Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU
This week's WAB commentary on Brexit follows.
World Affairs Brief, July 1, 2016 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com).
This Week’s Analysis:
Globalist War Against Brexit
Canada Warns About Russian Threat
Napolitano Wrong on Orlando Claim
Justice Thomas’s Dissent on Abortion Ruling
State’s Concern Over Flood of Refugees Rebuffed by Obama
Preparedness Tip: Shaving Options
GLOBALIST WAR AGAINST BREXIT
The narrow British vote to withdraw from the European Union last week (“Brexit”) shocked the global Powers that Be (PTB) but it didn’t take long for them to bring their considerable levers of power to bear in a full scale attack on the Brits who want to leave. First, the EU Council played hardball with Britain, refusing to allow the UK to have any access to European markets unless they essentially agree to abide by core aspects of the EU Treaty—the very things the majority of Brits want out of. Then, there appears to be a major move to co-opt the Brexit leadership within the Conservative Party so that another globalist will end up replacing Cameron as Prime Minister. This is important because the Prime Minister will control the negotiations with the EU. If he or she agrees to bind Britain by the same onerous provisions that now control the EU, the Brexit vote will have been effectively nullified. Ultimately, the Brexit rebellion against the EU is symptomatic of the much larger anti-elite movement in the West, so its ramifications for Americans are large.
One of the globalist’s most prominent writers came out this week and admitted as much. Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars.com reports on the overt message,
In a column for Foreign Policy Magazine, Council on Foreign Relations member James Traub argues that the elite need to “rise up” against the “mindlessly angry” ignorant masses in order to prevent globalization from being derailed by the populist revolt that led to Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump.
Concerned that, “Today’s citizen revolt — in the United States, Britain, and Europe — may upend politics as nothing else has in my lifetime,” Traub notes that Brexit was an “utter repudiation of…bankers and economists” and an example of how “extremism has gone mainstream”.
Citing the potential for Trump to split the Republican Party even if he loses and the increasing unpopularity of France’s socialist government, Traub argues that establishment political parties in major western countries must “combine forces to keep out the nationalists”. [They already did that in Austria to keep the Freedom Party from winning.]
“With prospects of flat growth in Europe and minimal income growth in the United States, voters are rebelling against their dismal long-term prospects,” writes Traub. “And globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites.”
Clearly Traub is hinting that the globalists will do whatever it takes to crush this movement before it grows further. Because their sure-fire weapon (world war with Russia and China) is not yet ready to happen, they will have to resort to their ample political, financial and media powers to manipulate economic markets and penalize the Brexit movement so as to make rebellion as painful as possible. The globalists even went so far as to falsify a supposed petition where millions demanded a new vote as reported by Townhall.com
Pro-European spammers have fooled the British establishment into believing a million people a day have signed a petition to hold a second referendum on Brexit. The petition demands the referendum rules are retrospectively changed forcing a second vote on Britain’s membership of the EU.
But doubts were raised about the authenticity of those signing after evidence that a code was being used emerged. It shows how the petition website was tricked into registering millions of ‘signatures’ from people who do not exist.
Further questions were raised over the petition after analysis showed that just 353k of the nearly 3 million signatures were from the UK. A total of 3000 were reported to be from Vatican City, a country with a population of just 800.
Meanwhile the EU leadership is reacting with disdain, claiming to want Britain “out as soon as possible,” while their more pragmatic globalist leaders behind the scene are preparing the ultimate trap—to use the lure of trade with Europe to force Britain to accept what they voted to rid themselves of. As the Dailyfx.com wrote,
The European Council’s press conference made clear the EU is ready to start the divorce process with the United Kingdom as they concluded the opening day of their June meeting. While the statements were conducted with a sense of lament, members of the EU council urged the UK to evoke the article 50 procedure to start the EU withdrawal as soon as possible and have reiterated that there will be no informal negotiations before the notification has been delivered.
There are two key points to realize here: 1) Article 50 is a trap that can delay Britain’s exit up to two years if an agreement is not reached. It is also totally one-sided. Once Britain calls for Article 50 negotiations they are stuck with the two year deadline to withdraw and only the EU can agree to the terms that will let them out before the two year limit—which is unlikely unless British leaders give the EU what it wants.
