Brexit: A Deep Event?

[David Guyatt]

Following two articles by Thierry Meyssan at Voltaire which hinted that Brexit was a British elite strategy to realign (in other words the Brexit vote in the UK was almost certainly manipulated), I've been impatiently waiting for more on this subject. In fact, I recently wrote to Meyssan begging he follow up with a more detailed essay on the subject.

William Engdahl has now published an article on this subject which I find very intriguing. His description of the battle now going on between the UK and the EU over Brexit as "guerrilla war" might well prove accurate given the manifestation of apparent infantile nastiness between the two parties we can read in the media on this issue.

Not mentioned by Engdahl is the possibility of Germany and the rest of the EU turning away from the western alliance and themselves realigning - probably with Russia? I have no idea how likely this might be, except that I do know that Stratfor's George Friedman has identified such an alignment as historically the great fear of the Anglo-American for the last one hundred years (HERE).

Brexit: Securing a New English-speaking Union?

By F. William Engdahl
3 April 2017



It's bec1oming clear that there is a far more ambitious strategy behind Great Britain's exit from the European Union, the so-called Brexit. Far from a reluctant government led by Prime Minister Theresa May, forced to listen to the Vox Populi of the majority of voters in 2016 who voted to exit the European Union, signs emerge of a far more devious well-planned strategy at the highest levels of British power, including the House of Windsor and the powers of the formidable City of London financial institutions. Britain is ditching the EU as a failed option, and seems to be intent on building a new English-speaking Union together with the United States and with the nations of the Commonwealththe former colonies of the British Empire prior to 1914 .


The British have a long and varied history, emerging from their surprising defeat of the mighty Spanish Armada in 1588 to go on over the course of three centuries to become the most powerful empire on earth, until a Great Depression of 1873 followed by two devastating world wars in the 20th Century, forced her patriarchs to swallow hard and accept a junior partner role with the 1945 dominant power, the United States.


Their decision to join the European Monetary Union in 1992 went against that tradition of staying outside the Continental European fray, a tradition of remaining an Atlantic power, utilizing their Anglo-American "special relationship" that had been built during the war years by Churchill with Roosevelt. When the US circles deliberately destroyed the British possibility to join the emerging Euro through the agency of a "lone assassin" hedge fund operator named George Soros in 1992, it was a clear signal that Wall Street and Washington would not permit the enormous financial power of the City of London, fused with that of Germany, France and the Continental economies, to challenge the hegemony of the US dollar and of Wall Street.


Now the Brexit negotiations between the EU Commission and the British government have taken on an air of bitter acrimony from the side of the EU, if not outright sabotage. Not the least because the British precedent is giving others the notion that an exit might be an option. However it seems that Brussels smells a deeper agenda afoot from London, one that could easily spell the end of the misbegotten Euro project and with it, the EU as we know it pre-Brexit.


Stock Exchange Merger Dead


On March 29, symbolically the same day that Prime Minister Therese May formally presented her government's plan for Brexit, the European Commission in Brussels announced that the planned $31 billion merger of Frankfurt's Deutsche Boerse and the London Stock Exchange was dead. There is a huge power struggle here as well. The real issue in the merger was where the ultimate control would lieLondon or Frankfurt of what in trading volumes would become a financial trading goliath of a world dimension. The merger would have created a mega-exchange. The Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI), which is produced twice a year on behalf of the Qatar Financial Centre Authority, currently ranks London as number one, ahead of New York. Frankfurt is the largest EU financial center on the Continent.


The proposed merger collapsed in effect when the EU put severe conditions for London in order to allow approval, terms which London refused. The real issue, however, was not that London sell off part of its business in France. It was where the control would reside, and London insisted it be clearly based in London.


Whether by coincidence, the same day Brussels vetoed the London-Frankfurt merger, Britain formally presented its Brexit plan. The EU is making it clear they will make it as onerous for Britain as possible. EU officials suggest Britain may be forced to pay as much as 60 billion Euros on leaving the EU and will be forced to continue accepting EU tax, environmental and labor laws if it wants to have an eventual free trade pact with the EU. The combined volume of the other EU economies comprise by far Britain's largest trade partner, taking 46% of British exports last year.


I want to suggest there is a far more threatening geopolitical background to the Brexit that's not being talked about, and that that's what is really behind a de facto guerilla war going on between Britain and the remaining EU, a war which could decide the future of the Euro single currency itself in the next several years as well as the shape of our geopolitical world power "balance" to use a favored British expression.


English-speaking Union?


