Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The Dark Places: What Is (Not) Next for The UK?

As the general election approaches, and tensions remain critically high, Theresa May has the Rubik's cube of Brexit turned to Union Jack on one facet, while the rest of the cube remains jumbled. The as-of-yet unresolved issues of international cooperative businesses, the emerging High Court showdown with the Scottish and Irish Parliaments, and the spectre that remains as to what role Grexit might have played in sounding the alarm in the minds of British lawmakers, remain sources of great anxiety. Meanwhile, the restoration of a Tory lead House of Commons seems imminent, along with a new consensus with UKIP. But the anxieties that remain continue to be as divisive for Britain as the loss of the Pound Sterling-backing-of-Euros must appear to EU.

All joking aside: Brexit is lovely on many levels. But a simple search heading as to the what the consequences might be, and the sheer quantity of bickering leaves that answer to be very much a mystery, as well as bearing the hallmarks of being politically-motivated.

The media seems more interested in the publication of facts and figures indemnifying the hostility of EU which followed immediately after the June 23, 2016 referendum results, and still continues in one form or another. Meanwhile, the rosy picture of Mrs May's confidence is alienating to many British citizens, and seems to be fuel for Labor Party thinkers to develope charges ranging from corruption to sheer madness.

All the while, the availability of so much extreme and conflicting data only supports one thing: that the British people, as well as EU, are very much in the dark about Brexit's causes, and what the effects are going to be.

What follows is a brief, and itemised breakdown of the visible areas of impact, and the areas most-likely to be far-reaching. They are not in any order, each issue is as important as the others. These are several areas of concentration which cut across a wide-range of academic disciplines.

The most far reaching consequence of Brexit is the indictment which the voters of The United Kingdom have served against the contraversy of the one world market. It is questionable as to whether or not the "stay-in" crowd clearly understood that this is the most consequencial issue of the outcome of Brexit due to the fact that globalism, and it's inherent flaws, are a backdrop to their everyday lives.

Commonly cited by as many publications as you can manage, various sources agree that the 30 and under crowd voted uniformly to remain. The most commonly cited reason by their own testament was the belief that leaving EU would break England's economy. In their dialogue was a hidden truth, which is that their points-of-contention were warcries against exit, not necessarily to stay-in EU. And the millenial one-dimensionality in terms of comprehending this made the stresses creating the points to their objections quite dismissable. Meaning, specifically, it was more of a political identity than an honest comprehension of the overview of EU and all EU leaves to be desired.

It is therefore that the exit voters expressed this view in order to end the infuriating lack of function, and the cycle of disappointment which is still visible in EU's methodologies, as the negotiations with EU must now extend beyond the legally binding steps EU used to rely on once upon a time to render the working people of Britain to continue to remain underpaid, overlooked, and kept in the dark about the banking crisis's domino- effect.
Globalism, instead of easing trade, has made the economies of its participants truly vulnerable, and in more ways than one.

Right now both UK and EU find themselves in quests for a borrowed future due to the realities of Globalism, which now lies exposed. It might have been best if it had been left a work of fiction, as the realities of communism were revealed to be.

On the positive side, now UK will be free from the dissatifaction of the ever-evolving Target programs, and the loss-of-capitol during EU rebate season. But these issues are only the removal of some of the obstacles upon an as-of-yet unpaved path towards economic recovery. Had Globalism lived-up to it's architects' promises none of this would have been necessary.

Thus Globalism has no alternative but to end, or to create a new shell to maintain its existence before the current one dies. Either way, ever since numbers were crunched and cries of shock in regards to Grexit, Globalism has fallen prey to the forces of evoloutionary dead end.

Immigration, then, now, and later
Of the many divisive and colorful slogans heard during the shouting matches between leave EU and stay in voters, "xenophobic, racists, and greedy bastards" were my favorites. Clearly they were designed in some pro-stay media think tank, because they are completely without merit. The immigration issues are not aimed at those whose statuses include gainful employment, or a plan besides dependency upon the UK welfare agencies.

