The Rise of the Brexit Party Increases the Likelihood of a ‘No Deal’ Brexit

An argument I come across often within the independent media is how over the past few years in the UK, the establishment have served up alternative parties and candidates to counter increasing scepticism towards globalisation and elitism. The premise goes that to quell those who have become disaffected with the status quo, the political system has allowed for alternative voices to gain a footing but at the same time kept the disenfranchised within its purview of control.

The popularity of UKIP leading up to the original EU referendum was one example, as was Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour party leader in 2015.

Then there is the newly formed Brexit Party led by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage. The rise of this party came about in between the original Article 50 deadline of March 29th 2019 and the second cut off point of April the 12th.

When it was announced on March 21st that Article 50 had been extended until April the 12th, the next day Farage was pronounced the new leader of the Brexit party. When on April the 11th a further six month extension was implemented, twenty fours later Farage officially launched the Brexit party – on the same day Britain had been due to leave the EU.

I highly doubt this was all a coincidence. The movements of this party coincided perfectly with the enforced delays to Brexit. They were positioned to soak up the ire of those who support the UK leaving the EU, as well as those who demanded that the democratic will of the electorate be respected.

Leading into the recent EU elections, the leave side of the Brexit paradigm boasted a single coherent voice. The same cannot be said for those who wish to remain in the EU. As the recent elections demonstrated, up to five participating parties all publicly want to overturn the original referendum, as do elements of both the Conservatives and Labour. But what the system did not offer was a unified response to the Brexit party. There was no ‘Remain Party‘ option for EU advocates to coalesce around. As a result, the remain vote was split, allowing the Brexit party a clear path to victory.

My perspective on that is clear. I believe that if the objective of the establishment was to malign Brexit to the point of its demise, then a counter option to the Brexit party would have been forged. All throughout this process globalists have had ample opportunities to put a permanent halt to Brexit. But when it came down to crucial bits of legislation like invoking Article 50, it has not happened.

Some will cite the two extensions to Article 50 as evidence that the powers that be do not want the UK to leave the EU, especially under a no deal scenario. Whilst the exit day’s of March the 29th and April the 12th did not hold, I think it would be premature to look upon this as deliberate sabotage.

Over the past year I have detailed on numerous occasions why I believe a no deal Brexit is the desired outcome for the central banking fraternity. Their goal of creating a global currency framework is entirely compatible with Brexit given the exposure of sterling to a ‘disorderly‘ exit.

In the weeks leading up to the EU elections, central bank reserve managers indicated that the pound’s role as a global reserve currency would be in danger following a ‘hard‘ Brexit. I posted a two part series back in March 2019 that examined this very topic.

Since then, the threat of a no deal departure has grown rather then receded. And as things stand at present, British politics has been consumed by a new party whose leading objective is for the UK to leave the EU on World Trade Organisation Terms.

For an establishment that allegedly will do anything to stop a no deal Brexit, they are doing an extremely poor job of diverting public support away from that outcome. If their plan was to stoke up the possibility of no deal as some sort of fear tactic to pull people back to supporting EU membership, then it has failed. I would contend, though, that this was never the original intent.

How far the Brexit party advance from here will be key. Next week they have the opportunity of winning a by-election in Peterborough and with it representation in parliament. A few weeks later the Conservatives are due to select their next party leader and Prime Minister. And once that matter is settled we begin edging nearer to the Article 50 deadline of October the 31st.

The evidence suggests that any further delay to Britain leaving the EU will embolden the Brexit Party. A second referendum or general election continue to be spoken about in the media as potential causes for another extension. Let’s quickly look at each of those options in turn:

A Second Referendum

Along with the economic side of Brexit, a second vote is something I have written about since June 2018. With Theresa May stepping down as Prime Minister in two weeks, it is likely that the withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU under her leadership will depart with her. The next Tory party leader is tipped to be a ‘Brexiteer‘, and with the EU insisting that the agreement already rejected by parliament three times is ‘the only deal possible‘, the chances of an alternative deal materialising are slim to none when you consider that the next Prime Minister would have just weeks to negotiate something new.