The German online newspaper, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (DWN), presents an intriguing argument that the Brexit was not only pure democracy at work. Rather, they point out that the most powerful factions within the British establishment were quietly exercising their influence via British media and elsewhere to shape that Brexit vote. They argue, convincingly, that British leading circles had reached a consensus before Brexit to exit the failing EU that was forcing Britain, once the world hegemon, to become an inconsequential player in a drama being shaped in Brussels. Now, argues DWN, Britain will seek to rebuild itself anew as a World Power using its historical British Commonwealth network of nations to be the foundation.


It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. Britain's Royal Commonwealth Society is planning to open a branch in the United States, with a view to one day bringing America into the multi-nation group as an "associate member." According to a report on February 23 in the conservative British Telegraph newspaper, Michael Lake, Director of the Royal Commonwealth Society said he had written a formal letter last December to then-President-elect Trump, hand-delivered by British Brexit leading voice, Nigel Farage, former leader of the UKIP party. Lake told the Telegraph that opening a branch in the US, "would further Britain's ties with America, developing new connections between two countries who already share a common language." Lake said that Britain seeks to reinvigorate the British Commonwealth as an alternative to the top-down, supranational EU structure. The aim of the Commonwealth is to promote "mutually advantageous" links with "reliable friends" around the world on everything from business to defense.


By leaving the EU, Britain is free to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements with Commonwealth partners such as Australia or the USA free from the constraints of agreements approved by the 28 (then) member states of the EU.


With this new freedom of maneuver, British banks will not be bound by the EU bank legislation such as the onerous bank "Bail-in" law passed last year that could require bank depositors and shareholders rather than taxpayers to bear costs of a new (and inevitable) new EU banking crisis. Further, the British Pound, which is a member of the select IMF Five of major reserve currencies along with the US dollar and Euro, Japan Yen and China Renminbi, will be free to join efforts of Washington and Wall Street to attack and ultimately bring down the highly-vulnerable Euro. Britain's Pound is the third largest global payments currency after the dollar and the Euro. If Britain, free from the restraints can bring down the Euro, the Pound could become a major gainercurrency war with Britain on the side of Washington against the fragile Eurozone with their Italian, Greek, Spanish and other problems.


Britain, in collusion with the United States, formally or informal, could well present a formidable challenge to world peace. Britain is a nuclear power with full intelligence-sharing cooperation with Washington, something denied Germany.1 Britain deploys its military around the world in concert with the USA. Britain is historically the geopolitical opponent, in two world wars, of Germany and of Russia and of China going back to the 1840s Opium Wars.


The current machinations of Britain call to mind their project, put forward by one of the more strategic thinkers of the British Empire prior to outbreak of World War II, H.G. Wells. In the late 1930s when the smell of world war was unavoidable, Wells and his friends in the highly influential British Round Table, notably Lord Lothian who went on to become Britain's Ambassador to Washington, put forward a radical strategy. Wells termed it, an order dominated by a "great English-speaking English-thinking synthesis, leading mankind by sheer force of numbers, wealth, equipment and scope."


Agreeing with Cecil Rhodes, the founder of the Round Table's fraternity, H.G. Wells stressed that the coming world order must be based on cooperation, "between all the western peoples and, more particularly, between all the Nordic peoples," by which he meant Anglo-Saxon and racially kindred peoples. He insisted that "The British Empire had to be the precursor of a world-state or nothing," and that that world state must also be one in which, "Britain must draw the United States into a closer accord," into a new great English-speaking union. Will it work in 2017? Not likely given the hollowed-out state of both the British and US economies, the hollowed-out quality of the respective national politicians. That doesn't mean the British won't give it a go. Maybe boosting US designs in Yemen with SAS and other special UK forces as an appetizer, then on to Putin's Russia and China?

Source

[James Lateer]

It looks like Brexit is becoming the new Cold War between England and Germany. How long will it be before political leaders in the UK are actually pointing the finger at Germany (and to a lesser degree, France)?

A "cold turkey" Brexit could set off instability in that regard.

Of course, those who know the real history of the EEU and the Fourth Reich will not be surprised by the events that seem destined to follow (maybe fairly soon).

James Lateer

[David Guyatt]

The present situation is more the case of a "Remainer" Prime Minister and elements of her Cabinet working in coordination with the EU to de facto stay in the EU using subterfuge and deceit to make it appear that Brexit has taken place when in fact it hasn't.

[Peter Lemkin]

The present situation is more the case of a "Remainer" Prime Minister and elements of her Cabinet working in coordination with the EU to de facto stay in the EU using subterfuge and deceit to make it appear that Brexit has taken place when in fact it hasn't.