2) The EU’s refusal to engage in informal negotiations is a warning against the British unilaterally leaving without the Article 50 limitations. Britain can do that, but basically the EU is saying, we won’t talk to you unless you negotiate through our Article 50 trap.
Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered a warning to the United Kingdom that they would not be able to choose the benefits of their future relationship while avoiding the costs. Chancellor Merkel spoke to the German Parliament ahead of the European Union Council meeting, stating the UK would have to share the obligations of membership in order to be able to gain full access to the single market of goods and services. French President Hollande echoed those sentiments saying the UK will not have access to the single market without freedom of movement or budget participation.
Incredible. The major driving force for the majority of Brits in voting for “Leave” was the issue of unlimited immigration which is flooding London and other major cities with Muslims. Unlimited movement also means the UK cannot say no to illegal immigrants the EU allows in.
And if that was not enough, the EU wants the UK to continue to pay to play in the EU single market economy but have no say, not being a member. That is essentially taxation without representation, and the Brits are about to find out why the American colonists found that so offensive in that. Of course, the EU will say, stay in the union and you can have representation.
That’s a facetious argument because Britain has always been outvoted in the EU Parliament and is then stuck with the tangled web of regulations and social controls that go with membership. So what are the chances of the UK going it alone economically and withstanding an EU hardline deal—amounting to a boycott? The UK Guardian outlined the trade situation as it now stands:
Trade has become an issue in the referendum campaign, with the leave camp saying that the size of the UK’s deficit will encourage other EU countries to grant Britain continued access to the European single market.
A trade deficit means that the UK imports more than it exports. That indeed would cause EU countries to pressure the EU Council to make a deal with Britain so as to maintain that trade.
Vote Leave chief executive, Matthew Elliott, said: “The EU is not working. The eurozone is collapsing, millions of people are unemployed and Europe’s economies are massively underperforming. That means that European countries are buying less from us than ever before as we trade more with the rest of the world. “If we Vote Leave we will be able to take back control of our trade and do deals with growing economies rather than being shackled to the failing economies of Europe.”
He’s right about the EU having a majority of failed, indebted states like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Most of the former Soviet states are in recession as well. The following is what is crucial:
Figures from the ONS showed that Europe is gradually becoming a less important destination for UK companies. In 2000, 60% of exports went to other EU countries, but the percentage fell to 58% in 2005, 54% in 2010 and 47% in 2015. Over the same period, imports from the EU remained constant, accounting for 54% in both 2000 and 2015.
Europe has tended to be a less crucial market for UK service sector companies, many of whom have close business links with the US. Since 2000, the percentage of services sector exports going to the EU has remained at around 40%. Taking goods and services together, the share of exports going to the EU has fallen from 54% in 2000 to 44% in 2015.
The latest ONS figures show that Britain had a £34.7bn deficit in the trade of goods in the first three months of 2016, up by £1.4bn on the final quarter of 2015. The deficit with the EU accounted for more than two thirds of the shortfall, with the deficit with non-EU countries standing at £10.8bn.
I recommend that Britain play hardball and use its ample economic leverage and buying power to go head to head with the EU. I’m not saying this will not be a painful process, but the pain goes both ways if they unilaterally leave. If they submit to Article 50, they are hostage to the will of the EU for two more years.
While trade with the EU is declining, a complete cutoff of EU trade (by the EU) would devastate certain British businesses that exclusively sell to EU countries. In other words, aggregate figures quoted above don’t tell the whole story. Some win in the Brexit and other pay the whole price.
Here are the economic options open to a British exit according to the Financial Times of London, which are a bit complex:
● EEA Plus If Britain retained membership of the European Economic Area, it would have full access to the single market in goods and services, but not in agriculture. It would have to contribute to the EU budget and accept freedom of movement. The “plus” part includes other elements of Britain’s EU membership, such as participation in the European Arrest Warrant, that are not part of the single market and EEA agreements. EEA Plus would keep life as similar to EU membership as possible. [this is a bad option]
● EEA, [normal] EEA membership is similar to EU membership in the economic sphere, but because Britain would have freedom to strike trade deals with countries outside the EU, additional regulations would apply to imports and exports to and from the bloc. Most economists think EEA membership would limit the damage of leaving the EU but not eliminate it.
