A Year On After Brexit

On the day of the referendum I brought two different breakfasts for the next morning, which, depending upon the result of the EU referendum, would either commiserate or celebrate the occasion. Fortunately that following morning I got to enjoy a full English, rather than a plate of dry bread, cheese and heavily processed meat. I have to be honest though, the results did surprise me a little.

So much media and state propaganda had been put behind the remain campaign, so much fear-mongering leveled against the idea of Brexit, at least publicly, made me feel that it was almost impossible. Pointless even. It was my belief that regardless of how the public voted, the result would likely be fixed anyway, and then of course there was the murder of Jo Cox a few days beforehand. My confidence in securing a leave was basically non-existent.

One year on though and I'm beginning to wonder whether Brexit was preordained from the very beginning. I find it hard to imagine that a Government today with the excessive amount of data they can extract from the internet could ever fuck up a referendum (from their point of view) so badly. If they had wanted the country to stay in the EU that much (and believed their own economic scare stories) they wouldn't have given the public a referendum at all. Would they?

There is of course the chance that I give the British Government too much credit. Maybe they're just completely incompetent. Maybe they did believe their own doom and gloom forecasts for Brexit. But equally, perhaps they felt the public had been denied a voice on the matter for so long, that to kick the referendum debate further along the road would invite civil unrest and an ever increasing vote share for UKIP which certainly had a big roll to play in shifting the Overton window. Or at least Nigel Farage did, considering how utterly useless UKIP has been since the Brexit result was announced.
Whatever the reason, the British public were clearly incensed into voting us out of the European Union, even when every "expert" in his or her field were busy shouting about how it would destroy the country, make us all poor and cause a war with Russia. The same experts who, incidentally of course, had personal financial reasons to support the EU.

The biggest assertions and promises made by the remain campaigners have fallen flat;

  • Promises that the EU wasn't seeking a pan-European military force were denied, yet a few weeks before the referendum had even taken place, there were military vehicles on training exercises spotted on the Salisbury Plain, emblazoned with EU flags. As it turns out, most EU officials and military figures accept that an EU army is now 'inevitable'.
  • The idea that Britain could also keep the pound inside the EU also seems like a blatant lie after its recently come out that the Union is aiming for every member state to adopt the Euro by 2025
  • The idea that the EU has Federalist ambitions was also laughed at by many remainers, but anyone who denies that the blocs increasingly political motives, planned integrated armies, shared central bank among other more trivial things like the EU national anthem, are frankly deluding themselves. For decades, and as far back as the Pan-European project's origin in the 1920s, the plan has always been a slow but inexorable march to federalisation. The frog has been boiled so slowly that even today, with its extensive political motives and ambitions, the naive and willfully ignorant still deny the elephant in the room that is the United States of Europe. Jean Monnet, who like De Gaulle was never in favour of Britain joining the common market (as the project was then called) once said; "Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening". The European Union has, is and always will be nothing more than an attempt to build an empire for it's Goldman Sachs paymasters. Brexit seems to have pushed forward their plans somewhat, as they're now talking about directly taxing EU citizens to plug the financial gap caused by Britain's departure.
  • Finally, the fanciful tales of economic armageddon were obviously ridiculously over cooked. Recent statistics show employment and the economy in Britain have recently improved, with exports increasing, no doubt taking advantage of lower exchange rates.
I am left wondering whether the EU's looming direct taxation and compulsory Euro adoption may perhaps be behind why Brexit was allowed to go ahead at all. Maybe financial industries in London were secretly lobbying behind the scenes for a leave to safeguard the capitals status. Leaving the EU could potentially make the City more dynamic and competitive, protect it from what it sees as overbearing regulation, or influence British politics to make the capital a tax haven. Maybe, the reason why so few officials and experts in Britain campaigned against the EU was because of contractual arrangements preventing them from openly going against the status quo. Whatever the reason, London is certainly in a safer position as a centre of international finance. Not that I'm overly keen on bankers.

Our prospects have probably also been improved dramatically with the election of Donald Trump. A win for Hillary Clinton would have made us more isolated, especially since she would have likely pushed through the TTIP which would have made EU-US ties stronger, and I doubt is somebody who would have been sympathetic to nations breaking out of direct globalist control. For a time I had presumed the impending TTIP was why Britain was allowed to leave the EU at all, expecting Britain to be some sort of mediator between the Anglo-Saxon world and the European Union. Thankfully, Hillary Clinton's "Hemispheric common market" is not the nightmare timeline we're being sucked into.

Fortunately the new French president Macron seems to "get it", and has recently warned the European Union that if they don't reform and get their act together, particularly on immigration, that other nations would leave the bloc. He's not wrong. Or maybe he is.

But I know there's only one real reason why I voted to leave the European Union. 
I'll be honest; I don't give a rats arse about taxation, I don't get paid enough to worry about a few percentage points. I'm not naive enough to think Brexit will mean more democratic powers, or freedom from international banks. The biggest shame about Brexit in my opinion was that it might diminish our scientific research or environmental commitments, but hopefully those are aspect which can be ironed out through negotiations. When it comes to federalisation, I still wasn't particularly bothered. In fact in some ways the idea of a unified Europe is great, but I take offence at the slow-cooker methods. In truth; had the EU been honest about its superstate intentions and not facilitated the unfettered movement of not only EU citizens, but the importation of millions of refugees at the behest of genocidal UN masters, I'd probably have voted to remain.

Fortunately Brexit seems set to become an economic success, at least for London - and the strong message which we as a nation have sent to the European Union leaders seems to have at least made them reconsider their absurd refugee and immigration policies. Only history will tell if our decision to leave was for the best, but lets be honest, if Europe doesn't totally rethink it's policies on immigration and multiculturalism soon, then it will likely collapse soon anyway. If that happens Britain be brought down with it, regardless of our immediate relationship with Brussels.


Popular Posts