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
be struck.
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.
I’d quite like to see a full-on Brexit with no deal. Give it a couple of months and there will be war in Europe. The Germans are already trying to bribe their invited guests to go back home. http://www.returningfromgermany.de/en/.
What they don’t realise is that these people will take the money, then be back for second helpings before they can say ‘
und komm nicht zurück’.
I have problems with the use of the word, “internationalism”. The EU is not a philanthropic exercise with a history of demonstrable concern for other countries which is my understanding of “internationalism”. Nope, the eu flies in the face of helping developing countries develop further/faster eg by dictating that priority must be given to eu members over and above others outside of the organisation. So, whilst there is much to support in what has been written, a better definition was maybe offered in 1975 see/watch: “a common external tariff against the rest of the world” (Barbara Castle MP, speaking at the Oxford Union 1975) – it really is worth a watch with much to offer to today’s debacle! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydw1ZHk0Tmc.
The weird thing is how clever the brainwashing towards what is now a self-evident re-feudalising of the Continent and how this open conspiracy has been known – to all – even before they called it the EEC.. ‘Design for Freedom’ committee, chaired by Peter Thorneycroft MP June 1947 stated:
“It is as well to state this at the outset – no government dependent on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan for European Union must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked, in advance of having received any of the benefits which will accrue to them from the plan, to make changes of which they may not at first recognize the advantage to themselves as well as to the rest of the world. No satisfactory economic plan for Europe can be devised without sacrifice of sovereignty by the nations concerned.”
HG Wells and leading 3rd way socialist Fabians declared it in the 30s..”The New Republicans … in all sorts of ways .. will be influencing and controlling the apparatus of the ostensible governments…” “..“we can weave a world system of monetary and economic activities, while the politicians, the diplomatists, and the soldiers are still too busy with their ancient and habitual antics to realise what we are doing” This “open conspiracy,” according to Wells, was “not a project to overthrow existing governments by insurrectionary attacks, but to supersede them by disregard. It does not want to destroy them or alter their forms but to make them negligible by replacing their functions”
The much overlooked https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/599/599.pdf entitled “House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee – Consultation on A new Magna Carta? – Seventh Report of Session 2014–15” mentioned the need for a “crisis” that will bring about a need for such a change. In the questions to the Chair, a committee member states “I want to focus on the idea that you need a constitutional moment for some big constitutional reform to take place: so that you know where I am going, my view is that it is too difficult at the moment, unless we get an enormous political crisis, which I think we are unlikely to get. (Professor Dawn Oliver)”
Another contributor adds “The question is whether the current crisis is big enough to suspend ordinary politics. Dawn thinks that it is not, but I think that it might be (David Howarth from the University of Cambridge).
Maybe Brexit is what they will seize upon? Why is this never addressed in Parliament directly?
When Oliver Cromwell returned from his blood letting in Ireland, he found that Parliament, in his absence, had become useless and corrupt, so he dismissed them. That, in effect was a military coup !
All our Armed Forces are united by the Crown ! Since ‘self evaluation and disgust’ by MPs is absent, and the ‘forced’ requirement of an Election would only favour the Orwell, Animal Farm’s drivel of ”Four legs good, Two legs bad”, that half of Labour supporters are just about capable of taking in, I wonder ? …..
Has HRH ever had a long private conversation with the Head of our Armed Forces ?
Of course, it would be better if UKIP with all Brexit groups could come together as ‘The Independence Party’, with most of the 17 million leavers voting for it ! That could be ‘Job Done’! Avoidance of Orwell characters like Napoleon and Squealer would have to be avoided, but then they were only pigs in the book !
Thank you for a very clear presentation of the problem, which I agree is sociological in the way that politics, society and the mind are targeted by different forms of psychological warfare on a number of levels.
A good illustration of this on the collective level can be found in theories of cultural change, as they were developed and then used in psychological warfare and in subversion tactics (cf Babeuf, Levi, Marcuse, Gramschi etc..) and later – in the C20th – for world warfare. Arguably we are still dealing with this but on a more unconscious level. To the question, is this blind, I would echo Jung’s words about states of “psychic possession”: “the same age-old experience: something objectively psychic and strange to us, not under our control, is fixedly opposed to the sovereignty of our will.” We as a nation have experienced this with the EU and its bid to control our destinies as a sovereign people, and we have shaken off the chains. I mentioned this in articles here a few years ago: https://independencedaily.co.uk/whats-wrong-britains-constitution-part-i/
The negative ‘stages’ of these subversion tactics are Demoralisation, Destabilisation, Crisis, and Normalisation, and to resist these, conscious opposition towards authoritarianism – or utopian thinking – is necessary. This is being made difficult by the deliberate positive valorisation of EU “principles” as we saw in Macron’s and Merkel’s speeches yesterday in Aachen with its usual romantic platitudes about solidarity, cooperation snd integration and ambitious plans and guilt tripping over not prevaricating and having will and ambition and determination and the spirit of building etc etc blah blah
I’ve watched this process all my life. Thwe key factor in all this is the failure of Prime Ministers.
Invariably Select Committees make reports Which are wise, considered, practical and as simple as possible..
EVERY time.!! the Prime Minister rejects to one or two most important posts… BECAUSE
Politically unwise Is the reason given. The real reason is to keep them in their places.
This mindset in all politicians results in ??? Mrs May all over.
Very grateful to Mr Henderson for his most readable and factual summation of the perfidy of the political establishment.
Brexit has indeed revealed the rot at the heart of our political establishment.
“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.”
And they’ve been practicing for more than 50 years!
When I arrived in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) it was a bustling thriving country with a booming economy. By the time I left about 5 years later around the time Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence it was already glaringly obvious that the writing was on the wall. Even as a youngster leaving school I was stunned and shocked at just how quickly a well-run thriving economy could be collapsed so quickly. Little did I realise that just a few years later people would be starving to death and the red brigades would be slaughtering villagers in their huts because they belonged to the wrong tribe.
However, methinks they might not find the going as quick or as easy here.
We’d best make sure of that because there’s nowhere else left to go.
Complex problems are often best dealt with by breaking them down into “bite sized chunks”. Brexit in reality is not particularly complex but has been made to appear so by the politicans. Nevertheless it could have been broken down into two components:
1. Leave the EU
2. Negotiate a trade deal with the EU.
The only relationship that matters is that (1) must precede (2). (1) could have been achieved quickly by revoking the various treaties rather than playing by EU rules (Article 50). The EU was always going to play a dirty game over Article 50.
All this of course, when compared to what has actually happened, just underlines the fact that we have a government commited to ignoring the referendum result using whatever means it sees possible.
The little darlings have spent time and effort in arranging things advantageously. Youexpect them to start again. ? ( Disruption ? )
No, but the obvious answer is to let Article 50 run to its conclusion on 29/3 then, and only then, talk to the EU about a trade deal.
If they don’t do that then we must be prepared to to take all necessary action against them to recover our sovereignty, or lose it for ever.