In terms of a second referendum, that would leave just two options. Leave the EU under WTO terms or remain part of the bloc. I have long since predicted that in the event of a referendum a ‘no deal‘ option would be on the ballot. The rise of the Brexit party only increases that likelihood.

The resultant delay to Brexit to accommodate a referendum would represent a breeding ground for discontent amongst the British public. The more that politicians are seen to prevaricate over Brexit, the higher the chances of them being punished for it.

A General Election

The opposition Labour party have said that as soon as the next Conservative Prime Minister is announced, they will immediately call a vote of no confidence to try and force a general election. Whilst it is doubtful this would succeed, if an election was to take place then it would probably require Article 50 to be extended once more. The Brexit Party would field candidates throughout the UK, and again would be perfectly placed to capitalise on the rising level of animosity towards politicians over Brexit.

It is not inconceivable that a general election which caused a third delay to the process would return dozens of seats to Nigel Farage’s party, and place them in a position to form a coalition with the Conservatives and make leaving the EU under WTO terms ever more likely.

In the end it does not matter which is the chosen route towards a no deal outcome. It is the economic ramifications from it which are relevant. The resultant drop in the pound and disruption to supply chains would ultimately feed through to inflation. And as we saw after the first referendum, the Bank of England responded to rising inflation by raising interest rates.

Outgoing BOE governor Mark Carney has since spelled out on several occasions that the inflationary effects of a no deal Brexit would see rates rise rather than fall. I do not believe this to be an empty threat. Central banks have reverted over the past couple of years to reaffirming importance of their mandate for 2% inflation. Communications from both the the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements continue to endorse the position that interest rates should rise when inflation is consistently above target.

Whilst a decade ago central banks abandoned their inflation mandates, slashed rates to zero and commenced with trillion dollar quantitative easing programmes, these policies were initiated under the pretext of preserving the global financial system. The ‘Great Financial Crisis‘ as it became known was to a large extent a product of the system. Thus central banks implemented accommodative measures.

This time, however, economic instability is being perceived as stemming from the political sphere. The actions of governments, rather than the intent of central banks, is where attention is being focused.

The Bank of England, along with their counterparts the ECB and the Federal Reserve, have all been engaged in gradually removing monetary accommodation. Given that it is this accommodation that is almost exclusively responsible for maintaining the illusion of economic recovery, it is no coincidence that its removal has coincided with a significant increase in geopolitical conflict.

As I keep pointing out, globalists cannot advance their agenda without the onset of crisis scenarios. Crisis breeds opportunity. A no deal Brexit falls directly into that category.

8 comments

  1. Excellent and well argued article Steven, thank you. I agree with all your points and the sub-text, that the ultimate goal of the globalists is to generate a crisis but without their hand being seen.

    They will be able to ‘rescue’ the global economy with a a single currency, probably the SDR which may even be digitised and a centrally controlled global government to keep the 99% in order. I am not sure how easily this will be achieved without a high risk of conflicts worldwide.

    Like

  2. Also interesting is how the wildly unpopular Macron is now the EU ‘kingmaker’
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/the-brief-macron-the-kingmaker/

    A parallel unstable track to undermine EU stability, with Target2 and Italian debt default lurking on the calendar.

    It’s impossible to read the runes on where the global elites and globalists are behind the scenes on all this. Both Macron and Johnson in the UK have very close ties with the Rothchilds. Farage appears to be an asset of the Shel Adelson/Netanayahu/Wahabi Saudis axis that controls their puppet Trump.

    All very interesting…

    Like

    • Those who comment on Zero Hedge are a curious bunch. They largely ignore the content of a post and instead channel any response through their own bias. I’ve come to realise that some who ardently support Brexit are particularly sensitive to the suggestion that leaving the EU with no deal is perhaps the globalists objective. They don’t want to countenance the idea that both sides of the Brexit divide are being played for fools.

