Brexit: Looking Beyond Ideological Battle Lines

A few months after Britain voted to leave the European Union I posted an article that questioned whether the decision could prove beneficial to globalist institutions. At the time the general consensus amongst writers and broadcasters within the independent media was that the result came as a unwelcome surprise to the elites. The expectation was that political and financial interests would attempt to overturn the will of the electorate, thus ensuring the UK would never be allowed to fully depart the EU.

Up until the latter end of 2016 this had also been my position. As a ‘leaver‘ I held next to no belief that the result would be fulfilled. But having looked into the events leading up to the referendum, as well as the changing stance on monetary policy by central banks, it became apparent to me that the economic consequences following the vote (and subsequent warnings of the dangers of a no deal outcome) had the capacity to work in favour of internationalists.

Over the past two and half years I have published over a dozen articles and numerous economic updates that present evidence as to why I believe institutions like the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements would capitalise from what the central banking community have coined a ‘disorderly Brexit‘. It is due to this that I have become increasingly cautious in supporting the UK’s exit from the EU.

Which brings me to one of my latest articles (Warnings of an Under Resourced IMF Point to Imminent Economic Downturn). One reader was motivated to ask whether my analysis on Brexit might subconsciously be suggesting that to remain in the EU would now be the best option. Here is an extract of the comment in question:

The fact that you approach this from something of an outside position, as per observer status, removes most of my doubt that you might actually be suggesting remaining in EU is a better option . To do so would obviously be very dubious, as full sovereign control of national law, closer political accountability , and so on, are something of an anti-thesis to globalist intent.

I would like to be assured that the warnings on Brexit are an attempt by yourself to focus on one facet that deserves attention and scrutiny should a no deal Brexit be the eventual outcome, as opposed to having some other unstated aim in terms of how this political circumstance should be resolved.

After reading this comment I felt that my perspective on how globalists could exploit a no deal Brexit outcome was in danger of being perceived as support for the European Union. To be clear, this is not the case. If the UK electorate is asked to participate in a second referendum on Brexit, I would not offer support for remaining in the EU. But equally, I would not endorse the options of either leaving with a withdrawal agreement or under World Trade Organisation terms.

To explain, the problem with Brexit (and with the political system in general) is the dogma of ideology. Prior to the original referendum, political allegiance was defined as being of the ‘right‘ or of the ‘left‘. Once this was ascertained, it then came down to how far on the right or on the left you stood. If your views were subsequently deemed as moderate you would likely be classified as frequenting the ‘centre ground‘. Here you had a choice of being right of center or left of center. Either way, the majority of people continued to rally behind the Conservative party or Labour.

Whether of the right or the left, both ideologies contain within them factions who support differing ideals. But the one ideal that stands above all others in 2019 is Brexit. Lines of division have been fashioned on this single subject alone.

Post referendum, the traditional political landscape has been in a process of realignment. Allegiance is now predicated on support for either leaving the European Union or remaining part of the bloc. Whereas previously you were judged on how far in one particular direction your politics travelled, now it is a question of the extent to which your loyalty lies over the EU. Soft Brexit? Hard Brexit? No Brexit? It is within these boundaries that the establishment is controlling public discourse.

We are encouraged to pick a side and dedicate our efforts to fighting for that particular cause. This has led to it becoming a vitriolic contest between those who advocate internationalism and deeper integration, and those who champion national sovereignty and Britain controlling its own laws and borders. Out of this environment has come new political manifestations in the shape of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and Change UK.

But my most pressing concern is that no where in the discourse – not in the mainstream or independent media – is there any concerted effort to question Brexit from a position of impartiality. Were more people prepared to relinquish their bias, the idea that leaving the EU could be part of an agenda to embolden financial institutions might not appear so outlandish.

On the surface it may appear contradictory that institutions that promote internationalism could in fact favour the rise of Brexit for their own ends. But whilst figureheads like Bank of England governor Mark Carney and IMF managing director Christine Lagarde speak out against the UK’s exit, a greater level of scrutiny over their actions and communications points to an undercurrent of malevolence in their intent.

As has long been established, the fall in the value of sterling after the first referendum, followed by a spike in inflation above the mandated target of 2%, allowed for the BOE to begin raising interest rates. This came amidst central banks cultivating a narrative of ‘normalising‘ monetary policy. Without Brexit, the BOE had no immediate rationale for their actions.

Since they began raising rates, the bank’s commentary has shifted to what they perceive would be the likely fallout from a ‘no deal‘ Brexit. They anticipate the pound falling perhaps to below parity with the dollar, inflation to reach beyond 6% and the UK falling into recession. Out of all possible ramifications, it is the effect on sterling that worries me the most. As discussed in previous posts, a currency crisis is an entirely different phenomenen to a financial crash. And if the language emanating from central banks is an indication, a crisis of this nature – combined with other global events – would likely be exploited as part of the growing narrative of ‘money in the digital age‘.