Well, if true, that would be a formula for almost everyone being unhappy, IMO. David, if there were another vote, what do you think the outcome would be now? Why does no one talk much, apparently, about Cambridge Analytica's involvement in the propaganda and the vote? Also, while there is some mention of the lies tossed out by various pols, that are and always were known to be false, no one holds anyone accountable. It seems to me people were manipulated and deceived as to how to vote. Who was behind all these behind the curtain moves and for what purpose? What interests me is how Brexit, Trump and certain other events all seem to be connected, interconnected and run by the same PR and propaganda machinery.

[James Lateer]

Mr. L.--could the culprit be the "Five Eyes"?

James Lateer

[David Guyatt]

James, certainly the Five eyes are a massive factor when it comes to the US manipulating the Brits to do as they're told. Also, I see this morning that Thierry Meyssan's latest article reflects your above view pretty well, so you may be partly right in your assessment.

For a deeper political discussion we probably need to factor in the remarkable post WWII financial miracle of West Germany; from ruins to riches in a couple of decades, something that has never been adequately explained outside of the repatriation post 1955 of immense - no actually "vast" - wealth via the Bormann Brotherhood headquartered in Latin America.

Pete, well over two years ago I pasted another Thierry Meyssan article somewhere on the forum where he indicated that Brexit was fixed. His argument was that the London Stock Exchange and the Frankfurt Bourse had six months before the Brexit vote agreed to merge, knowing that under EU rules such a merger was not possible. Therefore, for this merger to happen Brexit must occur. A short while later I pasted another article by William Engdahl that basically agreed that Brexit was a fixed deal, and the reason given - as I recall anyway - was that the City had planned to handle all future Chinese Yuan convertibility.

As we know from history, the European Union was originally a project supported and funded by the CIA working to shore up and influence Western Europe against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Hence the absolute need for Gladio. It was also seen as a growing a market with which to trade (for example the Eurodollar market etc).

I personally am in favour of Brexit and, for the first time in some 40 years, cast an actual vote on something in this country and voted to leave. Because as poor as the democratic process is here in the UK, and as much as the British elite have almost always controlled and directed the democratic process from behind the scenes, I am at heart in favour of one man one vote and strongly object to being controlled by appointed bureaucrats living in Brussels since the EU is not remotely a democratic union. I also objected to big corporations having the clout to make decisions in the EU while ordinary people do not.

Whatever now happens I suspect May is fucked. Rightly so, I think. This is the woman who as Home Secretary repeatedly appointed tainted judges to head the inquiry into the British (and Westminster) paedophile scandal - now de facto extinct. She's a fixer and a botcher and let's not forget that her husband owns a hedge fund in the City.

Were the Spear-Shaker group still living and breathing and collectively writing, there would be a tragic cum comedy play written called Hamlet: A Midsummer's Brexit (with the subtitle "How to Fuck Up Everything All the Time").

In the last analysis the losers will continue to be the bulk of the poor and lesser well off Brits of whom we pitifully see lining up at food banks for survival rations and sleeping rough on the streets or living in cold poverty in run down tenements - even as we are one of the richest nations in the world. Maybe I should forget Shakespeare and replace him with Dickens?

Lastly, the vast majority of MP's absolutely refuse to allow a no deal Brexit vote to take place. In other words, our elected representatives plan to wilfully ignore the Referendum decision no matter what.

That's British democracy at work for you...

Voltaire

Secession from the European Union

by Thierry Meyssan

For Thierry Meyssan, the way in which Germany and France are refusing the right of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union demonstrates the fact that the EU is not simply a straight-jacket - it also goes to show that the Europeans still care as little about their neighbours as they did during the two World Wars. Manifestly, they have forgotten that governing a country means more than simply defending its interests in the short term, but also thinking in the long term and avoiding conflicts with its neighbours.
[/FONT]

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 20 NOVEMBER 2018 عربي DEUTSCH ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ ESPAÑOL FRANÇAIS ITALIANO PORTUGUÊS ROMÂNĂ TÜRKÇE РУССКИЙ

[/FONT]

The member states of the European Union seem unaware of the clouds that are gathering above their heads. They have identified the most serious problems of the EU, but are treating them with nonchalance, and fail to understand what the British secession (Brexit) implies. They are slowly sinking into a crisis which may only be resolved by violence.