They are, however, based upon very real concerns about expanded EU reforms to the "Free Movement" concepts that allow, for instance, a undocumented worker to actually be an ISIS fighter, with no good intention for the citizens of the nation which has accepted his promise not to hurt them. It is plain common sense. The lack of differentiation between racism, and protecting the people whom immigrated to UK by proper channels, as well as those who were born in UK, is a point of exploitation, and is very much politically motivated.

The stay in voters believed that, at least in spirit, the people of Europe should've continued as a united people in regards to the ongoing terror attacks. Even EU has begun to realize that the thinly- veiled social Darwanism isn't going to work, and these policies went from accepting any "Asylum-Seeker citizenship: unquestioned" to "Reviewal of Status", now become "Deportable by reason of a great likelihood their residency shall incur harm to others.."
These newly minted EU labels are in effect today, and nobody is calling them "racists". Now, see where the chants originated?

Points made repeatedly to me included the belief that European-born citizens of both non EU, as well as EU member states, would lose their work or student visas, and that there would be a general climate of mutual retaliation against them, as well as UK citizens whom live abroad. Again, this is largely being created by the media. This entire issue is going to revert back to common law prior to EU, and whatever the fears of retaliation are, if you are in UK legally, there is no rush to dig out your passports and apply for visas, you will most likely not be affected by the restoration of the old way of handling the immigration status issue. Also, the old border crossing passport checks, as well as the issues of visas for work or study, will be re-established, with the item of visas requiring a short-term transition period, and a permanent exemption for those already in UK legally.

In contrast, exemptions across the board for British citizens in residence as consultants, or employees of mutual joint EU UK ventures, will recieve the same entitlements to which they are accustomed, as, after all, the UK is leaving the paper monster of EU, but it is not leaving Europe or Earth.

Macroeconomic Impacts
The international and specifically, the EU/UK joint-ventures, such as Airbus, a very large employer in both places, is an example of the area most in need of diligent compromise in terms of industrial standards, pay scales, currency rates, and educational requirements. It is most likely a grouping of items which, for the most part, will remain either unchanged, or will benefit British people the most.
The standards of industrial manufacture, as well as the codes which protect the public, are always high in Britain, particularly for the aviation and automobile industries.

The MRCA programs of earlier decades were Eurowide, and an example of compromise between European governments as to what the definition of "good enough" truly is, and British standards are globally considered outstanding the world around, as are German, and French....etc. But the wider net cast in terms of updating and the subsequent upgrade to newer member-states to EU was cast in-terms of billions of euros, and the loss to British labor in order to provide and exploit those emerging markets more efficiently.

Still, it remains a possible detriment to both EU and UK should the debate turn contentious, nuclear options forcing EU to buy-out UK's share of Airbus are ridiculous when compared with an orderly acceptance of the fact that, come 2019, the bills Britain is paying EU will most likely see a complete reversal.

Otherwise, should Airbus UK evolve into a smaller, more concise area of aviation manufacture, which is, in all liklihood, the result of Brexit for many shared economic ventures, then Britain shall be able to manufacture an above average product, for far less money, and retain the capital entirely. Whereas, until 2019, the industrial swing shift which shall exist in the interim overlapping of "in EU and out of EU" may readily provide the proof of a wide-ranging set of industrial deregulations close up, as the one manufacture base becomes two.

In terms of international trade, there are two broad categories of withdrawal from trade agreements which UK surrendered in order to become a member-state of EU in 1999: either EU scedes back to UK a set financial dividend for the intellectual property of the trade, and scales-down and apportions British industry's contribution to each effort, or a less practical method is to request a clarification of these agreements with each nation engaged in it one by one, and restructure UK, EU, and their worlwide trade partners' various roles in them.