● EEA Minus Rupert Harrison, former chief of staff to George Osborne, said at the weekend it was “pretty clear we are heading for an EEA Minus outcome — a bit more immigration control and a bit less single market”. Most economists think that if Britain demanded constraints on freedom of movement, it would struggle to retain single-market access in the crucial services sector. [good possibility here]
● EEA Liechtenstein The EEA articles of association allow members to make limited restrictions on free movement of people in the circumstances of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”. This would appeal to the UK but it is highly unlikely to appeal to the rest of the EU were Britain to seek EEA membership only to impose restrictions. All EU members are also EEA members.
● An Association Agreement Reports suggest a secret plan drawn up by Wolfgang Schäuble, German finance minister, for an agreement covering tariffs and elements of harmonisation across goods and services. Ominously for Britain, Mr Schauble’s note, published in the paper Handelsblatt, said any agreement “should refrain from setting wrong incentives for other member states when renegotiating relations”. The fear is that if Germany offers Britain too much, everyone else will want the same deal.
● Trading under WTO rules This would be the default option, which governs trade, for example, between the US and the EU. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers would apply and economists believe this to be the most damaging option. It is also unclear whether Britain could adopt the existing tariff, quota and subsidy schedule from the EU. If not, it would have to negotiate a new schedule with 161 other countries.
You can see that the economic consequences of a Brexit are very complex. I want to emphasize that there is a trap in all such trade agreements like NAFTA, GAAT, WTO, TPP, and TTIP. Once you are in and want out, the other partners can threaten you with either a full ban on trade or having to renegotiate all tariffs and trade regulations with all countries—a formidable, expensive and time consuming task that will hurt all traders, sometimes fatally.
It didn’t help that the financial PTB engineered a brief downturn in world markets to help penalize the Brexit movement. But as Will Grigg wrote for LibertyNewsDaily.com
Following last week’s Brexit vote in England, markets on both sides of the Atlantic plunged, which prompted defenders of the EU to claim that British withdrawal would lead to a global economic catastrophe. Within a few days, however, the markets recovered – but this was not described by the same commentators as an endorsement of British independence. New York Post economic commentator John Crudelle insists that what actually happened is that “The stock markets were rescued by governments. In other words, the markets were rigged.”
Still I think that if Britain elects a new leader who is dedicated to holding the line against immigration and EU payments, Britain could survive the coming downturn. But I think the chances of getting an anti-globalist leader are not very good.
Already, the manipulation of the choice in a new leader for the Conservative Party is showing signs of globalist intervention. The big story this week is that the frontrunner and Brexit leader Boris Johnson (popular former Mayor of London) shocked the world on Wednesday with his announcement that we would not seek to be the leader of the Conservative Party. Reuters has the Story:
Former London mayor Boris Johnson, favorite to become Britain's prime minister, abruptly pulled out of the race on Thursday... Johnson's announcement, to audible gasps from a roomful of journalists and supporters, was the biggest political surprise since Prime Minister David Cameron quit on Friday, the morning after losing the referendum on British membership in the bloc.
It makes Theresa May, the interior minister who backed remaining in the European Union, the new favorite to succeed Cameron. [May is a globalist.] May, a party stalwart seen as a steady hand, announced her own candidacy earlier on Thursday, promising to deliver the withdrawal from the EU voters had demanded, despite having campaigned for the other side. "Brexit means Brexit," she told a news conference. "The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door and no second referendum."
Those are the kinds of words the majority want to hear, but I fear May is simply telling people what they want to hear, as she positions herself as a strong defender of Brexit—which can’t be true given her prior position fighting against it. It’s a perfect ploy in order to gain support, which she will betray just like Cameron. What is more important to me is why Boris Johnson, the clear front runner with an easy path to victory, suddenly pulled out.
Johnson, whose backing for the Leave cause was widely seen as essential to its victory, saw his leadership bid suddenly crumble after his Brexit campaign ally, Justice Secretary Michael Gove, withdrew support and announced a bid of his own.
