Lordre: Brexit

Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts

Unpopular, undemocratic leaders inspired by Macron

For Tony Blair to see hope in an unpopular centrist’s minoritarian grip on power tells us all we need to know about him and his ilk.

French president Emmanuel Macron is in power again, despite being unpopular, which hardly is a testament to the legitimacy of an advanced democracy.

Rule of the unpopular

Tony Blair evidently sees such figures as the ideal politicians of the future, which is unsurprising when we consider Blair is loathed by the British people. It is possible that finding inspiration in another minoritarian’s grip on managing a public that hates him is just a way for Tony Blair to cope with his own ruin.

Those who are participating in Tony Blair’s “Future of Britain” conference in June stand out as a veritable menagerie of snakes moved mainly by a hatred of the majority of people and an inability to identify with them, who are persistent about ruling them nonetheless. There are Labour defectors who fled their own constituents and party colleagues to the Liberal Democrats, evidently repeatedly frustrated at democratic results like Jeremy Corbyn's former Labour leadership and Brexit, and desperate to undo them.

Contempt for the people

To such people, the idea of minoritarian movements that primarily focus on their contempt for the people and placing their own snobbish authority on a pedestal is greatly appealing, which is why they turn to Emmanuel Macron for inspiration. Macron's ignorance of mass protests and ability to withstand deep unpopularity to be re-elected (mainly just by having a divided and diverse opposition) represents the ideal model regime to these people – one that can be devoid of democratic legitimacy but still use the language of democracy.

'Anti-populism' has increasingly become just a movement of misanthropes, for whom the biggest challenge of the day is their own nation's will and their need to suppress it.

Ahead of local elections on May 5, there is a chance that many in Labour heartlands could commit folly and forgetfulness, to vote for that complacent party and miss their chance to punish it.

The Conservatives don't have much to offer deprived areas of the country, especially as they are contributing to a cost of living crisis, so voting for them is hardly an appropriate suggestion. However, Labour is in many ways the enemy of such regions in a more direct way. The current Labour leadership has demonstrated continuous contempt and condescension towards many working class people in England.

Keir's Biden-Kamala Ticket for Britain?

Far from being the party of working people, Labour is now simply the party of college liberalism, trying to base itself wholly on the Democratic Party in the US.

Keir Starmer is essentially presenting himself as Britain's Joe Biden, with nothing to offer other than not having the messy haircut of the eccentric current PM.

Party of snakes and ingrates?

The Labour Party has no concern for local communities, preferring to impale the land with whatever standard the party's national leadership told it to bear, even if it means destroying your home and berating you for being there. This much is evident from their lack of consideration for preserving local greenbelt land, as the party answers much more to its donors than local communities. They would rather see construction zones and their sponsors' logos everywhere, than happy constituents. In the process, Labour councillors prefer to insult people rather than to stand up for them when it comes to this issue.

Labour's current leaders are the ones who have the greatest determination to re-join the European Union, as the party and its leader Keir Starmer are still filled with frustration and hatred towards their own English base who voted for Brexit in 2016.

You may be forgetful enough to vote for Labour this time, but Labour leaders will never forgive you if you voted for Brexit. If you should cast your vote for them now, Labour's scum leadership will only see you as some half-witted enemy they managed to trick. These ingrates, even after receiving your vote, will only cite such a vote to berate you and prove that their narrow interests have some democratic mandate because they successfully tricked you.

Far from representing the people or standing up for the people, the Labour Party's primary goal is to cajole people into agreeing with the leaders of the Labour Party. Those leaders in turn have goals that are informed by their donors. The party is unmoved by yearnings of local communities or even by any kind of decency, which is why they have none. Their ideas originate elsewhere, aloof, in Labour Party offices, and their job is to foist them on you.

Give the Greens a go

It would be wiser to turn over a new leaf. It would be a good idea to go, at least temporarily, to an alternative. The Greens are a particularly attractive one, maintaining a number of policies that are to the left of Labour, and they emphasise localism.

One valid complaint may be that parties like the Greens are inexperienced with governance, and that only Labour can deliver. However, simply voting for people who have pre-existing governing experience over and over again is no different than backing the incumbent and refusing to participate in a democracy. In addition, a Labour Party pushed into crisis by increasing competition from the Greens would eventually see major defections to the latter, which would transfer the necessary governing experience to the Greens. It would also pressure Labour back to a more sensible course, and sensitivity to the people's wishes.