  • The latter of which is forensically perhaps the most sound, and costly to EU. Look for EU to contest this, as an option. Overall, the British GDP will no longer be a conglomerated one, which I find dubious the numbers which EU claim as the GDP's of each of her member states, due to the collection and processing of these numbers being put forth being inclusive solely towards the co-operative aspects of international union, and not as stand alone and verifiable fact.

Regional Economic Impact

Pictures like this were, and are still being employed by one side or the other. Anti-Brexit funders, such as George Soros, may behind the most recent ones, claiming that Brexit is costing British people £350 million per week.

During the months of campaign leading up to the Brexit referendum, there was a figure expressed in Pounds that was supposed to represent the amount of money that UK had to repay EU weekly, £350 million, to participate in the arrangement, and bore the provocative banner: "Should we not be funding our own educational system?"

Like it or not, these, and similar assessments of the huge pay to play EU construct are very correct. But, getting out of the failing financial vitality of EU is neither going to be easy, nor without it's fair share of criticism. But the first edifices of British life to benefit from recovery are going to be social programs, such as welfare, and medical access for the people entitled to indulge these programs.

The liklihood that "all of that money" will save British public education may be true, but a number of higher priority budgetary items must place the veracity of this claim as "true in the long run". However, had Brexit not occured, the attempt by UK to bail out her industries and finacial institutions violate EU regulations, and when a member-state does so, the ensuing disciplinary measures do not mean jail, as when individuals break the law. Instead, it means money, and EU is designed to take in money, and are not at all equipped to return any, even when it is clearly understood and the amount EU must repay is agreed by both parties. EU is geared towards sustaining that process of repayment as it is one in the same as self-preservation.

Bearing this in mind, the transport industry, for example, no longer pays an annual quantification addressing the maintenance of EU highways, because those paid to UK preserve UK highways, and the owners of these businesses should not have to surrender an ongoing and rising price in this area, when competing EU commissions oversee and draw monies to upgrade and maintain commercial travel routes, so that any monies at the bottom line which are indicative of UK owing for this item are not taken from the business owners themselves, but from the entire collective of British government and her people.

The short-term return to old standards of such operating costs across the board will be welcome, due to the fact they were both more efficient, and far less offensive, and not at all Globalist.

Scottish and Irish Alternatives: 
Shinn Fein, Ulster Unionists, former bitter adversaries, both voted to remain in EU. This is perhaps due to a number of contributing factors, which include a wider reach and eased duties for Irish goods, a relatively cheaper cost of operations all the way around, to the informed didactic reasons that suppose EU could intervene and be more of an ally to peace and fairness than UK, should the peace between IRA and Ulster Unionists ever come undone. The voting margin varies according to differing sources, but they all agree that the "stay in" vote was the third largest count in all of UK, which is a rational conclusion, based on their population. The duplicity of asking a people to express it's freewill via voting in a referendum of public sufferage, and that vote's outcome being only considered in terms of the collection of nations (whom are called, together....) is very much a miniature version of the very same type of grievances that went unaddressed by EU, and resulted in Brexit. Unfortunately, the potential to mount a successful "Irexit UK" can never be accomplished in Irish Parliament due to it's being, in essence, a sub-let of UK Parliament, and in every way, cannot contradict the legalities of issues already previously determined in the British house.

In short: Ireland cannot legalize murder, for instance, and practice it under the provisionary status which is always in perpetuation in regards to moral issues.

But they have done it before.

The issue of gay marriage, for example, at the time of Irish lawful recognition of it, was directly opposed to the entitling conditions of their measured autonomy. But due to prevailing cultural demoralization, as sponsored heavily by EU commissions, the ability of such issues to engage EU in assisting Irish autonomy did not really set a precedent in which a second set of referenda manage to free Ireland from the ties binding the nation as one, called together, into UK.

And it would devestate Ireland's economy, because a quick google search can verify the near identical GDP to that of the Greece, and the fact is it would not be a one action manouvre. Ireland would have to petition EU for membership, and the notion of other mouths to feed with less food to do it, as well as become independent from Britain. And this constitutes a nuclear option for the historians in Britain, but for everybody in Ireland.

