What does BREXIT really stand for?


Euronews: Body-language expert on Macron, Merkel and May's hushed EU Summit conversation

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=macron+may+images&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK04Th0tveAhUBWCwKHf4mC3wQ7Al6BAgGEBs&biw=1280&bih=882#imgrc=jtMUXvDQJ2VMOM:

When you look up the meaning of 'BREXIT' you get this, "a blend of the words 'British' or 'Britain' and 'exit". People now realise, thanks to Mrs May and her Government, with a little help from the European Union, it really means a disastrous and chaotic state of affairs. After two years of negotiations, 585 pages of a document and three hours in the House of Commons answering MP's questions, no one is really satisfied and we the public, are hardly any the wiser. In fact there is surely an opportunity for Cornish confectioners here for a 'Brexit Fudge'?

Some may even think that history is repeating itself and this is a re-run of Neville Chamberlain's 'piece of paper', which at least had the benefit of brevity going for it, if not integrity. For make no mistake the economic consequences of a disruption to forty percent of our foreign trade could be as threatening to Britain, as was the attempted military blockade in the the Second World War. 

It would appear that European memories are short and goodwill for past deeds cannot be relied upon when it comes to negotiations to untangle the Gordian Knot; to break free of the Quantum Entanglement! The twenty-seven insist that if Britain truly wishes to be out, it cannot enjoy the economic advantages of the club and it knows it holds the ace hand, so indebted and interdependent have we become.

Whatever the pros or cons of the putative deal Mrs May has negotiated, and to which she has indelibly attached her own reputation, it appears to satisfy no one - not her own party, the opposition, the composite nations or the people - but no one can be surprised. Mrs May and the Conservatives particularly find themselves between a rock and a hard place but the other parties equally so. From the beginning this was a divisive issue with a divisive referendum solution. How could it be otherwise? That is what a bipolar 'yes' or 'no' answer does.

What is clear is that responsibility for it rests with the Conservative Government. The fact that David Cameron never revisited the Arctic, whilst deciding to create a new and irrelevant railway, should have been warning signs of superficiality and rash decision making. It is one thing to deliver a referendum, quite another to deal with the enormous consequences. Did he do the honourable thing and fall on his sword like Brutus, or was it more akin to Napoleon after Waterloo, running away from the sound of battle? 

Either or neither, he clearly left it to others to clear up the mess and with the aid of the dark arts and unprincipled behaviour, Mrs May was passed the poisoned chalice that she appeared to accept with alacrity. So we ended up with a pro-EU PM leading the retreat,  who subsequently reneged on every one of her own 'red lines' - hardly a recipe for success. Some might even suggest darkly that it was designed to fail, and Mrs May who proved herself a safe pair of hands for the deep state at the Home Office - if such a thing exists - was chosen for that very purpose.

The suggestion that those in real control in both Britain and Europe never intended a real separation and that a hidden agenda has steered events, is hinted at from a number of directions. 

Once the decision to leave was stated publicly, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union or informally, 'Brexit Secretary', was appointed in the person of the smiling, jocular David Davis, hardly setting an appropriate tone for such serious negotiations. This did not bode well, indeed may have been intended to suggest such. 

Of course he didn't last long and was replaced by the aspiring Dominic Raab who lasted an even briefer period, not able 'in good conscience' to promote the agreed terms. Now a veritable unknown, Stephen Barclay MP, fills the role but for how long and at what cost to his political career?

"To lose one Brexit secretary might be regarded as misfortune, to lose two carelessness" in Wilde's famous phrase, but the real reason is that neither could stomach the deceit that the agreed terms entailed. In David Davis' words, the proposed deal "has taken away all the benefits of Brexit" in addition to suggesting that the EU has intentionally prevaricated to make a clean break impossible.

One of the fundamental problems for the Brexit Secretary was that control of the negotiations was actually controlled somewhere else, namely in the Cabinet Office, and this is where the suggestion that the process was deeply influenced by the Security Services and perhaps a NATO orientated agenda that precludes separation, gains credence. 

On the 24th October 2018, the crucial position of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, was filled by Sir Mark Sedwill when Baron Heywood of Whitehall (Jeremy Heywood) retired on health grounds. He died from lung cancer diagnosed in June 2017, on the 4th November, 2018. aged 56. Heywood was closely associated with Tony Blair in a number of contentious issues around the Iraq policy, failure to keep notes on the death of David Kelly, refusal to release notes of conversations between Blair and Bush and other matters of importance.