I don’t think Johnson got the proverbial “phone call in the middle of the night” warning him off. But there was a palace coup of sorts using Michael Gove—a rather odd conservative with little charismatic appeal. The one who got the phone call in the night had to be Gove. While not the type that would appeal to most conservative members, Gove was an insider and current minister with some clout. Not only did Gove revoke his support for Johnson but so did half a dozen other party leaders who were supporting Johnson. That smells a little to much like collusion.
Why would this matter to Johnson if he had overwhelming popular support? It’s because of the way the party leader is chosen in round one. Thursday was the deadline for nominations for the leadership and that’s why the coup against Johnson had to go down on Wednesday at the latest. When the nomination committee read the list of candidates, Johnson wasn’t there, and Gove was in his place.
I don’t think this means that Gove intends to win. He’s long admitted that he’s not the type to be PM. He inserted himself in order to get Johnson out. The eligible candidates now are:
Steve Crab: a Christian conservative MP (Member of Parliament), anti-LBGT, pro-Israel, and a believer in UK welfare/aid to other countries. Former Minister of Work and Pensions in UK. Crab voted to Remain and will be open to criticism for that.
Liam Fox: a former doctor and also an MP and former Sec. of State for Defense (a somewhat token position much different from Defense Secretary). He has run for the conservative leader position before, but has a record plagued by scandals involving expensing personal things to the taxpayer. I am suspicious of his sincerity as a Brexiter, although he spoke up aggressively for the cause during the referendum campaign.
Michael Gove: MP and former journalist, which makes him suspect as a conservative. However his work as Sec. of State for Education and Sec. of State for Justice, have been fairly conservative by British standards, but not by American standards. I think he’s a middle of the road conservative who was prodded into running in order to stop Johnson from entering. It won’t help his campaign when he told the Telegraph last month: "I don't want to do it and there are people who are far better equipped than me to do it." He said in 2014: "I don't have what it takes."
Andrea Leadsom: MP and served as Minister of State for Energy at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. She previously held the post of Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Having questioned Climate change, there is a good chance she is for real. In addition, she only threw her hat in the ring after Gove announced, indicating that she smelled a rat. She made a good showing during the Brexit debates, but will be viewed as inexperienced relative to becoming PM.
Theresa May: A party “stalwart” (a liberal yes-girl to the establishment) who has been Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities. She was part of the Remain movement and will be a clone for Cameron if elected. As the UK Mirror said,
Tory Brexiters hold her accountable for the government's failure to cut net migration below 100,000. Some will ask if she can be trusted to put in a strict enough system in [the] future. Others will resent being represented by someone who threw her weight behind the PM's failed campaign.
As further proof of May’s perfidy, Sputnik news reported that,
Theresa May on Thursday ruled out holding the general election in the country until 2020, as well as invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on leaving the European Union before the end of 2016. "There should be no general election until 2020. There should be a normal autumn statement held in the normal way, at the normal time and no emergency budget. And there should be no decision to invoke Article 50 until the British negotiating strategy is agreed and clear. Which means the Article 50 should not be invoked before the end of this year," May said. According to May, there will be no changes to the EU-UK trade in the near future.
She obviously a “business as usual” politician. Only two of the five candidates are reliable Brexit leaders and I don’t think they have a chance. The process of narrowing down the 5 candidates to 2 is controlled by party insiders and Tory MPs. The collusion of major players against Boris is what made him decide it futile to run. Personally, I was never convinced that Johnson was a reliable Leave supporter, having come to the movement very late in the process. But he must be distrusted by the establishment, who have decided to promote May.
Essentially, the Conservative Members of Parliament (Tories) form a committee that will start voting next week. Each successive ballot removes the lowest vote getter until two remain, and those go to the membership in September. Whoever got Gove to run and simultaneously remove support from Johnson by several prominent Conservative Members of Parliament signaled to Johnson that he would not win at this committee vote level.
Theresa May will certainly be one of the run-off candidates, and the eventual winner, in my opinion. For her to come out and make such strong statements supporting Brexit is a sure indication that she is lying, given her background. Not even the most honest Brexit leaders are that optimistic about dealing with the EU in negotiations.
