THE AFTERMATH OF BREXIT: BUCKINGHAM PALACE VERSUS BRUSSELS?

THE AFTERMATH OF BREXIT: BUCKINGHAM PALACE VERSUS BRUSSELS?

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):

The Brexit Reshuffles World Geopolitics

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...

14 thoughts on “THE AFTERMATH OF BREXIT: BUCKINGHAM PALACE VERSUS BRUSSELS?”

  1. Politicians from every country only do what is in their own best interest and only what adds to their own personal wealth and power. So whatever gives each of them personally more power and wealth will decide what their aims will be. If it is exiting that will be what they are for if it is staying in that will be what they are for. If betraying their country and countrymen to outside interests gets them more control and wealth then that is what they will do. You don’t get to the higher positions of power anymore having nationalist loyalties or morals; only by having unquenchable appetites that can only be safely fed by attaining and keeping the privaledges that go along with political power and blackmail. This idea of putting the worst of us and those with the most to hide in positions of power so that they can be controlled has gotten so out of hand that those who put them there now are the ones who are about to suffer the most from it as they lose control to them.

  2. we’re all watching soft power wielded well

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmmP5pkkOY

    it makes brutishly wielded force look as weak as it is, doesn’t it?

    two months ago who’d a thunk erdogan would beg putin’s forgiveness? there’s only so much oppression any leader can get away with of anyone now. so now to imagine how similar ideas trickle down to help those of us not wielding the kind of not quantity of power putin and/or york wield.

  3. Robert Barricklow

    I for one would enjoy seeing financial capitalism’s share of both political and financial booty go waaaay south.
    Perhaps political power could once again reign in the vipers fangs from the throats of the commoners and themselves and get back towards a more sane earth. One that is for living; rather than dying on the finacialized grape vine.

  4. There is no doubt whatsoever the Queen had a word in Mr. Cameron’s ear.
    If the old broad could see the danger in being in the EU, then why couldn’t the politicians see it.
    I’ve never liked the royal family, it’s what they stand for that defies explanation, the bloated fancy costumes, the bloated jewelry and the pomp and ceremony is so out of date.
    The Brexit will go down in history for probably all the wrong reasons, but the people prevailed, and that is REAL HISTORY.

  5. `Tis amazing how things only happen if the Royals want them. Note, how the Queen was thumbs up on Brexit, thumbs down on Scottish Independence and YAAC, the Scexit did not happen.

    So, is the break up of the Eurozone a dry run for the break up of the US? Note, we have the capitulation of Sen. Bernie in CA, Hillary’s “Get Out of Jail Free” card and Trump as the percieved front runners. Also note, how Trump was involved in the WWE/F, Clinton and Trump have played an amazing amount of golf togther (mostly at his Miss Universe Golf Tourneys) and the Clintons attended his most recent wedding. Both are extremely experienced at political theater.

    My guess is, Trump and Clinton’s goal will be a USSR style break up for the US w/ the division being more E/W than N/S. IMHO, Trump’s method will probably be a new Civil War or at least serious civil unrest in certain locals. Clinton’s vehicle will be a nuke exchange with the Ruskies and a new Civil War.

    Why? Well, this gets FedGov.Inc out from under Social Security, Public Pensions and Veterans bennies. Let’s not forget this will insure there will be no “National investigations” with the division of jurisdictions and or WWIV.. My guess is the majority of the East will succumb to the Stazi style Socialism.. And the majority of the West will tell them to take a hike. Therefore, the heist of SS/Vet’s bennies complete.. And half a pie is better than none.

    1. Aridzonan_13, you describe a very scary scenario. I have wondered why Trump is still alive. Remember RFK? Some sort of Trump/Clinton ‘alliance’ (actually, the powers behind them) would explain him still living. Boy, we live in exciting times…

  6. marcos toledo

    The problem is the CSA has been a tribal-empire from it’s birth. Obsess with destroying the culture of the indigenous people and their replacements from Africa in the Americas. And after the completion of that conquest worldwide. Even the non Norman Europeans were not spared from this de-culturization a pseudo culture was substituted now it will be up to the Europeans to become the true masters of their future and for the United States of Virginia to give it true name to finally become the master of it’s fate for the first time in it’s history instead of a puppet useful idiot it’s been.

  7. What’s mostly passed over on the Brexit vote is that a win of only 52% is hardly a mandate. When the fact that 39% of young people in Britain, who overwhelmingly favored to remain, didn’t bother to vote, is taken into consideration, eyebrows must be raised. Toss in the use of subtle and not so subtle use of xenophobic and racist propaganda by the exit side, which brought the bigots out of the woodwork and into the voting booths, and you’ve got a very questionable win here. Or at best, an even narrower win.

    It seems to me, the whole campaign and election was rigged by the British elites from the start. For one, just look at the promises made by the exit side that are now being walked back. Leaders of the Brexit, Boris Johnson and the head of the Independence Party, have turned tail and run, having played their “puppet roles” assigned to them by the elites.

    Not that the EU, run by it’s top dogs, isn’t in need of drastic reform and real restructuring. It is, for sure, or it will certainly dissolve.

    Joseph and Meyssan are right, as far it goes, on the international picture. But, as obvious to many, the British elites are in control here and any long term benefits will only, for the most part, accrue to them. With a Labour Party in disarray it doesn’t look good for the average British working class citizen, or even small business person.

    The oligarchs win again. So, what else is new?

  8. It’s hard to say what will tip the EU apple cart over, as there are so many contenders. Take your pick:

    *Italian banks are in meltdown and need 100s of billions in cash infusions to keep them in a semblance of viability. PM Renzi is already blaming Draghi, the ECB head and ex Goldmanite [you are “ex” Golden Sacks like you are “ex” CIA] who was running the Italian Treasury before the ECB,of being the root cause of the problem and wants his ECB helicopter money now. Nasty spat, that one.

    *Then you have DeutscheBank, a dead man walking. By far the most impossibly indebted bank in existence, rivalling many insolvent nation-states. This will take down the European financial system when it finally collapses.

    *France’s presidential elections in 2017: Hollande is despised as a clown, Sarkozy is “once bitten, twice shy,” leaving Le Pen and her promise of a Frexit referendum. France is currently in a virtual police-state lockdown, waiting for another attack, and French small to medium sized business is collapsing — packing suppliers in the Paris region are going bankrupt because no one is ordering cartons anymore.

    *Merkel will be ousted in Germany, too; it’s way past her sell-by date.

    *The EU’s politburo will double down on stupid in the face of demands for reform, pushing even more of its globalist/corporatist/bolshevik agenda despite calls for its dismantlement and a return to a free-trade union, making it even more obvious to all that it is profoundly out-of-touch, to say nothing of undemocratic and downright dangerously misguided.

    *NATO propaganda racheting up a phoney Russian invasion in the Balkins may lead to a NATO split too, as the absurdity of the proposition of a ground war sinks in among the populace.

    *Turkey loses it and sees a putsch or a meltdown, causing renewed refugee turmoil and further NATO chaos.

    *Or another of many possible flashpoints all around the EU.

    Looking good! Forward Soviet!

Comments are closed.