Scholars conclude that the right to secede from Britain is not a right implied to any principality which exists as part of UK. Therefore, it becomes a legal matter.

The practicalities of resolving such an issue in court in a timely fashion do not exist, unless decades in, the will of Irish people to enter EU still exists, and the court agrees to allow them to leave UK, or to take advantage of both situations. Either way, it is extremely unlikely that the courts will act against the best-interests of the UK. But should it, then analysis can be reissued taking this unlikely possibility and factor in the associated tangents.

Otherwise there is no avoiding the only conclusion possible: Ireland has no choice, and whilst they protest, her leaders should be organizing Irexit EU with the best possible deal for their unique national interests.

Aside from all three sides of the story, and the definitive limits to her goverment's alternatives, stands a contradicting figure to the Rob Roys and George Wallaces of cinematic celebrations of Scottish history. They were Roman Catholics. Her views are the prevailing views shared by EU's climate of acceptance of alternative concepts of morality.  Their criminal tendacies were converted into Scottish patriotism in Henry V fashion. She is going to be a polarizing figure to the public of both nations, if there are more than obligatory determinations that their concurrences are composed solely of geographic features. Yet, in many ways she is admirable, and indeed, she bears more than a passing political semblance to Angele Merkel, whose overtures towards preservation of EU are widely percieved to be without limit, as support for Scottish independence is equal to preservation of EU.

This is Nicola Sturgeon, whose unlikely ascension to the position of PM seems to have been a conspiracy of fate, as well as contradicting her current attempts to engage voluminously the same bid for Scottish independence that failed her party in recent years. And either way one looks at the fascinating conditions which accompanied her rise, the conspiring contradictions deserve to be mentioned. I do not believe Shakespeare could've invented these plots and twists.

Scottish independence was once a 2014 referendum, and, on the center right, the SNP, Scot Nationalists, were pushing it very vigorously. In what could be seen as a test for the Brexit fallout, the Scots, themselves, voted to remain in UK. Her party leader, the then PM Alex Salmond, vacated the office as a result of the issue, which, as his deputy, she inherited. And though EU is madness, and probably a bad thing for Europe, the farming and agricultural subsidies are an integrated part of Scottish culture, and it is tragic that the on-again-off-again SNP Raison D'Etre seems to offer proof of the divine intent to preserve EU, from where she stands, and yet, Scotland has no real option except to leave. This is probably enough to prompt her to vacate the same office for the same reasons as Mr Salmond: the direction as a provincial state limits the opportunities for Scots in the future, as well as touches the sensitive and passionate streak of pride that flows through all Scots like Chi.

When the results of referendum Brexit seem to indemnify the reasons SNP exists in the first place, the political ramifications of Brexit in Scotland will include a hostile to UK shift rightward, with the Democrats and Independents unifying a platform of pragmaticism in a new center.

Likely to end her three year rollercoaster reign as PM, I would bet money that, like Scottish pride, she shall reemerge in a UK skeptic fashion, and politely remind her colleagues that SNP had the agendas lined up perfectly in 2014, if only they had a time machine... Proving the anguish of genius.

Having mentioned these relevant historic facts, we can take away from them the immediate need to present a comprehensive list of concerns to the house,  mainly agricultural ones, along with a declaration of intent to defy UK on some of the more detailed and unresolved issues, like GMO's. This may not be a brass ring, but it is, at the very least, brass plated.

