Many content creators and consumers of independent media have insisted since 2016 that Brexit would not be allowed to happen. They first predicted that remain would win the referendum as this was supposedly what the establishment wanted. When it turned out to be the leave vote that prospered, the belief continued that globalists would put a stop to Brexit and the UK would forever be a member of the EU.
Since then, however, events have transpired which to my mind work against the theory that Brexit was never the desired outcome.
We first saw attempts to prevent the invocation of Article 50 thwarted in parliament, curiously by the very same MP’s who later went on to either campaign for a second referendum or to revoke Article 50 entirely.
This was followed by a general election from which the Conservative Party remained in office under Theresa May, maintaining Brexit within the bounds of the ‘right wing‘ element of the political paradigm.
Article 50 was subsequently extended several times under May’s leadership, allowing Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party to win the UK round of the EU elections and prompting May to resign as Prime Minister. This paved the way for a ‘Brexiteer‘ to take the reigns as PM.
Step forward Boris Johnson, the so called ‘populist‘ candidate. Johnson has overseen one further extension to Article 50, which coincided with parliament supporting his calls to hold a snap general election before Christmas. In the months beforehand Johnson had been fashioning the narrative of a ‘Great Brexit Betrayal‘ against the British people, led by the remain sect of parliament. This set the stage for an early election to take place.
The election was effectively the last opportunity for the establishment to show its hand against Brexit prior to January 31st. If they were so set against the UK departing the EU, surely the system they preside over would offer up a united remain alliance to fight against the threat of a ‘no deal‘ Brexit. Surely a Lib-Lab-SNP coalition government led by Labour would set the course for a second referendum and be the catalyst for stopping Brexit in its tracks.
As it turned out, none of this materialised. The remain side of the argument was fractured from the outset, with some advocating for the immediate revocation of Article 50 and others endorsing a second referendum with a remain option on the ballot paper. As for Johnson, he dedicated his entire election campaign to the slogan of ‘Get Brexit Done‘. A clear and decisive message in the minds of voters and one that ultimately proved successful, especially in leave supporting Labour heartlands who felt betrayed by their parties refusal to respect the referendum result.
Originally I had given credence to the possibility of a second referendum as a vehicle for pushing a no deal exit from the EU over the line. What has become clear now is that the whole drive towards a second vote was a fake out, utilised primarily to keep remain supporters invested in the hope that Brexit could be stopped and to whip up a fervour amongst leave supporters that the establishment was betraying the will of the electorate.
The election result last week – a significant majority of 80 seats for Johnson’s Conservatives – not only renders the prospect of another referendum obsolete, but strengthens the prospect of a ‘hard‘ Brexit eventuality over the next twelve months.
Prior to the election I predicted the Conservatives would remain in office either through a majority government or a hung parliament, and that any further extensions to Article 50 would be unlikely to occur. The scale of the Tories victory means that parliament no longer has the numbers to prevent passage of Johnson’s withdrawal bill, and affirms that the UK will complete phase one of departing the EU on January 31st 2020.
Phase two of Brexit will begin immediately after January 31st when the UK enters a transition period with the EU, which lasts until the end of December 2020. The Conservatives included as part of their manifesto a pledge that the transition would not be extended into 2021. Sure enough, the government have since announced that they intend to amend their withdrawal agreement to make this pledge legally binding. Most importantly, it would keep the prospect of a ‘no deal‘ exit from the EU firmly alive as we head into the new year.
Looking at the transition period briefly, when the UK has left the EU (symbolically at first) Britain will still be bound by EU law as stipulated in the withdrawal agreement. That means the UK will remain part of the single market and customs union. Whilst current trading arrangements will persist, the UK will no longer be represented on EU bodies, meaning that the country will have no right to vote on changes to EU law between now and the end of 2020. The UK will also still be subject to the rulings of EU courts.
One of Johnson’s tagline’s since the election has been to ‘let the healing begin‘ and for the country to unite behind Brexit. In reality, the notion that the transition period will offer lasting stability is, at best, misguided. Johnson’s government insist that they can negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU within twelve months. But trade agreements of this complexity have a record of taking several years to complete. The hope is that talks on a deal will begin in early 2020, leaving little time for a deal to be agreed and ratified by both parties. If it feels like the transition period is destined to fail, I would argue that this is by design.
For many months I have contended that the point at which the UK fully departs the EU will manifest from a political decision made by Johnson’s administration. The EU will position themselves as ready and willing to extend the transition in the name of preventing a ‘hard‘ Brexit outcome. The EU have already raised the idea of prolonging the transition, on the basis that the current deadline does not leave enough time to agree a trade deal. From the EU’s perspective negotiations would have to prioritise the areas of goods and access to fishing waters, with sectors such as financial services not included in any initial agreement.