The origin of the problem

During the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the members of the European Community accepted to bow to the decisions of the United States and to integrate the states of Central Europe, even though these states did not correspond in any way to the logical criteria of adhesion. With this momentum, they adopted the Maastricht Treaty, which transformed the European project of economic coordination between European States into that of a supra-national State. The idea was to create a vast political bloc which, under the military protection of the United States, was intended to engage with the USA on the road to prosperity.This super-State has nothing democratic about it. It is administered by a collegiate of senior civil servants, the Commission, whose members are designated one at a time by the heads of state and government. Never before in History has an Empire functioned in this way. Very quickly, the paritarian model of the Commission spawned a gigantic paritarian bureaucracy in which some states are « more equal than others ».This supra-national project turned out to be inadaptable to a unipolar world. The European Community sprang from the the civil chapter of the Marshall plan - NATO being the military chapter. The Western European bourgeoisies, frightened by the Soviet model, had been supporting the European Community since the Congress convened by Winston Churchill in The Hague in 1948. However, after the disappearance of the USSR, they no longer had any interest in continuing along this road.The ex-States of the Warsaw Pact could not decide whether to engage in the Union or form a direct alliance with the United States. For example, Poland bought US war planes which it used in Iraq with the money granted by the Union for the modernisation of its agriculture.Apart from the development of police and legal cooperation, the Maastricht Treaty created a single currency and foreign policy. All the member states were obliged to adopt the Euro as soon as their national economy would allow it. Only Denmark and the United Kingdom, catching the scent of impending problems, stayed out of it. As for the foreign policy, it seemed to make sense in a unipolar world dominated by the United States.Taking into account the differences within the Euro zone, the small fry were destined to become the prey of the biggest of the sharks, Germany. The single currency which, at the moment it was put into circulation, had been adjusted to the dollar, transformed itself progressively into an internationalised version of the German Mark. Incapable of competing, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain were symbolically qualified as PIGS by the financiers. While Berlin pillaged their economies, it offered Athens a restoration of its wealth - if Greece would hand over a part of its territory.It so happened that the European Union, while pursuing its global economic growth, was overtaken by other states whose economic growth was several times faster. While adhesion to the European Union was an advantage for the ex-members of the Warsaw Pact, it had become a millstone for the Western Europeans.Drawing lessons from this failure, the United Kingdom decided to retire from the super-State (Brexit) in order to reconnect with its historic allies from the Commonwealth and, if possible, with China. The Commission panicked, fearing that the British example would open the door for other departures, for the maintenance of the Common Market but the end of the Union. It therefore decided to set conditions which would be dissuasive for leavers.

The internal problems of the United Kingdom

Since the European Union serves the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor, the British workers and rural citizens voted to leave, while the tertiary sector voted to stay.Although British society, like other European countries, has an upper middle class which owes its enrichment to the European Union, unlike the other great European countries, it also has a powerful aristocracy. Before the Second World War, this class enjoyed all the advantages offered by the European Union, but also a prosperity that it can no longer expect from Brussels. The aristocracy therefore decided to vote for the Brexit against the upper middle class, which sparked a crisis within the ruling class.Finally, the choice of Theresa May as Prime Minister was intended to preserve the interests of people from all walks of life (« Global Britain »). But things did not go as intended.
First of all, Mrs. May was unable to conclude a preferential agreement with China, and experienced difficulties with the Commonwealth, with whom the bonds had been loosened over time.
Next, she encountered problems with the Scottish and Irish minorities, particularly since her majority includes Irish Protestants who cling to their privileges.
Besides that, she ran into the blind intransigence of Berlin and Brussels.
Finally, she will have to face up to challenges and questions about the « special relationship » which links her country to the United States.

The problem revealed by the application of the Brexit

After having tried in vain several readjustments of the treaties, the United Kingdom democratically voted for the Brexit on 23 June 2016. The upper middle class, who did not believe this could happen, immediately attempted to invalidate their choice. There was talk about organising a second referendum, as had been done in Denmark for the Maastricht Treaty. This did not seem possible, so a distinction was made between a « hard Brexit » (without new agreements with the EU) and a « soft Brexit » (with the maintenance of various pre-existing agreements). The Press claimed that the Brexit would be an economic catastrophe for the British people. In reality, studies carried out before the referendum, and therefore before this debate, all attest that the first two years after the British exit from the Union would be recessive, but that the United Kingdom would quickly recover and overtake the Union. The opposition to the result of the referendum and therefore opposition to the popular vote managed to hinder its application. The notification of the British exit was delivered by the government to the Commission with a delay of nine months, on 29 March 2017.On 14 November 2018 two years and four months after the referendum - Theresa May capitulated and accepted an unfavourable agreement with the European Commission. However, when she presented this deal to her government, seven of her ministers resigned, including the minister in charge of the Brexit. Clearly he had overlooked the elements of the text that the Prime Minister had assigned to him.This document includes a disposition which is absolutely unacceptable for a sovereign state, whatever it may be. It institutes an unstated period of transition, during which the United Kingdom will no longer be considered as a member of the Union, but will nonetheless be obliged to follow its rules, including those which are still to be adopted.Behind this devious plot hide Germany and France.As soon as the result of the British referendum was known, Germany realised that the Brexit would provoke the loss of several tens of billions of Euros from its own GDP. Merkel's government therefore got busy not at adapting its own economy, but at sabotaging the United Kingdom's departure from the Union.As for French President Emmanuel Macron, he represents the European upper middle class, and is therefore by nature opposed to the Brexit.