His replacement, Mark Sedwill has been deeply embedded in NATO-related security roles throughout his career. He was Mrs May's Permanent Secretary at the Home Office 2013 to 2017 when Mrs May was Home Secretary. Sedwill joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1989, and immediately operated in the Security Coordination Department and Gulf War Emergency Unit. His career was then closely connected to Iraq and Afghanistan war zones and from 2003 to 2005 was Deputy High Commissioner to Pakistan. From 2009 to 2010, Ambassador to Afghanistan. It is well known that such positions are  frequently those of MI6 Officers. From 2017 he has been the National Security Adviser.

So I believe perhaps for the first time, the roles of Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service and National Security Adviser have been combined in one person who in effect is, or has been, in effective control of the Brexit negotiations. In this context it is not hard to discern the the hidden but powerful hand of MI5/MI6.

One further important suggestion that separation from the European 'Leviathan' (in Thomas Hobbes' visualisation) is the entrenched military position both through NATO and by other agreements never properly discussed or examined by Parliament. 

The scene was set in 2010 with the Lancaster House Agreement between British Prime Minister David Cameron - yes the same bloke that got us into the Brexit mess - and French President Nicholas Sarkozy for closer military ties with France for defence and security co-operation. 

This continues largely under the radar so to speak. In January 2018 Mrs May announced a joint French/British 'expeditionary force' of 20,000 men to quickly and effectively face any threat by 2020. This must mean it is already in formation. 

This runs alongside the largely unreported naval cooperation between the two. Also by 2020 an 'integrated carrier strike group', allowing British and French aircraft carrier interdependence and control. 

Note how all this comes together around 2020 - a perfect vision for the future, although largely out of sight of the electorate that might otherwise not approve of this fundamental loss of sovereignty? 

Britain's nuclear defence capability has always been subject to American veto, but now it would appear a fundamental realignment is taking place with Britain and France pooling their development and control systems, and this against the background music of Trump withdrawing from NATO and Macron suggesting Europe may need to defend itself against America as much as from Russia.

Where is all this going? Certainly Britain and France showed it was able to bomb a joint policy in Libya and Syria - with largely disastrous results, not to mention the claimed  'ISIS' inspired terrorist attacks rather conveniently and suspiciously targeted principally on France and Britain at points of political significance. 

Mr Macron said France's defence and security co-operation with the UK had not been "challenged or revisited or impacted" by the vote for Brexit. Perhaps they both knew something the British public didn't: that leaving the EU was never really a viable option and would not be permitted?

If nothing else the debacle proves that Britain developed a system of representative government and eschewed referendums for a reason. How can the public decide a fiendishly difficult issue with a simple yes/no vote, particularly if it is not afforded adequate information of the consequences? Leaving aside the truism that 'minorities are always right', simple majorities are just that, simple, and leave behind them inevitable division. That is why most votes on constitutional issues require a larger majority to carry.

If as some, including leading figures in the Labour Party, are advocating a second referendum, this would obviously please the 'remainers' and the EU as the chaos and adverse consequences now apparent, would probably shift the balance back to 'remain'. However it would solve little and may even create greater unrest from those who felt cheated. Nor would it solve the fundamental issues with membership. 

In trying to placate both sides of the argument, Mrs May has satisfied neither. She still has to get the plan through Parliament but it is clear she can only do so with the support of the opposition which seems on the present terms to be unlikely. 

We should also have to go back to Pitt the Younger to find a parallel. Unless it is intended to impose an unelected dictatorship, parliamentary protocol requires resignation if the Prime Minister loses the confidence of the House. She says she is determined to stay on - under what conditions? Perhaps it is only the undesirability of the Leader of the Opposition and his team that is keeping her there? 

Meanwhile Jacob Ree-Mogg has sent his letter to Sir Graham Brady, Chairman of the 1922 Committee, and published it, calling for a vote of no confidence in Mrs May. (1) 

If nothing else, we certainly live in interesting times.


1.  https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/news/99881/read-full-jacob-rees-mogg-letter-calling-no-confidence-vote