Ed: Part I of this essay was published here yesterday.
Brexit did not have to be hideously complicated
Much has been made of the complexity of Brexit. This claimed complexity is largely down to having a remainer PM and a remainer-dominated cabinet which looked for terrors where there were none. At best, their heart isn’t in Brexit and at worst they are deliberately trying to sabotage Brexit.
If the process of leaving the EU had been conducted by a leaver PM and a leaver-dominated Cabinet, most of the complexity would have dissolved. There would still have been a potential problem with the remainer-dominated Commons (and Lords) but with a government firmly committed to Brexit it is doubtful that remainers in Parliament would have been so blatant in their attempts to overthrow Brexit.
With a resolute leaver as PM backed by a leaver-dominated cabinet, the mere fact of their existence would have changed the language and progress of the negotiations between the UK and the EU.
Trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules
Leaving without a deal is a real possibility because of both the fast approaching leave date and the inability of the House of Commons to come up with any plan which can command a majority. Moreover, significant numbers of leave MPs have embraced the idea as being the best route out of the EU for of the UK.
There are two reasons for embracing the idea of leaving to trade on WTO terms. The first is that it simplifies matters because it is ready made system and allows business to plan. The second is that it prevents, at least in the short to medium term, remainer politicians trying to sabotage Brexit after the UK has formally left the EU. Nor of course does WTO membership mean that future bilateral trade deals cannot
The Deep State
The Deep State is often portrayed as a conspiracy. In fact it is better thought of as a blind sociological event. There is no group of conscious conspirators, simply people being groomed to have the same opinions or at least saying they do.
What has happened in the UK (and the rest for the West to varying degrees) is the success of the long march through the institutions. That is what ultimately has given the UK an elite (politicians, media folk, teachers etc) who are overwhelmingly politically correct internationalists and it’s those people who are at the forefront of the attempts to sabotage Brexit.
How did it come about? A German student leader of the 1960s, Rudi Dutschke, put forward the idea whereby societies were subverted from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be enough of such people to change the policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones. That point was reached in the UK at least 50 years ago and the politically correct stranglehold on our society is now in full flower.
The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit and even overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures, denigrate their own societies, traduce the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the pernicious totalitarian creed of political correctness which has “anti-racism” (in reality anti-white) at its heart. The last brick in the politically correct building is the increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who refused to toe the politically correct line, treatment which is
increasingly including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment. That is why Western politics until recently has been so ideologically monotone. Brexit was a revolt against that mentality.
The bad faith of the remainers
Sadly, the behaviour of committed remainers with power and influence (including many MPs and peers in the House of Lords) has shattered utterly the idea that the UK is a fully functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorates are offered an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite, whose general political ideas are largely shared by the allegedly
competing parts of that elite, ideas which go against the interests and wishes of most of the electorate.
None of this should be a surprise. The sad truth is that the central political question in any society is this, how far will the masses be able to control the naturally abusive tendencies of the elite.