The Brexit leaders are right to say the next PM must come from within their ranks, but I doubt the PTB will allow it. They are experts at giving people a phony version of the real thing.
To complicate Britain’s exit there will be powerful movements trying to fracture the UK, notably using the brewing discontent within Scotland and Ireland to isolate Britain.
Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon blamed the Conservative government for recklessly holding the referendum "purely for internal leadership purposes." Yes, that is partially true. But, Cameron had to promise to give the people a chance to vote in order to get reelected. UK leaders had been promising an exit vote for decades and stalling, and the people were fed up.
The Scots voted by a 2-1 margin to stay in the EU, and there is a very high probability that Scotland will hold a second referendum on whether to stay in the UK and become independent so they can stay in the EU. I think the vote to leave the UK will be successful and weaken the British position against the EU. The BBC had this commentary about Ireland’s stance:
Northern Ireland also voted in favor of Remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU.
But the Westminster-based Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers has ruled out the call for a vote, saying there was no legal framework for it to be called. There is uncertainty over whether a so-called "hard border" would have to be put in place between the North and the South if the North exits the EU.
Quite a dilemma. Southern Ireland is an independent Republic as of 1921, and is by far the largest part of Ireland. The age old hatred and religious division between Northern and Southern Ireland may be dissolved in a joint desire to be part of the EU. Otherwise, they would have to establish hard border controls between the two nations.
I think it is very possible for most of the UK family of nations to bolt and leave Britain as the lone member, which will add pressure and embarrassment to Britain. Meanwhile, the French are upping the pressure on England by threatening to disband the refugee camp at Calais and force Britain to implement immediate hard border controls—which they know they won’t do. According to the UK Telegraph,
Calls are growing in France to unilaterally "terminate" border controls of migrants in Calais and shift them to Britain in the wake of its vote to leave the European Union. In an ironic critique of the Leave camp's pledge to "take back control" of Britain's destiny, Calais politicians argue it is time the UK "takes back control of its borders from France".
News of the result has spread through Calais' notorious "jungle" camp, where the number of migrants has swollen to around 5,000 - many of whom believe Britain's "independence" from the EU may paradoxically make it easier for them to reach the UK. [France will try to facilitate that to add to Britain’s pain]
Paul Craig Roberts made some good points about the Brexit vote and provided evidence that the Brits will be talked into or forced to stay due to the following possibilities:
The Brexit vote shows that a majority of the British voters understand that the UK government represents interests other than the interests of the British people. As difficult as the British know it is to hold their own government to account, they understand they have no prospect whatsoever of holding the EU government to account. During their time under the EU, the British have been reminded of historical times when law was the word of the sovereign.
The propagandists who comprise the Western political and media establishments succeeded in keeping the real issues out of public discussion and presenting the leave vote as racism. However, enough of the British people resisted the brainwashing and controlled debate to grasp the real issues: sovereignty, accountable government, financial independence, freedom from involvement in Washington’s wars and conflict with Russia.
The British people should not be so naive as to think that their vote settles the matter. The fight has only begun. Expect:
— The British government to come back to the people and say, look, the EU has given us a better deal. We can now afford to stay in.
— The Fed, ECB, BOJ, and NY hedge funds to pound the pound and to short British stocks in order to convince the British voters that their vote is sinking the economy.
— More emphasis on the vote’s weakening of Europe, leaving all to the mercy of “Russian aggression.” [Sadly, Roberts fails to see any real Russia threat—very naive]
— Hard to resist bribes (and threats) to prominent members of the leave majority and pressure on such leave leaders as Boris Johnson to be reasonable, conciliatory and to maintain good relations with Washington and Europe, and to reach a compromise on remaining in the EU.
— Expect the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to attribute the loss of British jobs and investment opportunities to the leave vote.
Lastly, the PTB in Britain are preparing eventually to have another vote to overturn the Brexit—after they have poisoned the processed and soured everyone on the constant delays. William F. Jasper of the New American published an excellent assessment here.
![dailymirrorfront.jpg]](/forum/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.mirror.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle8299184.ece%2FBINARY%2Fdailymirrorfront.jpg%5D&hash=1075de1249063d182fb48583922105a7)