Despite the UK presenting itself as the leading defender of Europe, Britain’s armoured vehicle production and repair is going to increasingly take place in Germany, as is shown by British interest in the “Eurotank” project as the means to get a new Main Battle Tank.

However impressive the Eurotank will be, interdependence with the continent we are meant to defend could be a major weakness. We already rely on the Germans to upgrade our panzers at their workshops, somehow managing to brag about it in the process.

We also aim to replace our Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) with Franco-German wheeled designs, rather than choosing to continue the history of unique and iconic British armoured vehicle designs. Bear in mind that the French and Germans were historic enemies of Britain, at different eras, and the current state of affairs is tantamount to British troops dressing in enemy uniforms.

Europe is no haven

From a historically savvy perspective, Britain growing reliant on German help with armoured vehicles is similar to defeat and demilitarisation at German hands, since no wise British leadership would ever have allowed the Germans or French to seize British military production capabilities and take them to their countries. Especially in a place as historically volatile as Europe, which is already undergoing significant disruption due to the Ukrainian conflict and could face an increasingly violent and destabilised future, which is historically normal for the Continent.

Europe, and Germany particularly, also have a strong historical tendency to instability and conflict that goes all the way back to the Thirty Years' War and perhaps earlier. European integration has been a fact for so little time that to think it is permanent is premature and immature. The advantage of Great Britain has always been its isolation from the contagion of European conflict, by the sea.

Even assuming the UK never returns to an era of tension with the Germans or French, it is still a fact that having our military production and repair facilities be in Germany potentially magnifies security and strategic problems, from espionage to the possibility of Germany itself being simply misgoverned and overrun with conflicts or political intrigue in the future. If things get bad in Europe, they could unnecessarily imperil British national security if we are reliant on sites there for defence production and repair.

UK arms production and repair capability being located in a non-nuclear country such as Germany is also problematic because it creates the possibility that our war production could be wiped out, without being protected by our nuclear deterrent. NATO does not necessarily protect Germany from all conflict scenarios, including nuclear ones, with the reliability that the British nuclear deterrent has.

The hollowness of Brexit

Britain’s disinterest in being an independent arms producer, and increased interest in partnering with the French and Germans instead, makes Brexit less significant, nay meaningless, in terms of turning the country into an independent strategic player. Moreover, it reveals that those in business and government who decide our priorities are merely resentful about the departure from the EU and want to do everything to offset any impact on our trajectory as a country.

British government and corporate elites have no real thought for national security. They don’t see our island as anything more than a shabby council estate that is to be left behind, to pursue their interests via the United States and the European Union or via supranational organisations like NATO. This may suit them, but it does not suit future generations who will emerge in a country that has no brand, no pride, and no security, being little more than a dump for foreign powers.

The European Union's attempt to impose a liberal monoculture on all member states risks destroying the entire EU project.

Unelected EU authorities, in this case foreign judges at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), have clashed with the parliaments of sovereign states that represent nations comprised of millions of people, threatening them with funding cuts.

Progress forced

Far from "democratic values", what the EU says it wants to impose on Poland and Hungary using funding cuts as a weapon amounts to some specific cultural changes. It is in the hope of changing their stubborn attitudes to LGBT content and immigration, that resistant countries are to undergo this forced conversion to the Euro-liberal ideology. Even if one supports this ideology and considers it to be a fulfilment of social progress, funding cuts seem like an awful way of achieving it.

The EU wants the power to ensure that the next generation in places like Poland are educated and inculcated in such as way that they will share the EU bureaucrats' cultural opinions, and will help stamp out their own local Catholic traditions and values. Without the monolithic liberal monoculture, which the Pope referred to as one-track thinking, the ideological righteousness and uniformity of a superstate can be in jeopardy.

Siege against the majority

What is happening is a basic failure of statecraft that creates significant division in even one country, let alone a confederation of multiple nation states. It is a rejection of the sovereignty of a people, which always leads to the oppression of that people. One cannot impose compliance with a set of cultural norms on a region or nation without oppression, such as as this financial siege the EU now threatens on disobedient countries.

Action by the EU is also unlikely to improve the situation for minorities the EU supposedly wants to make life easier for. They too will be hit by indiscriminate financial punishment of a country. As well as being morally problematic, financial punishment of a country due to the majority sentiment against a minority is folly from a pragmatic point of view. It may only increase acts of hostility by majority against minority, with the latter being now associated with a foreign siege against the nation, thereby having the opposite effect to what the EU hoped, even if the nation eventually yields.

Disregard for sovereignty

The utter disdain for the self-determination of nations, the very basis of democracy, being displayed by the EU is yet another manifestation of a familiar colonial arrogance. This disdain is part of the same mindset that brought Western armies to Afghanistan, only to cause more suffering and problems before falling back in retreat after twenty years of failed vision.

Many people value their national culture and identity more than any economic benefit, which drove Brexit against unheeded warnings of empty shelves and queues. Rather than give in, people in places like Poland should be prepared to endure significant hardship to resist and abandon an imperious confederation

If the Poles eventually decide they have had enough of the EU, they can always look to the seas, learn from Britain, and count on us as a trading partner. In addition, it would not take long for other countries to leave.

Brexit was marketed under the slogan of taking control. However, what is being presented by PM Boris Johnson as the "Brexit Freedoms Bill" is fast coming across as a betrayal of that promise, giving control to ministers and not even to this country's Parliament.

The idea that Parliament might approve something that disempowers their own Houses and robs them of their duty to the British people seems scandalous. Even if you supported Brexit as a means of freedom from foreign authorities in the EU, it is an absolutely good thing that each and every item of EU legislation should remain in force in the UK until debated and struck down by Parliament.

Individual laws should be confronted

When something is in force, and there is no specific demand to remove it, it can be taken to have the tacit approval of the population, a sort of informal contract. To seek powers that suddenly pull the rug from under the feet of the British people, striking down regulation that they may in fact approve of, without giving MPs the chance to intervene on their behalf, is no favour to the British people.

Now that Britain has left the EU, the Conservatives have every right to argue against and strike down specific bits of EU legislation, or even large portions of it, and they should be pleased with that, rather than trying to remove all of it in a single chop. The desire to strike everything down at once is suspicious, especially considering that many environmental protections were enshrined in EU law and mirrored in UK law.

Remainers were right on this

Even as it seeks the authority to strike down EU legislation without debate, the Conservative government is avoiding making the most of Brexit to benefit the people, such as scrapping the minimum five percent VAT on energy bills enforced by the EU. Such behaviour points to a government that exploited genuine wishes for a divorce from the EU, to pursue power-grabbing and greed.

Remainers warned about this moment for a long time, and they were probably right that Conservatives were only in it as a scheme to benefit business interests. Whether or not they want to continue appending comments denigrating the many millions of people who sought Brexit, their point is valid and must be heeded at this stage.

Right now, the British people are not taking control of anything, but helping ministers take control and override Parliament. People voted to leave the EU because they wanted more control over the laws of the land, not less control, so now there is something for Leavers and Remainers to all agree on, provided that they can put aside partisan loyalty.

As with the exit from the European Union, could Britain exit other major international organisations, in particular NATO?

Exiting NATO is considered unacceptable within British politics, and even the ex-leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn seems to have been pressured to abandon that stance before he had any chance at becoming Prime Minister, which ultimately failed anyway. Most Brits support the Alliance.

The exit process

Discussion about a country leaving NATO has mostly focused on Turkey lately, due to its policy clashes with multiple member states including Greece, France and even the US. It is noted that while the organisation has everything in place for letting countries in, there is no process for expulsion.

The process for exiting NATO voluntarily by a member state seems simple enough. It requires diplomatic correspondence with the United States, followed by a one year transition period. If the UK wanted to leave, it is an easy process.

It should be noted that the organisation's founding document (Article XIII) treats the Alliance as temporary, suggesting a 20-year duration, placing no importance in maintaining it. The Alliance, however, is now maintained by a fandom of unilateralists who see it as a marvellous superhero organisation battling against evil, evidently disappointed with the United Nations, the constraints of international law, or any grasp of reality.

The Leave Movement

The virtues of NATO for security were cited by Leave campaigners during the campaign for Brexit, as a reason the EU wasn't needed for keeping the country safe. Considering this, they aren't likely to take on the cause of exiting NATO now that they are done with the EU. In fact, Leave campaigners claimed they were helping NATO by undermining the EU, seen as a rival institution in European defence.

The Eurosceptic movement was originally not taken very seriously by opponents in the UK, but support grew, and it drew very prominent politicians who were able to attract even more interest in it. Those who want to exit NATO are not taken seriously now, but someone similar to Nigel Farage might hypothetically be able to pull it off. We know of Farage's alignment with Donald Trump, who is a sceptic of NATO, but Farage himself is a certainly a NATO fan.

However, the question remains: why exit NATO? There were numerous complaints about the EU negatively affecting people in Britain, that could be spun into a narrative of the country being subverted and undermined by a foreign yoke. This helped to stimulate Brexit. However, there is no such tale be told about NATO. We maintain a nuclear arsenal as a country and are a major military player and ally of the US. Simply exiting NATO would not affect those stances or make us less of a target for a hypothetical aggressor, and in fact may make us more vulnerable, because NATO membership could be helping to deter some forms of attack.

No point

The main thing to consider about another Brexit, this time from NATO, is that there is no point. There are significant perks of membership, no consequences or expulsion process for failing to meet one's commitments, and less spending on defence is necessary when compared to being an independent military power.

A country should remain within NATO even if it regards the alliance with scorn and has no intentions of coming to anyone's aid. Everything is on offer that could encourage you to stay, even if you don't want to.

The core of NATO

In the case of Britain, no political conversation needs to be had about NATO. The very nucleus of NATO is the coalition, or Special Relationship, of our country with America. That's really how NATO started.

One could withdraw from NATO as a snub to Atlanticists and pro-American warmongers within British politics, but why? They would not be going anywhere. Their lifelong cradling and nursing of Americans and love of their culture would not be forgotten by these idolaters, if they simply walk out of the NATO door. If anything, we would see even more aggressive stances taken in support of American foreign policy, and without a formal framework to create some restraint, by those who worship the Americans.

The only way to break it

The British-American alliance exists independently of NATO and is reinforced by extensive cooperation between both countries' armed forces. In addition, the cultural and linguistic connection is essential to the Special Relationship. The foreign policy thought and practice of the two countries are entirely intertwined and inseparable, with British diplomats and jurists more devoted to justifying American actions than their own.

To break these things would be a multigenerational process, but it could be inevitable. An increasing and potentially politically decisive Muslim minority in Britain is likely to favour disengagement from aggressive American foreign policy, considering the catastrophe it brought their fellow Muslims.

Absent the long way described above, there are only two ways the British-American coalition could be eliminated quickly: (1) a major historic dispute or incident making the British realise the Americans are traitorous, offensive and unworthy as allies and resulting in numerous condemnations being uttered by British politicians, and (2) the final depreciation and end of the British Armed Forces (possibly aided by Scottish independence or further breakup of the UK) at which point the Americans themselves no longer call on us to aid them or find us to be worthy allies.

How to be an anti-NATO Brit

NATO is inessential and possibly results in a confused course, steering British military power away from the country's national interests and into unnecessary conflicts started by Americans. It diminishes Britain's interest in the welfare of the Commonwealth of Nations, where we have actual moral debts, cultural ties, and civilisational commitments. There are valid reasons to abandon the Atlanticist obsession.

As valid as the above criticism of NATO may be, it is never a good idea to just swim against the tide of popular opinion, no matter how dull or foolish such opinion may seem. One must instead only give lacklustre support to NATO, and show a lack of enthusiasm towards it.

The best role one can take as an opponent of what NATO represents in the UK, whether simply trying to convince people or seeking political office, would be to mention NATO as a good and stable thing when talking of foreign policy. Mentioning continued NATO commitments is an effective way of throwing a bone to the Atlanticists without actually doing anything.

Membership of NATO can be cited when trying to cut defence spending, as well, since we can point to collective defence and the many buffer states between us and any adversary. One might consider asking the Americans to reform NATO. We could request to reduce the 2% of GDP required to go to defence, asking instead to spend 1% due our lack of proximity to an adversary, and see how the US deals with that. Or we could just reduce spending anyway, since the organisation has no expulsion process or sanctions mechanism to punish the UK with. The UK has no adjacent adversary and is surrounded by allies or neutral parties, making internal policing far more important than force projection abroad.

Every now and then, I see or hear some opinion about how bad the country's decision to leave the EU (the EU exit, or more fashionably, Brexit), was.

The pandemic has limited cross-borders travel and overshadowed any economic fallout caused by Brexit, although leaving the EU was a shakier economic path to take than staying. There was little to be gained economically by leaving the EU, at least in the short term.

Were Britain to benefit more from bilateral trade and the markets of the Commonwealth following the exit, such gains might eventually offset the losses caused by Brexit. However, the diminished and less seamless movement of goods and workers through Europe will always be a loss to the economy.

Brexit is no way to "make Britain great again"

Some may have seen Brexit as a way to "make Britain great again" - "Global Britain", to use the term favoured by Foreign Secretary Liz Truss. However, such days are long gone. Were Britain to attempt anything like that empire again, it would only be a farce this time rather than a repetition of tragedy, to paraphrase Karl Marx.

Economic concerns over Brexit failed to move those who voted to leave the EU, and it is not difficult to see why. Economic issues are only prominent in the headlines because the newspapers and news networks are owned by the rich, who stand to lose a lot.

Most people don't notice economic issues or care

News headlines almost always say more about the concerns of the small minority writing them, than about the interests of the common people.

For the proletarian majority, economic growth and the rise of the country on an chart of performance means quite little. They still exist in a state of wage slavery that only gets them through the day, and each day is much the same, regardless of the economic performance of the company or country.

The majority of people would not even agree that anything was wrong with the economy unless the country ran out of food and petrol or the prices skyrocketed until they were unaffordable. Nothing like that is going to happen. The supply lines for anything vital are unthreatened. This much is obvious to anyone, as no politician dependent on votes could tolerate the contrary.

We know from the population's acquiescence to Covid rules, that the majority are able to do just fine not even having any foreign holidays, and in fact many can't afford them anyway. They are okay with restrictions even on how and when to shop, and these things are worse than anything that could have been caused by Brexit.

Life is the same to most people, regardless of proclamations about the country's international standing or economic performance in the news. Some average joes may try to talk or tweet about these issues, but such is more an attempt to sound clever with their peers rather than any reflection of it actually affecting them in any way.

By and large, most people who voted for Brexit have shrugged off the economic warnings with good reason and are not bothered. They are completely unaffected, there is still food on the shelves and fuel in their cars.

Brits rejected Europe as a national identity

So, the talk of economic opportunities gained and lost through Brexit is irrelevant to the real feelings that likely motivated both sides when they cast their votes on the matter back in 2016. Brexit was more an issue of identity than performance on economic charts.

The European Union increasingly presents itself as a single nation, with a common foreign policy, and it is presented as the big boss on all matters social and economic. There is now a unified liberal "European" culture and values, which for some reason resemble the United States more than anything that was fought for by European people.

Bear in mind that many European countries carry crosses on their flags and have state religions, whereas the European Union is secular and carries stars on its flag. These icons of secular liberalism are the features of the United States, not Europe. The United States, which is distinctly non-European and was founded to reject the model of the states of Europe, but first and foremost to reject Britain and everything it represented.

It seems as if the EU is tone-deaf about identity and the sensibilities of the member countries, and has no historical roots in anything. Its very flag and values are like American graffiti. The term "United States of Europe" describes, really, what the EU is: the uneducated scheme of the witless Americanophiles whose father figures were the GIs who liberated their countries in World War Two.

In addition to the fact the EU fails to properly represent anything authentically European, and instead looks American, "Europeanness" even as an authentic ethnicity is rejected by the British. This schism dates all the way back to the reign of Elizabeth I, who set England on a path away from Catholicism at the time, causing the country's isolation from Catholic Europe.

In fact, Britain's original excommunication (or Brexcommunication?) from the Holy Mother Church resembled Brexit, including the search for alternate trade deals outside of Europe. No doubt, the British heretics were condemned then by their opponents at home and abroad to hell, as they are once again.

Shadows of the threat of Europe

While sectarian doctrinal differences are no longer of any importance to the matter, Britain's schism with European civilisation is still real, written into the country's history in blood.

Geopolitical anxieties are not limited to rulers and people who read Horrible Histories. They are very much present in the cultural and collective memory of a country. The British know the French were their enemies for a long time, and the memory of Germany occupying Europe only across the English Channel is known to them all. With this psychological aspect, European encroachment, even supposedly for our own good, is not welcome for many.

And Europe is significantly larger than Britain. When a larger power absorbs a smaller one, what is there to gain for the smaller power? What guarantees can there be that this empire won't devour the country, as its predecessors would have done?

When a hostile power has continuously manifested in the same place, even the least informed peasant in any land will become almost prescient about it. The memory of the geopolitical enemy gets under their skin if any similar power begins to assemble in that same place where the foreign threats arise.

Pages