The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Brexit Is the Equivalent of a Major Defeat in War
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

When a majority of the British people voted to leave the EU in 2016, I was struck by the similarity between the Brexiteers’ plans for their perilous voyage and those of Edward Lear’s characters in The Jumblies as they set to sea in their sieve. The analogy became more apt as the proponents of Brexit showed that they did not know nor care very much about the nature of the world into which they were proposing to sail other than to hope that everything would be alright on the night.

The Jumblies, like the Brexiteers, were swift to dismiss critical comment predicting a disastrous end to their venture, saying: “Our sieve ain’t big / But we don’t care a button, we don’t care a fig! / In a sieve we’ll go to sea!”

The water did indeed come in, but the Jumblies were not downhearted “because they wrapped their feet / in pinky paper all folded neat”. For extra safety, they pass the night in a crockery jar where they sang of their wisdom as they set their pea-green sail for lands where, among other things, they secured an owl, a pig and some green-Jack-daws, and “a lovely monkey with lollipop paws”.

The Brexiteers’ alternative to the EU is just as imaginary as that described by Lear as a habitation for the Jumblies. The reason why the Leavers have failed to negotiate the sort of settlement they said they wanted from the EU is simple: what they said in 2016 was based on the proposition that the EU got more out Britain than Britain got out of the EU. Had this been true, the British departure would be easy enough, because Britain could genuinely have threatened to walk away. But because Britain needs the EU more than vice versa, the outcome of the negotiations were always going to be heavily skewed in favour of Brussels.

Yet this simple proposition evidently eluded Dominic Raab, David Davis, Boris Johnson and the other Leavers who departed from the cabinet claiming that Britain was being blackmailed and bullied into submission. Successful negotiations always reflect the balance of power between the negotiating parties and it is puerile to believe that the settlement, which the EU leaders will or will not agree to in the next few days, was determined by a failure of will by Theresa May or subtle treachery by Remain-sympathising civil servants.

It is easy and right to deride the Leavers for their wishful thinking and inability to calculate the true balance of power between Britain and its neighbours. This is the same ruinous mistake made by so many populist-nationalist leaders down the decades. The great flaw of nationalists everywhere is an assumption that their nation has greater political, economic and military potential – and their rivals less – than is really the case.

Exaggerated ideas of national superiority have fuelled the most self-destructive policy mistakes of modern European history. They led to France declaring war on Prussia in 1870 and Germany choosing to fight wars on two fronts in both World Wars. American and British leaders blithely intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq this century in total ignorance of the real odds against their success.

Such military examples are apposite because Britain’s withdrawal from the EU is the equivalent of a major defeat in war. Suppose, hypothetically, that Britain fought and lost a military conflict with a rival European power, then the departure of Britain from the EU might well be demanded by the victor as a way of ensuring that Britain was permanently weakened.

What foreign enemies failed to accomplish against the British state for centuries may soon be inflicted by the modern day Jumblies. Negotiations now completed are at best an attempt to mitigate the extent of the British loss and all scenarios point to a country less well-off and influential than if it had stayed in the EU.

The best argument for Brexit has little to do with political power or economic success. The demand for national self-determination has been behind the most progressive developments in the world over the last century since the break-up of the German, Austro-Habsburg and Ottoman empires after 1918, and the British and French empires after 1945.

Newly emergent nation states invariably blame former imperial masters for their economic, political and social troubles. Usually there is a lot in this claim, though not as much as the claimants pretend. In this context, there is nothing surprising in the fact the British complaints against Brussels echo those made by the Irish and the Indians against London when they fought, with rather more reason, for their independence.

This comparison will not appeal to hardcore Leavers because of their nostalgia for a state of the world at home and abroad that, if it existed at all, was briefly present in the 1950s. British society of that era may have some aspects that were superior to the present, as well as many that were worse, but in either case they lie in the past and cannot be recreated.