With that said, neither I or any other observer can stipulate for certain that Britain leaving the EU is the desired outcome for globalists. But from an individual standpoint, the reason I cannot countenance the UK leaving the EU under a ‘hard‘ Brexit is because I believe such an outcome would present an opening for financiers to attempt to gain further control over the economic system. The primary tools for them achieving this would be a combination of currency manipulation, heightened inflation and the ensuing monetary policy response. Based on the underreported commentary of the Bank of England, an inflationary Brexit would result in the bank tightening interest rates rather than cutting them.

It was five years ago that Christine Lagarde laid the blueprint for the ‘reset‘ of the global economic system. As history dictates, significant economic change is routinely orchestrated through the manufacturing of conflict. This is why when people insist that Brexit will never be allowed to happen, I do not think they are fully factoring in the globalist model of creating crisis scenarios in order to manipulate themselves into a position of providing a pre-determined solution.

Unless people step away from their predilection for ideology, then they are not going to register the fact that globalists are using Brexit as a tool to segregate the population, a ploy that is successfully managing to direct attention away from central banks and their stated goals and intentions.

10 comments

  1. Thank you for this interesting post. This scenario has also occurred to me, but on balance I believe that we have little choice but to run this risk.

    Like

  2. Excellent article thank you Stephen and well argued. I was of the opinion at the outset the TPTB would never allow us to leave and would engineer a second referendum repeating the strategy of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.

    Now I am not so sure. Our ‘masters of the financial universe’ will benefit well from a No Deal Brexit IMHO as UK will become an offshore tax haven to the EU – lovely jubbly! So we have the politicians angling for a Remain to keep their noses in the trough whilst the Financiers agitate for a No Deal exit.

    It is interesting now that we have two immoveable objects politicians versus financiers who normally work in unison and now are in conflict. I am now of the opinion that an EEA/efta arrangement would be a great compromise but I doubt that the politicians will be happy with it; Dr Richard North is following this well worn strategy at: http://eureferendum.com/ He hammers Nigel Farage and WTO to extinction!

    Like

    • The flaw in your argument is that the UK (or rather, the City of London) is already a tax haven; and not just any old tax haven, but a hub to an entire network of supplementary tax havens. Brexit will not make a jot of difference to this either way.

      Like

      • Ah yes, thank you Atalanta69, I had forgotten about the City – of course it already is the hub of financial wizardry – but perhaps it will extend its tentacles even more when’if we depart the EU?

        Like

      • Um, I’m not sure if that is even possible…for one thing, would it be physically possible to squash any more accountants and tax lawyers into the Square Mile? 😉

        Like

  3. Firstly I must thank you for your reply, you will be left guessing maybe on if I wrote the original question because I use dud email addresses when I comment, and don’t record them.

    I realised I was presenting you with a difficult challenge, and it is appreciated that it was taken with sincerity. I am not sure any of us have an ideal answer to how leaving the EU should be, either that or we all do. lt has become something of an ongoing hypothesis, something like “leaving EU is about leaving EU, and that is what it is about”.

    I am actually a disenfranchised individual, I have never voted, but for a direct say on Brexit I might have if I were given the opportunity. I live in Europe, we were all supposed to be remainers I think , but I am very firmly for Brexit. I could not start to explain why here.

    As I spend a lot of time observing European politics, the choice to hold a referendum was a welcome surprise, as was the result. I actually have the impression that there is a deep rift between part of the UK establishment and EU, that aside from how the public feel. From my perspective there is a newer technical form of governance emerging, including in the UK. It is increasingly detached from traditional meanings and values, but does not actually represent anything firm either, as in being more a way or a style but without great depth. It is hard to place or describe. I think it is very tied into globalist direction, because whenever it is interrupted you watch strings getting pulled, the public getting gaslighted by media, and a result eventually emerges that overides the initial impetus, and it all settles back into the original format with slight adjustments . Did something actually get resolved or has everyone just been played ?

    So this is what I am watching in UK now, the endless Brexit, and how that itself is being used. That explains why I take such a pointed stance also, and rightly or wrongly would opt for a no deal Brexit if there were any doubt. I don’t take other people’s views personally, and I actually stand to be in a much more difficult position if there were a no deal Brexit than those in the UK.

    So, if a hard Brexit were the aim, and as a globalist tool (and I do not have any trouble imagining that being a strong possibility), well I have to balance that off with the idea that Brexit is also being used as a globalist tool to force eventual further integration of UK into EU. In that scenario the crisis will occur in UK before it leaves EU. A dysfunctional government, a change in demographics, constitutional difficulties, and fragmentation or duplication of party lines all leading to an impasse that reverses the vote.

    Remembering that Nigel Farage has always been a welcome antidote to EU politics, I am still left slightly incredulous about his return to politics being within the EU ambit after the UK was supposed to have left. What is more he is the only clear leave choice made available, and in future for national elections. It isn’t that I question his sincerity, but I really feel we are being duped somehow.