The men behind the politicians

Chancellor Merkel knew she could count on the President of the Union, Polish Donald Tusk. In fact this man is not at his current post because he is the ex-Prime Minister of his country, but for two different reasons during the Cold War, his family, members of the Cachoube minority, chose the United States over the Soviet Union, and besides that, Tusk is a childhood friend of Angela Merkel.Tusk began by questioning British engagement in the multi-annual programmes adopted by the Union. If London were to pay the sums to which it had agreed, it would not be able to leave the Union without paying an exit tax of between 55 and 60 billion pounds.French ex- minister and commissioner Michel Barnier was nominated as head negotiator for dealings with the United Kingdom. Barnier had already stirred up a number of solid enmities in the City, which he treated badly during the crisis of 2008. Furthermore, British financiers dream of handling the convertibility of the Chinese yuan into Euros.Barnier accepted to take the German Sabine Wey as his assistant. It is in reality Ms. Wey who is leading the negotiations, tasked with the mission of guaranteeing their failure.At the same time, the man who « made » the career of Emmanuel Macron, ex-head of the Inspectorate General of Finances, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, was named as the French ambassador in London. He is a friend of Barnier, with whom he handled the financial crisis of 2008. To kill the Brexit, Jouyet is relying on the Conservative leader of the opposition to Theresa May, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee to the House of Commons, Colonel Tom Tugendhat.Jouyet chose Tugendshat's wife Anissia Tugendhat as his assistant at the French embassy in London. She is a graduate of the elite École Nationale d'Administration.The crisis came to a head during the the summit of the European Council in Salzbourg, in September 2018. Theresa May presented the consensus that she had managed to establish in her country, and that many others would be well advised to use as an example the Chequers plan (to maintain only the Common Market ties between the two entities, but not the free circulation of citizens, services and capital, and no longer to be ruled by Luxembourg's European administrative and legal system). Donald Tusk brutally rejected this plan.At this point, we have to take a step back. The agreements that put an end to the revolt of the IRA against English colonialism did not resolve the causes of the conflict. Peace was only found because the European Union allowed the abrogation of the frontier between the two Irelands. Tusk demanded that in order to prevent the resurgence of this war of national liberation, Northern Ireland be maintained in the Union's Customs sector. This implies the creation of a frontier controlled by the Union, cutting the United Kingdom in two, and separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the country.During the second session of the Council, before the heads of state and government, Tusk slammed the door in Mrs. May's face, leaving her alone. A public humiliation which could not remain without consequence.

Reflections on secession from the European Union

All this fiddling attests to the skill of the European leaders at political sleight of hand. They appear to respect the rules of impartiality, and to take their decisions collectively with the sole aim of serving the general interest (even though this declared motive is refuted only by the British). In reality, certain of these leaders defend the interests of their country to the detriment of their partners, while others defend the interests of their social class to the detriment of everybody else. The worst is obviously the threat brought to bear on the United Kingdom it must submit to the economic conditions of Brussels, or there will be another instalment of the war of Independence in Northern Ireland.Such behaviour can only lead to the re-awakening of the intra-European conflicts which triggered two World Wars - conflicts that the Union has masked within its own territory, but which remain unresolved and persist outside of the Union.Conscious that they are playing with fire, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel suddenly evoked the creation of a common army which would include the United Kingdom. It is true, of course, that if the three major European powers should agree to form a military alliance, the problem would be resolved. But this alliance is impossible, because it is unfeasible to build an army without first deciding who will command it.The authoritarianism of the supra-national State has swelled to the point where, during the negotiations on the Brexit, it created three other fronts. The Commission opened two procedures for sanctions to be instituted against Poland and Hungary, (at the request of the European Parliament), accused of systemic violations of the values of the Union - procedures whose objective is to place these two states in the same situation as the United Kingdom during the period of transition being constrained to respect the rules of the Union without having any say in their determination. Besides which, hampered by the reforms currently under way in Italy which are working against its ideology, the supra-national State refuses to allow Rome the right to build a budget in order to implement its own politics.The Common Market of the European Community enabled the establishment of peace in Western Europe. Its successor, the European Union, is destroying this inheritance, and is setting its own members one against the other.