One of the many weird characteristics of the Leave leaders is their frequent references to a mythical version of British history, featuring “vassalage” and humiliating treaties signed by King John at the beginning of the 13th century. One Brexiteer even attacked the proposed EU agreement as the most humiliating since Charles II agreed the Treaty of Dover with Louis XIV in return for a heavy subsidy in 1670.

But these historical nuggets are really only there for adornment. For all the talk about “Britain standing alone”, Britain invariably made every effort to do no such thing. British success against Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler were based on the Royal Navy preventing defeat, while Britain built up overwhelmingly powerful alliances against the enemy of the day. The last time the country was as bereft of continental allies as it is today was during the American War of Independence at the end of 18th century.

Contemporary English populist nationalism has much in common with similar movements in Europe and the US: hostility to immigrants and minority communities combined with a sense of lost identity and control, which seems to be the inevitable consequence of globalisation.

ORDER IT NOW

For globalisation in this century is turning out to be as destructive to the political and social status quo as the Industrial Revolution was in the 19th century. Metropolitan areas, primarily urban, that are plugged into the global economy do well, while everybody else falls behind or does badly. The same pattern is repeated everywhere from Arkansas to the Isle of Thanet and from Saxony and the rural hinterland of Damascus.

In one respect, the Brexiteers are more revolutionary – and perhaps more dangerous – than Donald Trump. Despite his foaming rhetoric, Trump has done little for his acolytes and has instead implemented a traditional, if toxic, Republican programme of reducing taxes on the rich, deregulating Wall Street and business, and targeting minorities and the poor. Only in Britain has the populist-nationalist surge, almost by accident, come close to producing revolutionary change by propelling the British state in directions so new and uncharted that even the Jumblies might have been deterred from going there.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Brexit, Britain 
Hide 73 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. All these pundits tell me it’s bad. Therefore, it has to be good.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
  2. pyrrhus says:

    Really stupid column..Britain holds all the cards after Brexit, with the most important market in Europe for luxury cars and other luxury goods. German manufacturers are rightly scared to death of losing that market..Trump will give the UK a favorable trade deal on top of that…So I gather that Cockburn is just another lickspittle for the upper classes…

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @anon
    , @Fredrik
  3. El Dato says:

    But because Britain needs the EU more than vice versa, the outcome of the negotiations were always going to be heavily skewed in favour of Brussels.

    These negotations are a disgrace and the EU is just coming across as a sadistic outfit run by shitty Office Nazis.

    Meanwhile:

    Anonymous blows lid off huge psyop in Europe and it’s funded by UK & US

    Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of “clusters” of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing “evidence” of Russian interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.

    The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin, with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to “change attitudes in Russia itself” as well as influencing Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked documents states.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  4. peterAUS says:
    @pyrrhus

    ..Cockburn is just another lickspittle for the upper classes….

    I’d change that into

    …Cockburn is just another lickspittle for the Globalists…

    He is a smart guy. Made a decision that working for the masters as a member of that “Administration” layer is the way for people like him
    He choose his side.

    His, and his ilk, material is worth reading for just one reason: to gauge how uncomfortable he is. As long as he is uncomfortable ..good.
    When he became really uhnappy, even afraid…..great.

    Personally, while fast skimming through the article I’ve found one….only one…snippet of value:

    Only in Britain has the populist-nationalist surge, almost by accident, come close to producing revolutionary change….

    Feeling of the author being uncomfortable with that. Even slightly afraid.
    Nice.

    And, perhaps even better, that Freudian slip …revolutionary change. Coming from a “progtard”, speaks volumes.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  5. Sean says:

    It is a defeat, but Britain had no choice because to continue was a worse option. I would say of historical events it is most comparable to the withdrawal from the continent that was the Dunkirk evacuation, and yes things are looking as grim now as they were then. But really, there was no choice for Britain its productive capacity started to erode as soon as it entered what was then called the EEC. The population was being pauperized and excluded from employment in the jobs that remained such as construction (Poles and Romanians being recruited en mass for jobs never advertised in Britain until the government was forced to ban it, which didn’t stop it). The relative power of Britain was declining in relation to Germany and France. Brexit is a disaster, but staying in would have been even worse.