      Like

  3. Globalists go by another name.
    Before WWII, globalists were called jews or international jewry..
    They are the same today organizing the invasion of Europe and the USA scum to “undermine their homogeinity” (from a well known dead jew former golddman sachs banker).
    They are the ones behind 2008, the Syrian war failure, the Libyan wars (to send millions of fake refugees to Europe), the fake news, the censorship on google (google jews), facebook (zuckerberg) etc…
    Why don’t we call them by their proper names?
    Because of Hitler and the fake holocaust, the biggest false flag in human history.
    So from now on, i will call “globalists” by their names: the jews.

    Like

  4. As I keep pointing out, globalists cannot advance their agenda without the onset of crisis scenarios. Crisis breeds opportunity. A no deal Brexit falls directly into that category.

    Exactly, like the fake 2008 crisis was created by bankers (and their governments puppets) to steal overtly peoples’ money.

    “central banking fraternity” :

    Meaning rotshchilds, goldman sachs and al.

    In short the jews who are parasiting and destroying our countries since centuries and have already almost destroyed Europe by the war they created in 1914 and 1939.

    When are we going to stop them?

    Like

  5. I think it is beyond us to ascertain exactly what is being planned, in part because I think no one has the absolute level of control needed to guide over twenty countries and three hundred million people to a specific outcome. This is what we should fear maybe, not a reformed return towards nation states but the reality that certain very powerful actors are committed to a particular result, that they see no other option and are prepared to watch a whole continent descend into chaos beforehand. I am familiar with the change of power-structure in certain EU countries over the last three decades, it is very much designed as stated – “no exit”. The UK has always been seen to play an antagonistic role in EU, even as it has quietly adopted some of its manner, even as it advanced its own progressive format. What is occuring now is straight from the EU playbook, and it is a very odd feeling to watch my own country participating in that. The Greeks for example, well many observers might just sort of excuse the result there as being a product of Greek organisation or what have you, all the while thinking that their own country was above that. That was touted as financial after all, not political, even though for many Greeks the meaning was the latter. Yet with UK we have a political center-stage that appears to question EU in an existential manner and yet the onus is being diverted towards as of being economic.

    Up until Euro, adhesion and integration was a subdued formal affair for many countries, it was presented as all benefit and no take. The introduction of Euro spelled the disintegration of national financial control, and that meant also political control. The financial crisis stressed the political and social field and that marked the overt appearance of EU as being actively managerial, and the economic / financial side became focus as point of resolution. Historically, agricultural policy was about as close as EU came to this on various contentions.

    The GFC was a deflationary event caused by excess lending, so it is “normal” ( given that the policy environment regarding business) that monetary easing was the reply, the alternative being a drastic economic /social /political revaluation. I have the impression that this was used, if not planned, for further control of those three facets. Apart from lowering interest burdens on private debt ( for example real estate), a large beneficiary of this direction was and is government spending, whether for existing or new liabilities . This has both synchronized whole regions, even the western world, into a low rate trap, one that favours a merger of the pre-existing status quo, as well as pushing economic distribution towards the frankfurt/state management school of organisation. Those are globalist at the higher levels. Along with the “concessions” made of easier finance, political demands on countries were made. Though the US and UK had slightly higher inflation since 2008, averaged out it remained within bounds, more so for EU ( and Japan if we want to include) .

    With the UK leaving EU a negative effect might be a temporary loss of trade, or increase in import costs, or loss of value of the pound due to perception of the position UK holds in real trade. This would be price inflationary for consumer goods, but would paradoxically make assets values seem more reasonable (relative to living expenses, as store of wealth, but not in terms of affordability) . As the financial world pins itself to asset valuation and real returns on those there is an interest to see consumer inflation controlled, asset values maintained, currency value strengthened or supported . Unfortunately that is not an easy circle to square, and in an extreme might result in higher rates to subdue the whole, while moving towards a reality of reduced consumption. Stagflation is maybe a usable word. How that would play out politically and political economy wise is a different question.