[/FONT]

[David Guyatt]

PS, the most throny issue ofa "hard border" between Northern Ireland and Eire, this is an argument created by the EU to cause giddiness and dissent and is as Thierry Meyssan says, a complete fabrication as indicated below - which also shows quite clearly that May, as a convinced Remainer, is playing along in order to push a deal through that keeps the UK in the EU despite the Referendum result.

Comment Central

[FONT=&amp]Fake Brexit means never Brexit

By Bruce Newsome | @bruce_newsome

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]This is not a deal for Brexit, but a further indefinite extension of EU membership, says Bruce Newsome. To deliver the Brexit vision the British people voted for the country first needs a new government, one that isn't led by Remainers.

As predicted on these pages, the Prime Minister (Theresa May) has left her deal with the EU to the last minute, to bounce her Cabinet into agreeing for lack of time, just as she bounced the Cabinet into agreeing to her plan at Chequers in July.

This is not a deal for Brexit it's another indefinite extension of EU membership, marketed with the same spin that has been disproven over the previous year.

May is pretending that she has prevented both a hard border between Northern Ireland and Eire, and the separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain, but she is dishonest.

The dishonesty began with her entertainment of the EU making an issue of this particular border. Northern Ireland and Eire never had a hard border not before the EU, not even at the height of Irish terrorism and insurgency. The government did not cry alarm about a hard border between England and France, or propose to keep Kent in the EU in order to guarantee a soft border at the Channel Tunnel, so why did it collude with the EU in pretending that Northern Ireland must have a special border arrangement?

May used it as a fake issue that she could promise to prevent spun as her commitment to prevent the "break up" of the union. In fact, she was prepared to keep Northern Ireland in the EU, while taking the rest of Britain out, which is as good as breaking up the union practically. This option was casually characterized as a border in the Irish Sea, which under-states its implications for sovereignty: for instance, the EU could have dictated changes to Northern Irish taxes independently of the British government.

May having wasted months by negotiating to avoid this "backstop" is now claiming triumph for preventing the "backstop" but in reality the EU has dropped a demand that it should never have been allowed to demand in the first place.

The consequence is not a triumph for May but for the EU, because May has avoided a border in the Irish Sea by keeping the whole of Britain in the customs union, which is as good as staying in the EU. If you're a member of the customs union, you're subject to all EU regulations and legislative and judicial decisions. Britain is not leaving the EU in any practical terms, even though May continues to pretend that Britain is leaving in March 2019. In fact, her nominal separation in March 2019 is the worst of all world, because Britain will lose its say in the EU, while remaining fully subject to the EU.

Worse, this extension of Britain's practical subordination to the EU is indefinite, and is subject to the EU's determination. Britain will not be able to leave the EU when it wants, only when an unspecified "independent panel" says so. Since this "independent panel" will be stacked with representatives of the EU (not to mention pro-EU British civil servants), the panel is as good as the EU.

May should never have agreed to any party but Britain deciding when Britain leaves. If she must agree to third-party involvement, she could have picked an international court (even the World Trade Organization; WTO), but she has stupidly agreed to the EU's demands on this too. Her spin of an "independent panel" just adds a lie to a stupidity.

If Britain disputes the decision of the "independent panel," then the next adjudicator would be the European Court of Justice. Yep, you're getting the picture: Britain isn't leaving the EU in March 2019.

But wait, the news gets worse: at this rate, Britain will never leave the EU: fake Brexit predicts never Brexit. Two-and-a-half-years have passed since the referendum, frittered away in indecisiveness and wilful diversion into fake crises over fake issues, without readiness for full separation under WTO rules (the mischaracterized "cliff edge" or "no deal" contingency).

Everybody is so tired of the uncertainty, so spooked by ongoing "project fear," that Britons are more willing to stay in the EU now than in 2016, just to end this indefinite purgatory. Remainers are exploiting this impatience and insecurity. This morning, on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, staunch Remainer-Conservative Anna Soubry said that everybody has realized that leaving is much worse than we were promised, that we should hold a second referendum to overturn the first. Soubry, like May, is exploiting impatience, by urging us to repudiate what we voted for just to escape our impatience.

The truth is not that Brexit is impossible or stupid, but that Remainers have messed up Brexit to make it slower and more painful that it needed to. The prime minister and her next most important cabinet member (Philip Hammond, the chancellor) are Remainers, who have wilfully under-prepared for anything but fake Brexit.