  6. Two of the EU’s founding myths are that the principal conflict in WWII was between Germany and France; and that the rapprochement between these two EU members has made a similar war impossible in future.

    Of course, it’s nonsense. The principal conflict of WWII in Europe was between Germany and the Soviet Union. The present cycle of poor relations with Russia began when when Poland welcomed a planned US missile defence system on its territory, and (in 2014) the EU and USA assisted a revolution against the elected government of Ukraine. It is worrying that the EU has ambitions towards the same territory that Germany coveted in two world wars; and yet a belief in its own founding myths tells the EU that there is no danger as long as the French and Germans stick together.

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Philip Owen
  7. Saxon says:

    Cockburn really is a despicable little toadie. “Oh we did this thing that we knew was bad, but it can’t be undone! Besides, the past you reference never REALLY existed, and even if it did, you can’t undo it and have to live with the disastrous genocidal results of this unwanted top-down policy… or else!”

  8. Thomm says:

    Trump has done little for his acolytes and has instead implemented a traditional, if toxic, Republican programme of reducing taxes on the rich, deregulating Wall Street and business, and targeting minorities and the poor.

    What idiocy is this? None of those policies are bad ones, nor have you portrayed them accurately.

    There is no tax cut that you leftists will not claim is ‘for the rich’. You obviously know nothing about taxation.

    How is Trump ‘targetting’ the poor and minorities.

    This is crude, unoriginal leftism.

  9. Franz says:

    Leavers because of their nostalgia for a state of the world at home and abroad that, if it existed at all, was briefly present in the 1950s.

    Ye gods, the 50s was a Golden Age for national self-determination… almost everywhere. Every time someone knocks it, I become more convinced it will be the new temporal Camelot as the world gets messier.

    The last time the country was as bereft of continental allies as it is today was during the American War of Independence at the end of 18th century.

    Which era began the process by which Britain turned into Great Britain. Not a wise choice, time-wise. As Lawrence of Arabia tells Faisal at their first meeting in David Lean’s movie, “Time to be great again.”

    Metropolitan areas, primarily urban, that are plugged into the global economy do well, while everybody else falls behind or does badly.

    So for a statiscically insignificant portion of the planet we destroy the rest of it?

    Sounds more to me like the Leavers, wherever on Earth they may be, are the folks with their brains turned on. Good, since globalism’s been a disaster since it started. The “defeats” like this go to the plutocrats. May there be many more major defeats for all those buggers.

    (Did not the UK produce James Goldsmith’s book The Trap? The fact that we all fell into the trap he discribes is no excuse for staying in it.)

  10. Stogumber says:

    A federation which is so strong that one cannot leave it except by destroying oneself – such a federation has eventually become an empire. Is Cockburn really an admirer of imperialism and eternal dependency?

    In the case of Britain: We don’t know if this has been the last opportunity to leave the empire or if it is already too late. But in any case it was worth giving it a try. Just Cockburn’s words prove it.

  11. Miro23 says:

    For globalization in this century is turning out to be as destructive to the political and social status quo as the Industrial Revolution was in the 19th century. Metropolitan areas, primarily urban, that are plugged into the global economy do well, while everybody else falls behind or does badly. The same pattern is repeated everywhere from Arkansas to the Isle of Thanet and from Saxony and the rural hinterland of Damascus.

    Rather than “Metropolitan areas, primarily urban, that are plugged in to the global economy do well”, I would say the “Metropolitan areas where the owners/shareholders, managers and financiers of outsourcing corporations operate” do well.

