it was about Asia, infrastructure, trade, and development.
Intriguingly, this week, Mr. W.J.W. sent this article concerning the views of French researcher and journalist Thierry Meyssan (known to many in the 9/11 truth community as the individual that very early on raised questions about the official narrative of 9/11 concerning the Pentagon strike):
Note that Meyssan states that the BREXIT vote came from deep Tory party factional divisions, and a faction favoring withdrawal (hence explaining Mr. Cameron's sudden decision to resign), and from the Palace itself:
Contrary to the boastful claims of Nigel Farage, UKIP was not the originator of the referendum it has just won. The decision was imposed on David Cameron by the members of the Conservative Party.
For them, London’s policy must be a pragmatic adaptation to the evolution of the world. This «nation of shop-keepers», as Napoleon qualified it, observes that the United States are no longer either the world’s prime economy or its major military power. There is therefore no further reason to hang on as their privileged partner.
Just as Margaret Thatcher never hesitated to destroy British industry in order to transform her country into an international financial centre, in the same way the Conservatives did not hesitate to open the door for the independence of Scotland and Northern Ireland - and thus the loss of North Sea oil - in order to transform the City into the primary off shore financial centre for the yuan.
The Brexit campaign was largely supported by the Gentry and Buckingham Palace, who mobilised the popular Press to call for a return to independence.
Contrary to the interpretations published in the European Press, the departure of the British from the EU will not happen slowly, because the EU will collapse faster than the time necessary for the bureaucratic negotiations concerning their withdrawal. The Comecon states did not have to negociate their exit, because the Comecon had ceased to function as soon as the centrifugal movement began. The member states of the EU who hang on, desperately trying to save whatever remains of the Union, will fail in their adaptation to this new distribution, and run the risk of experiencing the painful convulsions of the first few years of the new Russia – a vertiginous drop in the standard of living and life expectancy.
Like me, Meyssan sees the BREXIT vote as being also not just a referendum on the EU, but on American unipolarism and attempts to turn the major powers of Europe into American satrapies:
The Brexit marks the end of the ideological domination of the United States, that of the dime-store democracy celebrated as the «Four Freedoms». In his address on the State of the Union in 1941, President Roosevelt defined them as (1) Freedom of Speech and expression, (2) the Freedom of all people to honour their God in the way they choose, (3) Freedom from need, (4) Freedom from Fear [of foreign aggression]. If the English are going to return to their traditions, continental Europeans are going to revisit the questions posed by the French and Russian revolutions concerning the legitimacy of power, and shake up their institutions at the risk of sparking a new Franco-German conflict.
The Brexit also marks the end of the military-economic domination of the US, since NATO and the EU are simply the two sides of a single coin - even if the construction of their Foreign Policy and Common Security took longer to implement than that of free exchange. Recently, I was writing a note on this policy in terms of the situation in Syria. I examined all the internal documents of the EU, both public and unpublished, and arrived at the conclusion that they had been written without any knowledge of the reality on the ground, but from notes taken by the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was himself reproducing the instructions of the US State Department. A few years earlier, I had to do the same job for another state, and had arrived at a similar conclusion (except that in this other case, the intermediary was not the German, but the French government).
As Meyssan also points out in his article, the BREXIT vote also stands to revivify long-standing historical rivalries between Germany and France. And, as I have indicated, the moves for FREXITS in France have now been given new life, in spite of M. Hollande's stetements that no such referenda will be held or allowed. After all, he is now ruling France under emergency powers since the (suspiciously convenient) Paris attacks. But one wonders if the French are any more satified with the EU status quo than their British counterparts. France too has had its share of refugee problems, and French security forces have closed a number of mosques in the wake of the Paris attacks. The French economy struggles with EU regulations no less than the British did, so one wonders how long France will endure the situation just for the sake of getting to "play Charlemagne" in conjunction with Berlin?
My guess is, not long. Economic realities will inevitably triumph over the Brussels dystopia. And that means, expect France to make some sweeping proposals for EU-restructuring.
Meanwhile... in Germany, they're already at it. But that has to wait for tomorrow.
See you on the flip side...