Separation from the EU is much simpler than the elite wants to pretend its pretence is self-interested, an excuse for its own failures, and a collusion to put elite interests before popular interests.

At any time, Britain could and should declare itself a sovereign country, outside the EU, under WTO rules. ("At any time" includes the past: I first urged this solution eleven months ago.) That "all" includes the EU, which would no longer be able to raise fake issues and spin fear about fake doomsday scenarios, and would be forced to negotiate a mutually advantageous deal, instead of a selfish one.

Britain would need a new government first, one that isn't led by Remainers. Let's hope that happens today. Members of cabinet: I hope you're listening; if not, you'll condemn your party to a decade in the wilderness.



[/FONT]

[James Lateer]

Shocking that the ghost of Hitler is still keeping the EU in chains through the Fourth Reich, a/k/a the EU.

All this is just going to prove the the Germans are apparently indeed the "Master Race".

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

The UK speaks for the English-speaking world. This is the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

If the UK buckles under to the EU, then that means that the English-speaking world is living under a World Government dominated by Germany.

There is just no way around this. If you liked the idea of Nazi Germany then you'll love this victory for the German-dominated World Government.

It's here in full force and there's not way to stop it despite the rebelliousness showing up in France and Italy. It's to no avail.

Most of us who are over 50 yrs old will live the rest of our lives and die under this Fourth Reich-inspired World Government. Love it or leave it. And you can't leave it.

R.I.P. USA.

James Lateer

[David Guyatt]

The UK speaks for the English-speaking world. This is the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

If the UK buckles under to the EU, then that means that the English-speaking world is living under a World Government dominated by Germany.

There is just no way around this. If you liked the idea of Nazi Germany then you'll love this victory for the German-dominated World Government.

It's here in full force and there's not way to stop it despite the rebelliousness showing up in France and Italy. It's to no avail.

Most of us who are over 50 yrs old will live the rest of our lives and die under this Fourth Reich-inspired World Government. Love it or leave it. And you can't leave it.

R.I.P. USA.

James Lateer

I assume you know the history of the EU, James.

Do you know this book?

The Nazi Roots of the Brussels EU?

One of the authors was a Jew who amazingly managed to escape from one of the Nazi death camps (Auschwitz, as I recall) and lived to tell the tale. The books identifies the Nazi state as being a front for I G Farben and argue that the EU is the post war beast of the Farben castles broken-up constituent parts (Bayer, BASF, Hoechst etc). The other authors are members of a health foundation.

Back in 2003 Harvard University decided to publish the entire Nuremberg Tribunal archive on the trial of I G Farben (HERE). But the publication project came to a shuddering halt. THIS webpage shows the state of that project today, 15 years later.

However, the same people who published the foregoing linked book (The Dr. Rath Health Foundation) obtained all the files - undoubtedly from someone who was involved in the Harvard project who had become disillusioned at the censorship and published the entire archive HERE.

The EU is deeply undemocratic and dictatorial in nature. All the Commissioners are appointed. None of them are voted into power. They are not accountable - except, perhaps, to the shady corporations who stand cloaked behind the Brussels bureaucracy.

The following quote is from an article I wrote in 2002 and remains as relevant today - perhaps more so.

Behind Bormann's programme of repatriating Nazi assets was the idea, developed in 1943, of using them in a confederated post war Europe under Germany's covert control in what was even then called a "European Economic Community" or EEC. [14] Even though this pre-dated the actual foundation of the EEC in March 1957, it was not a new idea.
Half a century earlier in 1899, W T Stead, a close confidant of Cecil Rhodes, had authored a book titled "The United States of Europe" along with "The Americanisation of the World." [15] "

Martin Bormann was a creature of Hermann Schmitz, Chairman and CEO of I G Farben and was the person who organized the historic Maison Rouge Hotel, Strasburg meeting on 10th August 1944 where all Nazi assets, blueprints, foreign investments and the plunder that Nazi's had accrued from all of Europe were to be subject to a capital flight programme to offshore them in various domiciles to be controlled by Bormann in exile in Buenos Aires -- which forms the base of Paul Manning's excellent book Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile (freely available HERE).