    In exchange for short term bumper profits (Chinese costs and British selling prices), whole industries with their supply networks and specialized skills are moved to Asia. Every major corporation has an Outsourcing Director to check that every manufacturing process or skilled job that can be sent to lower cost China or India is sent there.

    So, basically, Brexit is an anti-globalization movement to protect the British people and necessarily elevate consciousness of British identity, and of course, the Globalists are going to fight it – they have the money, and control most of the government and media.

    For globalization in this century is turning out to be as destructive to the political and social status quo as the Industrial Revolution was in the 19th century.

    A point here is that the Industrial Revolution altered the political and social status quo WITHIN the country (but as a whole it became richer), while Globalization/Outsourcing alters the political and social status quo BETWEEN countries (i.e the outsourcing de-industrializing country as a whole becomes poorer ).

  12. Miro23 says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Two of the EU’s founding myths are that the principal conflict in WWII was between Germany and France; and that the rapprochement between these two EU members has made a similar war impossible in future.

    If the EU had a founder it was probably Jean Monnet, and in his interesting Memoirs https://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Jean-Monnet/dp/0385125054/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1543055119&sr=8-2&keywords=jean+monnet+memoirs , he makes it clear that he wanted a United States of Europe (USE) based around a Franco-German core.

    Russia didn’t enter the equation at all, and even less the Ukraine. The idea was that the USE would be a similar political/economic unit to the USA and, as such, have normal foreign relations with the USA, Russia, China etc.

    The current trouble is the hijacking of the European project by the same Globalists that are wrecking the USA. The EU was supposed to have solid external frontiers (Merkel missed that part), and enact policies that benefit European people and European industries – not at all allow the outsourcing of everything to China and fill up European shops with Asian products.

  13. TheJester says:

    The EU as it has evolved is the same as if someone retconned history: Germany defeated Great Britain, won WWII, and dominates the European continent.

    The facts on the ground point to that having happened. The Euro is another name for the “New Deutschmark”. And the EU reflects Hitler’s plan for a pan-European customs union … if Germany won had WWII, of course.

    The current power of Germany over EU-member nations, including Great Britain, is reflected in the German Chancellor, Frau Merkel, unilaterally waving EU laws and regulations in 2015 by opening EU borders to an invasion of military age Muslims from the Middle East and Asia … and then trying to force other EU countries to follow suit. No other EU country had the ability to attempt much less exercise such brazen power. No other country dared confront Germany on the brazen power play.

    That power was also reflected in Germany launching an economic Kesselschlacht (cauldron battle) against helpless Greece when it got out of line. An economic occupation followed. Greece now no longer meets the essential criteria to be called a “sovereign nation”. This serves as an example to other Southern European countries that might otherwise dare confront Germany’s economic and cultural domination of the European continent.

    Britain is retreating from the EU just in time to save itself from a demographic invasion of Eastern Europeans and Asians as the outcome of yet another German move to the “East” … as Germany formally incorporates Eastern Europe into its pan-European customs union. Germany’s next target is Ukraine, its third attempt since 1914 to incorporate Ukraine into its economic and political orbit.

    If one wants to know the situation on the ground in Great Britain driving BRITEX, the book, “This is London,” by Ben Judah is a good read. An alternative title of the book might have been, “Londonistan”.

    • Replies: @Toño Bungay
  14. Jumblies

    Those of us who believe that our laws should be made in Parliament, rather than by bureaucrats in Brussels, have been called many names over the years—racists, xenophobes, little Englanders, Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, loonies—and we had assumed that the EU fan club had by now run out of the insults it has routinely employed in lieu of reasoned argument. Not so!

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Philip Owen
  15. Renoman says:

    Well some people would just rather die than suck cocks and sell their Culture to Satan. Can’t say I blame them.

  16. “The reason why the Leavers have failed to negotiate the sort of settlement they said they wanted from the EU is simple”

    Yes it is simple: WE WERE NEVER IN CHARGE and NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO NEGOTIATE. Teresa May is a Remainer.