    The same goes for the election that saw the tories depend on the DUP, it seems planned. There are similarities to a century ago and the people’s budget.

    Then there is the show of a hard border in Ireland. I understand the sentiment but it is also being played up on purpose.

    These might seem vague in a sense, and I could go on with more and also anecdotal personal experience, but from my perception they are very real. What is more they all point in the same direction, a delay and refusal to assume responsibility (when to do so would be well within the bounds of reason and compromise), with an insistence on reweaving the question into EU and transferring that responsibility there. Every time there is a setback to leaving those who prefer to leave are shown that business as usual is acceptable also, that their own ideal is still only a lesser question. So here we are looking at a continuous slow crisis that is either a reorientation or preparation for later fuller integration possibly after a UK crisis.

    So a globalist direction, and friendly if allowed.

    or else

    The choice of hard Brexit is now shaped and prepared as disruptive. I am not talking project fear, just the realisation that it is poorly prepared (likely purposefully), and might well be used to further financial and political control in the UK, possibly then merging into a wider goal .

    That, in short, would mean all outcomes are being covered, with contingency in place. I don’t think there is even an anglosphere vs eurosphere playoff going on, at least not one that is not being managed for a combined outcome. Here you get into ideas in EU, like EU being subservient to Anglosphere interests and so on, which is a distraction of national politics and responsibility that is increasingly missing in meaningful terms in Europe, which itself helps the EU agenda, and the globalist agenda. Also the same in reverse, we are pictured a very socialist statist EU that we should leave, which to my view is correct, but exit may be used to redirect own circumstance towards a financial and political meltdown and predation that then presents a new synthesis as best solution, that synthesis being say global monetary standard and associated political control.

    So how to defend from this. Me I look primarily at political malfeasance and manipulation, so I approach from a purely constitutional perspective. Hence my hard Brexit view. You are looking at financial and monetary realities, on how those might be used to feed political and financial leverage over society. I don’t say or insinuate you are wrong.

    I expect you know to some depth the history of money. Sterling is quite unique, the UK has a distinct relationship with its money, a much longer, less disturbed, and more informal one, than most other countries. So to my view, to defend sterling (its essence) means a regression to more traditional values, that in turn would mean actually shaking out (or allowing a shake out) of the current format (which is clearly overleveraged in so many areas), but also being prepared to defend from attempts at predation of that weakened circumstance (which might be globalist) and instead redirect attention to nescessary domestic reforms (the hard part) . I have the impression that limits are being reached (or have been passed), and that there will be some kind or regional or global crisis whichever way, including, or more so even , for UK. It should not be a time of adventure, but of quiet reasoning and of correction.

    So our views differ slightly maybe, but then that is how it should be because it is nescessary that different people cover a topic from different perspectives, so that different eventualities can be confronted working from different vantage points. Equally there is a different reality going on that we are not even aware of, but this is why we talk.

    Open and wider discussion is very important, if only to help people defocus from the persistent narratives being fed, and hopefully also to expand the contemplation needed to areas of governance and policy not usually considered, so as to be better prepared and more aware.

    Again, thank you .

    Like

    • Thank you ReQ for a very comprehsive and clear explanation of your position. For me, it is a simple question: Do I want to be a member of a supranational block of nations tied to monetary, fiscal, budgetary and political union – more like a United States of Europe or do I want to have full control over my own British sovereignty? There is no argument for me – I opt for No Deal Brexit every time.

      The British establishment however have nefarious ways of getting their own way and keeping their noses in the trough. The most important thing is to engineer delay at all stages. This gives time for the Leavers (mostly elderly) to die off and the Remainers (mostly younger people) to gravitate to voting status. Then given enough time, a second referendum will yield a Remain result and all will be forgiven and we return to status quo.

      This strategy works every time and we can witness many cases arriving in court recently going back decades, why is that? To give time to heal – it is a great tactic. I have written a book about all this and a free pdf is available on request to peter@underco,co,uk. My Chapter 6 – Europe, is a most interesting history on how we got in the EEC in the first place – by stealth of course!

      Like

      • Great comment Peter, which I largely agree with except I am not so sure about the “all will be forgiven” part lol

        Like

  4. Thank you Steven. As an outside observer too (I am British but now reside in Asia) I concur with the view that the whole Brexit saga seems primarily intended to “divide and conquer”, and all is going to plan in that respect. As far as I can tell, British society is now in a highly polarised state, more so than ever before in my lifetime. And in my opinion the last thing we need now is a 2nd referendum – this will simply drive the wedge deeper. Is it too much of a stretch to consider that outright civil conflict may be the goal here?
    Even if that is not the case, I absolutely agree with your thesis that a serious crisis of some kind is being engineered so that a “solution” can be foisted upon the unsuspecting masses.
    Your ongoing analysis is highly appreciated Steven, you are one of the very few who are capable of seeing the larger picture.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.