January 22, 2019 By Joseph P. Farrell

In last Thursday's News and Views from the Nefarium I spoke about Brexit and the sound drubbings Birtish Prime Minister May received in the House of Commons last week, losing a vote on her Brexit deal by the largest no-confidence measure in modern British history, and exceeding that against Ramsey MacDonald, decades ago, by scores and scores of votes. Labour opposition quickly brought a no confidence measure, which she survived.  But there's no doubt that May's government, like Mad Madame Merkel's and globaloney Marionette Macron's, is faltering and weak, and the reason for that weakness are their policies.

After last week's News and Views however, I expressed my hope that British viewers would pass along any insight, information, or theories about the whole process that they had, because the picture over here across the pond is, well, inadequate and confusing in the extreme.

Well, they did so, in spades. Therefore in this blog, I want to try to review what some Britons shared with me.

One mystification I had was cleared up by a gentleman. My mystification concerned why Mrs. May didn't simply resign after her Brexit deal lost overwhelmingly in the House of Commons, with many even in her own Tory party voting against her. After watching or listening to a few British television or radio shows, I came away more or less with the opinion that the consensus was that May had to stay, rather than risk a general election and the possibility of a Labour government under Mr. Corbyn. In other words, better the incompetent devil you know, rather than the incompetent devil you don't. And I emphasize the "incompetence" angle, because listening to the shows, the word (or its opposite) made its way into the discussions many times.

One of the videos I stumbled across was former British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who resigned from Mrs. May's cabinet last year over dissatisfaction and disagreements with Mrs. May's Brexit policy. I "knew" Mr. Johnson in a sort if "distant" and "casual" way at Oxford, having bumped into him a few times in the Union Society and having helped his campaign  for the presidency of the Union Society in a small way. Recently Mr. Johnson reemerged into the spotlight, giving a policy speech at the British JCB company, a manufacturer of heavy construction equipment:  I don't know about you, but this sure sounds to me like the beginning of a bid to become the leader of the Tory Party. Significantly, the effect of this speech is "get Brexit over and done with", and it's the classic "Bojo" style I remember from his Oxford days.

At a deeper level, one gentleman in the UK informed me of something I did not know, namely, that under the Blair Government, the Labour Party "modernized" the parliamentary process, the net effect of which was to concentrate prerogative power in Downing street and the Prime Minister's cabinet, a fact he argued that was one of the sources of the contempt of Parliament proceedings vote against Premier May last year. This gentleman's  insight rings true to me, because in 2003 the Blair Government reviewed the workings of the British government, including a thorough review of the reserved powers of the Crown (which are still considerable, contrary to the popular American view).

Another lady in the United Kingdom tied Brexit to the wider and growing continental movement against the political destruction of national cultures and sovereignties, and she indicated that the Belgian government had collapsed, or was in the process of doing so, because the protests against globaloneyist policies have spread to that country and had become violent. The reason? That country, seat of the very European Union itself, had rejected the UN migration treaty, which would, by Belgian lights, dismantle what few border controls there are left. She emphasized that that news, however, came through a contact on the continent, because no news source is reporting it, so take that with a bag of salt.

This lady had another insight, wondering if one part of the Brexit agenda may simply have been to find out how many people bought into "EU Propaganda." She even entertained the speculation that the Brexit referendum may have been "misreported", with the actual percentage of voters wanting out of the EU being much higher, but it was reported as "52%" because that was much more divisive. I too have wondered the same thing, and I suspect we're not alone.

Yet another gentleman sent along the following article, and this one was a complete shock to me, because the article, and the letter to Prime Minister May on which it is based, alleges that Mrs. May's Brexit 'deal" with the Eurocrats would essentially surrender the United Kingdom's military and considerable intelligence capabilities to the likes of Mad Madam Merkel and Marionette Macron, or to put it even more crudely, to the perpetual insanity of a Guy Verhofstadt, who never met a globaloney policy he didn't adopt and advocate with religious zealotry.

In any case, this article and letter is the occasion for today's high octane speculation:

Dearlove Guthrie Letter Published

Now, as you might have guessed, when a former head of MI-6 writes the Prime Minister in conjunction with a British Field Marshal as part of a group letter that her Brexit deal would surrender "British national security by subordinating UK defence forces to Military EU control and compromising UK intelligence capabilities," I tend to sit up and take notice, because here, at last, we get to the "deep state heart of the matter," so to speak. The letter continues by invoking that deep state, and its "special relationships": "It puts at risk the fundamental Anglosphere alliances, specifically the Five Eyes Alliance and thereby threatens western security." To read between the lines a bit (but not too much), the letter alleges that May's Brexit deal would compromise not just British, but American intelligence capabilities and independence, and the careful "special relationship" that British, Canadian, Australian, American, and New Zealander intelligence have with each other, by subordinating them to "an undemocratic organization, the European Commission", an organization that "offers subordination, not partnership." The letter even alleges that the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland has been weaponized by the EU. Reading between the lines even more, the letter and its Annex are really saying that the Brexit deal is a not too subtle attempt by Germany and France, in the guise of the EU, to gain a measure of access and influence within a wider "Anglosphere" intelligence network.

This makes some sense to me, because shortly after the Brexit referendum occurred, it appeared as if Great Britain was taking measured steps - as I predicted it might - to revitalize the Commonwealth itself as a soft power bloc, and as one British lady put it to me, there certainly was a heavy dose of "Commonwealth marketing and symbolism" going on with the recent royal wedding of a British prince to, notably, an American "socialite."

Of course, all of this is still reading tea leaves, and your guess is as good as mine. And it may be even that today's or tomorrow's news will completely upset this apple cart of speculation. But for now, these letters seem to indicate that there are very major and powerful forces in play that one way or another, want to see Great Britain completely out of the EU fiasco. We're watching, it would appear, a Wimbeldon show down, not between Borg and McEnroe, but between "intelligence and electronic surveillance" and "globaloney banksters" and a certain very powerful family, also with deep roots in Britain.

See you on the flip side...