Manning was the first person to make the so called "Red House" (Maison Rouge) report public in his book. He wrote this about Hermann Schmitz:

It is a good bet that if Hermann Schmitz were alive today he would bear witness as to who really won. Schmitz died contented, having witnessed the resurgence of I.G. Farben, albeit in altered corporate f orms, a money machine that continues to generate profits for all the old I.G. shareholders and enormous international power f or the German cadre directing the workings of the successor firms.

page 279

And:

Schmitz's wealthlargely I.G. Farben bearer bonds converted to the Big Three successor firms, shares in Standard Oil of New Jersey (equal to those held by the Rockef ellers), General Mo- tors, and other U.S. blue chip industrial stocks, and the 700 secret companies controlled in his time by I.G., as well as shares in the 750 corporations he helped Bormann establish during the last year of World War IIhas increased in all segments of the modern industrial world. The Bormann organization in, South America utilizes the voting power of the Schmitz trust along with their own assets to guide the multinationals they control, as they keep steady the economic course of the Father- land.

Page 280

And:

But it is just as true that the river of wealth back into West Germany from assets sequestered by Martin Bormann and the corporations that participated in his brilliantly conceived pro- gram of flight capital was a major factor in the recovery of the nationand the best-kept secret in all German history. The return of capital began slowly. As f actories were rebuilt and revved up for production, money from Swiss banks representing their secret accounts flowed into the Rhineland. It was termed investment money, and the first corporations to enjoy its impact were those with demand products: automobiles, steel, and chemicals. Ferdinand Porsche, who designed the famed "Tiger" tank, redesigned Hitler's "people's car," the Volkswagen, and a new factory was erected to turn it out. Daimler-Benz shortly had its Mercedes cars and trucks rolling f rom the assembly lines, and as the giant industrial complexes geared once again for full production and business, the smokestacks of Essen told a story of f ull employment and the eagerness of workers and managerial staf f s to get on with the job of climbing up f rom zero to total output. The Swiss bankers themselves, watching the funds they were directed to invest in these German indus- tries, also invested their own funds and those of their German, British, French, Belgian, Swiss, and American clients. One American occupation officer was advised by his Swiss banker to invest his modest army salary in West German automotive firms. "I gave him carte blanche with my account," said the of f icer, "and months later on a visit to Zurich I discovered my f ew thousand dollars had escalated to $250,000, and was still ap- preciating." Regrettably, a problem soon arose: f ollowing his discharge from the army and his return to the United States he couldn't declare his secret account, because he had consistently failed to include it on his U.S. tax returns. A pillar of his com- munity, he had to go abroad to spend these gains.


Money continued to trickle into West German f irms f rom the private investment sector during the late f orties, but not until May 5, 1955, when the Federal Republic of Germany be- came a sovereign government and the Allied occupation forces had lef t, did the enormous sums shif ted f rom the Third Reich away from threatened Allied seizure become available to those groups in West Germany that had participated in Martin Bor- mann's program of flight capital.

Page 281/2

And finally:

By 1956 the three major multinationals (Hoechst, BASF, and Bayer) reshaped from the 159 companies within Germany that had comprised I.G. Farben were generating record prof its f or the original 450 major Farben stockholders, who had organized themselves into the I.G. Farben Stockholders Protective Com- mittee in Bonn. The Big Three went on expanding, tripling capitalization in 1956 f rom investment f unds that poured in



f rom the interlocking companies established in saf e haven countries by Martin Bormann and Hermann Schmitz. There was a return, more vigorous than ever, of the huge, monolithic industrial multinationals that dominated the German economy before and during World War II.


Each of these three spinof f s f rom I.G. Farben today does more business individually than did Farben at its zenith, when its corporate structure covered 93 countries. BASF and Bayer individually boast worldwide sales of nearly $10 billion annually, while Hoechst, now the world's largest chemical company, generated $16.01 billion in worldwide sales in 1980. Each does more business than E.I. du Pont de Nemours, with sales of $9.4 billion. The United States is, of course, the major market, one into which these German corporations continue to pour investment money f or both new capital construction and cor- porate takeovers. BASF and Hoechst have each invested in excess of $1 billion in such expansions, and chief executive Herbert Grunewald of Bayer A.G. has said that they plan a $1 billion expansion in the United States within f ive to ten years. In Europe, Bayer A.G. is parent of some 380 subsidiary operations. In the United States, it controls Mobay Chemical, whose annual sales in 1978 of $779.5 million make it the Bayer group's most f ormidable f oreign subsidiary. Miles Laboratories (maker of Alka-Seltzer), Chemagro, Rhinechem, Cutter Labora- tories, and Harmon Colors are additional Bayer A.G. interests in this country that Grunewald says he plans to double as part of his American expansion program.

Page 282/3

In closing, Hermann Schmitz lways wished to "form a world fascist state without war if possible." After WWII that dream became true with Bilderberg and the then EEC.