    We Brexiters wanted Canada+, which apparently the EU would have given us, but we’ll happily settle for WTO terms, which no one doubts is doable.

    We have been ‘defeated’ by traitors who rule us and betrayed their promise to enact Brexit. This is the greatest national humiliation in a thousand years.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Philip Owen
  17. The onus is not on the non-government leavers to negotiate or propose a plan for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. That responsibility lies with the government who called the referendum: the government of the day would have shouted that down as infringing their mandate.

    It appears that everyone, Remainers and Brexiteers, are profoundly ignorant of the true nature of their relationship with European Union(thanks to EU Referendum.com) and are, thus, operating on a false understanding of what they can and cannot do.

    I’d say the best thing to do is for all EU members to trigger Article 50 and then re-negotiate a new Common Market from scratch.

  18. peterAUS says:
    @Simon in London

    We have been ‘defeated’ by traitors who rule us and betrayed their promise to enact Brexit.

    Correct, up to a POINT. A big one.

    One day, hopefully, you guys will do a bit of reflection and introspection and see what was your own mistake, error, whatever. Your own weakness.
    If/when you do that and face that weakness then you could start working on it and……hopefully….do something about it.

    It’s like with those fatsos. Yes, it IS a fault of fast food industries, advertising, blah…blah….but, there IS a big fault within. Starts also with reflection and introspection.

    Good luck.
    You’ll need plenty of it.

    Oh, BTW, that applies to all these recent disruptions of Globalist project. From Trump to the latest glitch in Brasil.
    Hehe….at least you aren’t alone.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
  19. @TheJester

    I’m not saying you’re wrong about Germany’s intentions, but I find it hard to believe that the UK, which seems to have an endless appetite for Pakistanis and Indians, is acting to block Asians from overrunning it. But to whatever extent Brexit is about keeping Britain British, I’m all for it.

  20. Kevin T says:

    Anyone reading this would have no idea that the EU is still suffering the effects of the 2010 Euro crisis; Greece remains imporverished almost to Third World levels; populist governments have been elected in 4 member states and populist parties are making gains almost everywhere else; Paris seems to be constantly in flames either from riots or terrorist attacks; the leaders of France and Germany compete to be the most loathed in their own countries; the continent’s borders are besieged by Third World illegal immigrants; the EU commission is run by an alcoholic who can’t even dress himself, while its parliament is run by what seems to be a ranting villain from an old James Bond movie who demands his own army. But hey, clearly I’m missing something, the EU is a resounding success and Britain needs to stay in it.

    • Replies: @Dorik
  21. anon[214] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    Yes – number one on the bill of indictment against the EU is that it is anti-democratic. Ordinary people in Britain who have to obey EU laws have no voice or vote in making those laws. Bureaucrats in Brussels who make these laws do not have to obey the laws they’ve made.
    Cockburn knows this and does not care. He places no value on democracy.

  22. DFH says:

    Freeing yourself from being ruled by foreigners is what happens when you win a war

    • Replies: @wwhat
  23. Denis says:

    With all due respect to Mr. Cockburn, I think that this article doesn’t address the real reasons people voted Leave, most notably immigration. It’s no coincidence that UKIP used Merkel’s invitation of millions of mostly male ‘Syrian refugee children’ from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Africa as propaganda in its campaigns, nor is it a coincidence that, according to the Guardian, there was a serious uptick in hostility to muslims following the vote. The policy of accepting great amounts of immigrants seems to be extremely unpopular in the UK, so in retrospect it’s no surprise that people voted against an institution (the EU) associated with this policy.

    Of course, leaving the EU won’t do anything to alter the immigration situation, at least not in the ways that leavers expect. Although the EU is associated with open borders, the fact is that the UK government itself has for many years accepted massive amounts of non-European immigration, which is, of course, the chief factor driving anti-immigrant sentiment. