Brexit delays

Nigel Farage, in recent comments on the Brexit situation, expressed some skepticism about the outcome of the extended discussion on the issue. That’s understandable; the Brexit process was approved in 2016, and here we all are, near the end of 2020, with Britain still in the EU.

The never-ending discussion could appear to be just a stalling tactic, to delay any Brexit, and to weary the public, until eventually the plan will fail to be implemented.

It appears some of the people are disillusioned with the whole thing, and few have a heart to continue. Farage, in a recent video, expresses some guarded optimism about the possibility of a good Brexit deal, but acknowledges that it may not have an ideal outcome.

Personally I don’t put a lot of faith in Boris Johnson when it comes to getting the best possible Brexit conditions. But we’ll see, as the deadline approaches. But with the still-ongoing negotiations (and is the EU negotiating in good faith, BTW?) the situation is a little cloudy.

But is there a conscious plan to drag these negotiations out, so as to dull the desire of the pro-Brexit people to leave the EU? It was noticeable at the time of the original Brexit vote that the younger generations (Millennials and so-called Gen Z) were vehemently against exiting the EU. They were interviewed, sometimes in tears, over the prospect of leaving the EU, and this upset them. “We won’t be Europeans anymore” — “I don’t want to lose my European identity” and words to that effect.

Leaving aside the fact that nobody’s nationality is actually ‘European’ — a broad category — it struck me as a silly reaction on the part of the anti-Brexit youth. I do remember also that these same ‘Remainers’ said that the old people were ”racist” for wanting Brexit. Whatever.

Maybe the EU, being aware of the age divide on the issue, is hoping that if they delay Brexit longer, the ‘racist old people’ will be gone to their final reward, and that the younger voters attitudes will make a pro-EU decision much more likely. Minus the ‘problem’ older voters, maybe the plan for a Brexit will simply be dropped for lack of interest. I hope not. I would like to see Britain remain Britain, and I would like to see England once again recognized as its own country, and as a nationality, an ethnicity, not just an archaic name on a map.

The Scots talk independence, though they voted it down when given a chance; Wales is free to be nationalistic, but so far England has not been allowed that choice. Not even an English Parliament as of now.

The people of the UK made a choice for Brexit; I hope the will of the people is not disregarded or quietly pushed aside.

Brexit betrayal?

It looks as though some talk about a ‘betrayal’ of Brexit, on the eve of the actual event, may have been right after all.

As this news article indicates, the MEPs, the people who sit unelected in the European Parliament, rather than looking at the exit of Britain as a portent of change for the EU, look at it as an occasion to clamp down on any potential freedoms of ‘member’ countries.

Per Guy Verhofstadt, MEP:

The former Belgian prime minister said: “This lesson, dear colleagues, is not to undo the union, as some are arguing. The lesson is to deeply reform the union. To make a real union in the coming years.

“That means a union without opt-ins, opt-outs, rebates, exceptions, and above all without unanimity rules and veto rights.”

So: you can get into the EU but never get out. Who in their right mind thinks this situation would be desirable? Evidently somebody did, or does, though Heaven knows why.

I thought totalitarians generally had enough discretion, or sneakiness, to conceal their power-hungry aims in advance, and only show their hand when the people were safely in the trap. But now they are advertising their intentions to potential members. But who is trying to get into the EU now? Are there any gullible enough?

Actually it seems much of Scotland wants to remain in the EU, and I am guessing this is just for the sake of the ‘economy’ or for the sake of ‘trade’ but any advantages to remaining don’t seem worth it to me.

This, too, looks a little troubling. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer , a German defense minister, says the UK needs to obtain ‘defense privileges’, and continue to work as a sort of subordinate power in conjunction with the EU. Why did Boris Johnson et al not address this before there was a done deal? Why would anyone accept this halfway-house ‘independence’ or sovereignty that is no sovereignty in lieu of the real thing? It sounded all right until the fine print hinted at somebody reneging on the deal.


Brexit and other matters of interest

It’s become very difficult to follow just what is happening with Brexit. Things seem to change from day to day. As of now the elusive exit is supposed to happen on January 31.

John Derbyshire writes about Brexit, Trump, and the ‘two Anglo-Saxon cousin’ nations, that is, the U.S. and the UK, experiencing parallel political crises, and offers his thoughts about the situation. Both our nation and our cousins in the UK voted for change, and it seems that our systems have not worked to achieve the changes we voted for.

As so many people in this country have been saying, we can’t ”vote out way out” of the present predicament. The trouble is, what is the alternative, then? That’s the question. John Derbyshire goes into some detail in explaining the situation in the UK. It’s worth reading.

I like that Derbyshire refers to our nations, the USA and the UK as ‘Anglo-Saxon cousin nations.’ That’s what we are, despite the fact that some Americans don’t like the English or the British, and vice-versa. We are kin; there was a time when we all knew that, and that fact should be acknowledged. It’s odd that the ‘system’ would have us regard people who are very distant from us as our brothers while we downplay our kinship to the Anglosphere peoples.

Also The Thinking WASP blog has a piece about Guy Fawkes Night, which has just passed, and about the relevance for today. The post concludes with this:

“Remember your history. Savor and celebrate your way of life.”

I second that. I’m very much in favor of doing just that.

Brexit deal ruled out

The path to Brexit has become so convoluted in recent weeks that it’s hard to know what comes next. But some people who closely follow this process seem very confident that the Remainer faction will be defeated.

James Delingpole, for one, in an article with the title, “Hurrah for Chancellor Merkel — Saviour of Brexit”.

The sub-headline says that Merkel has — however unwittingly — given the UK a gift: a no-deal Brexit. She has said that a deal is ”overwhelmingly unlikely,” which gives the UK every incentive to leave without a deal, rather than to compromise, accepting the terms which are apparently to be forced on the UK, if Merkel and the EU globalists get their wishes.

I hope this is true; this situation has taken so many twists and turns over the last couple of years; it’s hard not to wonder what new twist will suddenly pop up as the UK is about to cross the finish line.

But as to the main reason why the UK and the EU are at an impasse over an agreement on Brexit, it’s apparently the question of some conditions being imposed regarding Northern Ireland: Merkel et al have said now that NI must stay permanently tied to the EU, remaining in the EU Customs Union. Merkel says that NI cannot leave. It seems that the Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland, the 26 counties) agrees with the EU’s idea of separating Northern Ireland from the UK. And it’s apparently a case of ‘no Brexit without acquiescing to the deal’.

Arlene Foster, of the Democrat Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, said that no such deal was acceptable. I hope the UK and Northern Ireland stay steadfast. Any ‘union’ which tells members, after the fact, that no exit is possible — ever — should make one uneasy, to say the least. That sort of ultimatum is not the kind of thing that isn’t compatible with ‘freedom.’

#brexit, #northern-ireland, #republic-of-ireland, #united-kingdom

Brexit and prorogation

As everyone probably knows, there’s a lot of controversy over Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue the British Parliament. The Left in the UK, meaning primarily the Labour Party, are having fits, and launching into their overheated rhetoric, just like our ‘homegrown’ left does at every opportunity. There has been talk, like ‘Boris Johnson wasn’t legitimately elected’ so he has no authority to take this action. And when the Queen duly issued the necessary document declaring that the Parliament was to be prorogued, of course this made the ‘Remainers’ (also known as ‘Remoaners’) even more agitated.

The UK media has some good articles on the prorogue issue, and the larger question of Brexit here and a surprisingly sane take from the Guardian.

The arcane business of the UK government and its workings in the UK is a little beyond me, but I believe Boris Johnson’s action was necessary. I think the UK must leave the EU, without a Brexit ‘deal’. It remains to be seen, though, whether this will happen as promised, because of the machinations of the Remainer faction as well as the potential actions of the EU; they technically still have a right to come back with some kind of ‘deal’ offer.

Also, another piece from David Collins at Brexit Central.

A new PM for the UK

He’s an improvement over Theresa May, though not everyone is enthusiastic over Boris Johnson as the new Prime Minister. The Cambrian Dissenters blog titles their piece ‘PM Johnson and a Conservative Civil War.

Is that exaggeration? I defer to the people of the UK as being better judges of the ramifications, but there do seem to be some warning signs as to Johnson’s leanings. For instance, his cabinet appointments so far seem not to have the best interests of the indigenous people of the UK. Sajid David, Priti Patel? Then there is Amber Rudd. I can see how this list might be disconcerting to many people.

There is no perfect situation, I suppose, but as the Cambrian Dissenters piece puts it, Theresa May’s behavior was ‘duplicitious’, bordering on ‘treason.’ At least perhaps the people of the UK, who voted in the majority to leave the EU, will see their political will carried out. So we can hope.

Brexit: defeatism?

The U.S. Ambassador to the UK, expressing doubt about the prospects of Brexit, speaks of British ‘defeatism’ on their prospects of escaping from the EU:

This is not the first time Trump’s man in London has encouraged Brits to be courageous in dealing with Brexit. Speaking in June, Ambassador Johnson said the UK should abandon its “defeatist attitude” and take inspiration from President Trump, remarking: “The thing I want to get out more than anything else is an attitude that I feel I don’t see enough in this country and that is a confidence for where you are heading – light at the end of the tunnel with Brexit.”

He said: “The British have always been experts and great business people, great business minds, so to see this defeatist attitude towards Brexit is a bit startling to me.’

Ambassador Johnson’s harsher remarks were directed more at the EU:

“Accusing the European Union of merely paying lip service to the notion of free trade before stacking the deck in favour of their own companies “with taxes and barriers that make it almost impossible for foreign companies to compete,” Ambassador Johnson said, “The United States has let this go on for too long.”

If we are to take Ambassador Johnson at his word, it sounds as though the U.S. will take a more active role in siding with the Brexit proponents, rather than attempting to be neutral. I also notice that Johnson’s words about the UK and the U.S. cooperating towards a favorable trade deal refers to the old ”special relationship’ between our two countries. In recent years that relationship has been treated as ‘in the past’, dismissed as a relic of a different time. It’s true that the major demographic changes in both our countries have made for more estrangement than mutual warmth; sad to say, many in the UK have an active dislike or resentment of Americans, and that’s understandable. Many British people base their knowledge of us on what they see in our corrupt media, just as Americans, at least those who have never visited the UK, see our cousins in the UK through that same distorting lens.

We might almost think that there’s been a longstanding effort to cause hostility between our nations.

In order for this prospective trade deal to work, there has to be a renewal of trust between our nations, despite the hostile media on both sides of the Atlantic.

But the more important message in the Ambassador’s speech is the exhortation to be confident, avoiding ‘defeatism’, and to recall our former achievements. He seems to say that our countries and peoples could assert their former pre-eminence, given determination, cooperation, and the right attitude.

If Britain takes back control of its trade policy, you will be at the head of the line. America and Britain are two of the most advanced economies in the world. Together we could agree the most sophisticated and ambitious free trade deal ever done — a heavyweight deal that gets the whole world to sit up and take notice. Together, we can show the rest of the world how it’s done.

However it’s obvious that the powers-that-be within Britain and in the EU, with their globalist aims, will not give up easily, so it won’t be a walk in the park. Still, what’s the alternative?

English and British?

A recurring subject on this blog has been the difference (and the inherent conflict) between the identities known as ‘British’ and ‘English’, respectively.

For many, if not most people in the Anglosphere, the identities and terms are interchangeable. I confess that for a good while I was prone to use the terms indiscriminately, though I understood that one can be ‘British’ but have no English blood. The two names describe something different. Even some of my readers in the UK on the old blog said that they often used the term ‘British’ when they really should have said ‘English.’

This post was prompted by a piece at the blog Christianity and Race, which in turn was inspired by a post by Mark Citadel at Citadel Foundations, titled ‘Little England’.  Good, thought-provoking pieces, both. I find little with which I can disagree in either post. I will say, with all due respect, that it may be a little unfair to attribute the ‘English vs. British’ problem to arrogance or hubris only on the part of the English. I know this is a common view of the English, as they were very much a dominant power in the world up until the early 20th century, when their empire began to break up/be broken up.

The original transformation of England into ‘Britain’ or ‘Great Britain’ began with the Act of Union in 1707. It was not by naked aggression or force on England’s part that this Union was effected, though I can certainly agree that, in retrospect, it set England on a course that was to be more damaging to the English than to any of the other ethnic groups who made up the state to be known as Great Britain, then the United Kingdom. Depending on which ethnic group your sympathies lie with, you may disagree. But it’s true that the other component ethnic groups within today’s UK can keep their ethnic identity, symbols, flags, customs, languages, and even their own parliaments, while England lacks those privileges. The English flag of St. George has been labeled ‘divisive’ and ‘hateful.’ England cannot decide its own fate without the input of the many other ethnic groups who now reside there. The English identity is labeled as ‘too exclusive’, because, let’s face it, one cannot be ‘English’ except by ancestry and by genetics. It is a blood kinship, just as is the Scottish or Welsh or Irish identity. Now, we read stories in the Irish media about the ‘new Irish’, with pictures of Africans or Asians smilingly holding their Irish citizenship papers. But no one is fooled by that; people know that Irishness is a matter of blood, as is ‘English.’ Papers and documents can’t confer Englishness  on anyone.

The comparison of the inclusive ‘British’ identity with the ‘American’ identity is a valid one; both are strictly civic identities, and thus they are artificial and arbitrary. One cannot create a real nation by fiat or by documents, and a nation is not a nation if it is based on an ideology or a ‘proposition.’  Britain, or the United Kingdom, has mistakenly followed the American example and is attempting to create a polyglot, multiracial ‘proposition nation’, and the results are looking disastrous. The Empire, unfortunately, laid the groundwork for this. Much as I admire Rudyard Kipling and his work, he tended to romanticize the Raj to some extent, and to establish the idea that someone like his character ‘Gunga Din’ could be ‘British’ in spirit though he was a Hindu. As the empire dissolved, bizarrely, the same Hindus who clamored to expel the British from their homeland soon chased after their former ‘oppressors’, desiring to live amongst them.  The same pattern happened with the Irish, many of whom chose to live in England despite their resentment of the hated ‘Brits’ in their homeland.

So it is not British, or ‘English’ hubris or ambition alone that created the situation; the circumstances are too complicated to merit that charge.

I agree with both of the cited blog posts that England should rediscover its particularistic identity, rather than clinging to this polyglot, all-things-to-all-people ‘British’ identity. I am admittedly a partisan, though I wish all the indigenous people(s) of the UK well, but I think it was the English who were and are the core of what was once ‘Great’ Britain; it was they who made it great. England, ‘Little’ or otherwise, would still be a great country should they go their own way, and let the component countries of the UK go their way.

The future, I hope, will go in the direction of decentralization, of a return to ethnic particularism, and away from polyglot, mixed-multitude empires, which eventually must end in some kind of internal strife and inevitable totalitarianism. The best case scenario would be what I call the ‘blender’, the mixing together of distinct identities into some amorphous mass, not a desirable outcome if we want to preserve the real diversity that exists amongst the various rich cultures of Europe.

Is Theresa May out to stop Brexit?

At Patriactionary, a good piece on the question of British Prime Minister Theresa May’s motives in calling the upcoming early election. Is she attempting to stop Brexit from being finally implemented? The ensuing comments on the blog piece are worth reading too; it seems that the majority are at least skeptical of May’s motives, while a commenter or two disagree, thinking her motives are benign or neutral at least.

Granted, I’m an observer from afar, and I don’t claim to be fully up-to-speed on the British political scene; I believe few outsiders can see things through the eyes of those who are born and bred there, and it’s a little presumptuous for an outsider to try to form real convictions. However I do try to be somewhat informed, and I do have a sort of gut-level sense about May. I just simply distrust her based on what I’ve seen, as I’ve indicated here on this blog. (In fact I was told in a comment that I was too hard on women, or on women leaders. Maybe so, but some of the commenters at Patriactionary expressed similar ideas.)

I have certainly heard and seen comments from pro-Brexit people who live in Britain, or who are British expats, that they are suspicious of her reasons for calling this election. Like some of those skeptics, I believe May, like virtually all Western political figures, is simply a ‘hireling’ of the globalist powers-that-be, and of course TPTB plainly do not want Brexit to be implemented. However I’m not prepared to say that the Brexit vote will be overturned; I don’t see that as being a certainty — or at least I hope it is not. I hope that the pro-Brexit voters are determined enough to turn out in great numbers to ensure that the ‘Remainers’ don’t have their way. Of course the real cynic would say that elections are generally rigged in favor of the globalist status quo, and that votes don’t matter. But to take that for granted is to ensure that the ‘elites’ always win.

The Patriactionary piece ends thus:

“Time will tell, perhaps, whether May is betraying the British people the way Trump has betrayed reactionaries.”

The optimist or the true believer in Trump would say that he hasn’t betrayed reactionaries (or the ‘alt-right’, or his base) though some of us see it otherwise; the ‘will to believe’ is very strong with some people and they will often go through some very complicated rationalizations to be able to maintain their belief in a leader. That often has bad consequences when the object of the believer’s faith proves to have deceived them. However I don’t think that Theresa May, unlike Trump, has such a devoted group of followers who trust her blindly. A little healthy skepticism is called for.

Un-diplomatic remarks

Nick Gutteridge at the Express (UK) reports on the controversy over some odd remarks from Jean-Claude Juncker.

“Nigel Farage this afternoon branded Jean-Claude Juncker a “fool” after the EU boss extraordinarily threatened to promote the break-up of the US in retaliation for Donald Trump’s support for Brexit.”

Gutteridge describes Juncker’s remarks as part of an ”angry speech”, and says that the words were not ”in jest.”

“Brexit isn’t the end. A lot of people would like it that way, even people on another continent where the newly elected US President was happy that the Brexit was taking place and has asked other countries to do the same.

“If he goes on like that I am going to promote the independence of Ohio and Austin, Texas in the US.”

Now, assuming Juncker’s impolitic remarks weren’t ”in jest”, I don’t know just how he believes he could go about inciting division or secession within the US. There are already secession movements in several parts of the US. Some of us actually believe, as did our forebears, that our system allows for secession; that it cannot compel or force a state to remain part of the Union — though that was the point of the North’s invading the South back in 1863.

It may be that foreign powers have encouraged divisions in our country, and likely Mr. Juncker’s superiors, whoever they are, are busy inciting dissension in order to work toward their globalist vision.

That aside, the question is, why do men like Juncker think centralization and eventually a monolithic global government is a desirable thing? Could it be because they don’t see people as anything more than objects to be manipulated, controlled, or exploited?

And if those in power see us as people at all, it’s as individual units, isolated and atomized, not recognizing the importance of our connections to kin, clan, nation.

The EU is an arbitrary collection of differing groups of people, speaking different languages, with disparate cultures. It is not a natural state, growing from a kindred group of people. It is artificial and it can only be a ‘civic’ creation, not a natural one. Obviously Nigel Farage recognizes this, and attempts to school Mr. Juncker:

“Juncker has made a complete fool of himself.

“He clearly does not understand the difference between the EU and the United States of America. One was formed by consent while the other is being imposed.

“The US is an organically formed nation with a single language and similar culture while the cultural and linguistic differences in the EU are immense.

“If this is what Juncker calls diplomacy, he needs to take a long hard look at himself.”

Bless Nigel Farage. I know he is viewed with suspicion even by some English nationalists but he clearly “gets it,” when it comes to what makes a nation.

And that ‘single language and similar culture’ on which this country was formed would be the English language and the English culture.