Membership In Other International Organizations
The suspension of Russia took the G8 to G7 in 2014. Otherwise, both UK and EU have occupied positions in the group, and in spite tof EU's outright inconsistencies in it's autobiography, the UK has been there longer, with full voting privelages. The causes for Brexit were actually begotten here, as in G8, EU relied on UK to push it's agendas for the poorer nations it advocates, and more than once the worldwide economy has had to eat a loss of capitol awaiting either interest rates to rise and recoup the damage the hard way, or further acting as a cuckolded husband while EU drunkenly celebrated it's unjustifiable presence as a member. Either way, EU Comm regulations that would exist were it not so, would require a hundred or so days per year, to argue, and billions of pounds and as many latent acts of debates would be necessary, making inclusion of EU a bit easier.

The fact that other EU nations will now need to rise as Clyde to EU's aggressive Bonny should bode well for EU, unless they step on the landmine of their own nearsighted policy craft in regards to Banco D'Italia.

The UK is, for the time being, straddling the fence as both a member-state of EU as well as privvy to her own direction, and policy salients, as they occur. This gives UK the unique advantage to benefit from both, and this is perhaps one of the first twenty or so points EU will not budge on: UK must remain a partner as a European nation, with EU. Devestation would result otherwise.

EU retains the respect of their largest trade partners US and Canada. In the future, these summits will most likely play a vital role in urging the calming of anxieties, and resolving future issues.

The death of Globalism is bound to happen in the drunken revalries of staff attendees whom realize, when sober, that a worldwide aggregate interest rate is the only medicine to prevent another Great Deppression, and the death knell for the Rothschilds Banking Conglomerate, as well as the end of the banker's holiday come macarbre, are indeed, unavoidable.

The future of NATO itself is a more shapeless mystery than is the UK's role in the organization. The likelihood that stress can be applied unilalterally by either the UK or EU against the other is highly speculative, if at all.
This is the one international organization whose evolving role, mastered by the real power behind the EU, is more than unsatisfactory. The abuse of NATO by thr United States, in particular, is a national offense, and the power construct of majority, minority shadow ministers whose careers are based upon increasing the profile of the US and Britian were caught with their pants down in the undertow of 9-11. The turn of phrase, "Stupid, to the point of being diabolical" is perfectly suited to describing the waste of money in every single NATO action since 1999.
If UK citizens truly have no problem with this, then by all means, the UK is in a position vital enough, and staffed by a military professional enough, to assume a post-Brexit commitment to NATO that is, for all intent and purpose, identical to the role it has currently.

The UN
The role of the UK in the UN is vital to both. The UK is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, and, as of lately, has resumed the role of resisiting Antiglobalist Russia in-concert with the US, proving the EU has a lot more to lose in-terms of influence than the UK does.  Although the Rothschilds are British, as demonstrated recently, their occultic organization and associates orchestrated the false-flag Syrian gas attack which was  to break up the alliance which threatened Israel. And the UK, being unable to align with Antiglobalist Russia, is going to fall down the decline of empire abyss which the Americans have, already. Britain has already had her pizzagate, most offenders in high profile positions were discovered, some posthumously. Meanwhile, the same sickening sociopathy in Americans is being called fakenews, and this is going to pretty much spell doom for the US. However, if the British presence in the UN continues to identify with the sickening American corruption and sorry leadership, those consequences shall be diponed upon the people of the UK, and thusly, both nations will collapse. This is the far greater danger to the UK than staying in the EU would've been. There is no sense whatsoever in stopping one evil and not the other.

Thus, at least from a overall perspective, the UK would find herself holding all the cards should she wisely claim hardships are forcing her towards a more quiet presence in every international organization, anyway.

In the annals of the consterning failures, which Britain is not immune from, it cannot be overstated: when the world is changing, and the headlines infuriate you, that you must be alive.
But a failure to comport oneself wisely engages one in a role participating in one's victimisation, and this, and not crime, is the necessary element for victimisation to occur.

Though the light that shines illuminates the need for great change, great change is almost always the result of national hardships and shared grief. From these places in the dark, we look out into a future that is  uncertain, and realize simultaneously: this is business, as usual.

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Consequences

  What Happens When You Steal An Election? From straight out of the CIA regime-change handbook: capture the electoral process and the commun...