    The UK to my view has become progressively uncoordinated, it has focused its attention on themes of presentation, academia, political correctness, surveillance, social management, overiding traditional base sentiment and structure in many ways. If an upcoming adjustment (with or without Brexit) were used to further this (and in conflict with local sentiment), the result would be towards further global integration. You do not have to look far to see this integration at work, were it the bridge Borris suggested ( or the Libyan Dubai) , the three million passports for EU residents suggested by Gove, or the May extended non Brexit. Labour and Libdem are as unreliable in their own ways with regards to Brexit. I am not for isolationist policy, don’t get me wrong, there was previously a period of international order post WW that was very effective, nation orientated, also accessible and open but still within reason.

    That leaves Farage, maybe the only consistent hard brexit advocate. His actions look synchronised, at the least in the sense that he seems to have forward information which he uses to coordinate his reply. Possibly he is that committed that he foresees and plans replies to events, possibly he has inside backing of some kind. It is hard to make out and I would not envy being in his position.

    Now I am going to jump over to Spain to explain the dissolution of national politics there since GFC. PSOE (left) ceded its authority to EU at that point, PP (right) followed with the creation of a not openly imposing agreement with EU. Both had sold out the previous authority they held before Euro, both acted to maintain their own interests as part of EU, both lost public support because this was noticed by the public. A third party emerged, Ciudadanos, a civic party that had a clean sheet and tries to bridge nationalist sentiment and some left welfare sympathy. The result has been, due to vote division, a country without central direction or authority for many years now, with repeat elections and non functioning alliances. Some say that party is EU/Germany backed.

    France, similar in a way, the UMP ( now republicans) and socialists just failed, the result being an unliked liberal attempt of a president promising everything but holding minority of support.

    Italy is governed by a slightly unlikely coalition that is making a stand but for now just that.

    So place UK turnover into that background – dissapearing authority, multiple ideals, failure of concensus at government level. This is what we have in UK, a prolonged uncertainty and the public being played off against itself in a long drama. Enough room to allow a different evolution to take form. So it might be new PM, new referendum, not leave, new elections etc. etc.

    It might be hard brexit though. The only ways I see this being globalist are either in an Anglo-American sense, or as catalyst to social breakdown in UK and/or EU, possibly US also. In the first, the result might leave UK more poodled to US influence if it were not to centre itself properly ( which is one reason the ongoing debacle of Brexit is a waste of time, energy and cohesion that cannot much be afforded…except by the political class maybe and those interested in some kind if dissolution). I don’t think we want a multipolar but globalist world of few very powerful actors too much though , the stakes are way too high. Sterling in this case might as well peg to the US, the rest follows. The second would be a destruction of the financial world (or the illusion it is), that would lead to a combined reply at national level – implying global policy, currency, regulation etc. That might happen whether UK leaves or not, by slightly different routes, and I won’t go into detail of how that might be. The short of it though is that assimilation is seen to happen by one method or another, as voluntary participation or last obvious resort.

    There are many theories on who is behind this, some comments here and at ZH go into those. It depends on where you are looking from, what you will notice, but the reality is much too complex to simply point at one event, or group, or country. People will concentrate on what they find closest to represent the basis of globalisation, I think that a lot of this is scapegoating, maybe purposefully encouraged, to distract us from those who should be held responsible – our own people and their government. Otherwise we are maybe just admitting that our own nations are incapable, unworthy and beyond action except to blame others for their failures. That means national policy and constitution has to be strengthened, simplified in many cases, so that national outlook and attitudes, and national diplomacy, works for the nation foremost while also within a framework of international respect. The alternatives are war or globalised governance, because a peaceful world republic of individuals or somesuch reality is just not going to happen for a long time, and not without endless tests and a lot more hard learning along the way.

    Best regards.

    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.