In short, if and when the UK leaves the EU completely, the EU will not be held culpable for the moment of exit. It will fall entirely on Johnson and his brand of ‘populism‘. Assuming the transition period is not extended and no trade agreement is reached, the UK would revert to World Trade Organisation terms.
Where this starts to get more interesting is the role that the United States, and Donald Trump in particular, will play in the second phase of Brexit. Just the other day it was revealed that Johnson and Trump spoke about preserving the ‘special relationship‘ between the nations by negotiating a UK-U.S. free trade agreement post Brexit.
The problem, as reported on by Reuters, is that the EU will demand as part of a free trade agreement with the UK provisions that prevent Britain from offering the likes of agricultural and food products on the single market at cheaper prices. This would put the UK into conflict with the U.S., who as part of their own free trade agreement with the UK would want unencumbered access to these sectors and the ability to offer goods more cheaply. For the EU this would be crossing a red line. All indications are that they would restrict access to the single market from foreign competitors in order to protect their own producers.
The stage is set for a substantial break out of global trade conflict in 2020. I would not be surprised if Donald Trump exacerbates tensions with the EU by imposing further tariffs on the union, just as the UK is negotiating a trade deal with the bloc.
Trump is of course up for re-election in November 2020, a matter of weeks before the transition period is due to expire. It is feasible that the culmination of phase two of the Brexit process – a no deal event – may directly coincide with the election and a possible second term in office for Trump. The fallout from this would span the next four years under the banner of what opposition politicians call ‘resurgent nationalism‘, led by its poster children Johnson and Trump.
Here in the UK, the day after Johnson was victorious in the election, a theme played out in the mainstream media was that it represented a victory for ‘populism‘. I have long since reasoned that global institutions and central banks have been preparing to use a perceived rise in protectionism / populism as scapegoats for an impending economic downturn. The narrative of ‘resurgent nationalism‘ being a danger to the post world war two ‘rules based global order‘ has only intensified since the EU referendum and Donald Trump’s presidency.
Sadly, this is a connection which few in the independent media have taken seriously or spent any real time investigating. Instead they have argued that because the UK has yet to leave the EU nearly four years after the original referendum, it is proof that the elite do not want Brexit to happen.
What I believe they are overlooking is how globalists traditionally work towards medium and long term goals – goals that can span years, sometimes decades. It is what author David Icke referred to as the ‘totalitarian tip toe‘. Rather than advance straight from point A to point Z, it is necessary to move in incremental steps so the transition from one state to another appears more natural than deliberate. The idea is that significant change is seen as originating out of political incompetence rather than manufactured conspiracy. In this respect the Article 50 process and the upcoming transition period serve this purpose perfectly. With Johnson at the helm the eyes of the world will be on him and not on global economic institutions like the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund.
Right now globalists have a variety of self stated goals, with two of the most prominent being Innovation BIS 2025 and the UN’s Agenda 2030. By 2025 banking elites want the completion of new payment systems designed to work in conjunction with the issuance of central bank digital currency through distributed ledger technology. It was the BIS who began the whole narrative of ‘money in the digital age‘ after the Brexit referendum. They, the IMF and the central banks beneath them are targeting the gradual abolition of tangible assets in favour of the intangible.
Complementing this vision is the UN’s drive for sustainable development. Their policies (notably the ‘Green New Deal‘), which are now being picked up by national governments and placed at the forefront of political discourse, aim to transform the use of energy and land in society and ultimately transfer powers away from sovereign states and into the hands of global technocrats.
What the elite are seeking to achieve will inevitably cause severe instability throughout the world. Which is why they require an ample level of distraction within the geopolitical sphere.
When actions stemming from the likes of Brexit and Trump trigger an economic downturn, as I believe they will, and with it the rupture of the ‘rules based global order‘, globalists will be in a prime position to provide solutions.
The post world war two edifice is I believe in the process of being dismantled to make way for what bankers such as Mark Carney have coined as an ‘economic new world order.’ Rather than tear up the system, globalists have adopted the model of gradualism. It is disintegration over outright implosion. The end result is the same, but appears to the unsuspecting eye to be less orchestrated.
Instigating chaos and bringing about subsequent order – in most cases the increased centralisation of power – is essentially the modus operandi of globalists.
And it is they who now speak of Brexit as though it is a done deal. The language has shifted notably in recent months to a financial system ‘beyond Brexit‘, and preparedness for what has been termed as the ‘post Brexit architecture‘.
Brexit is happening. And when it does it will not be by accident.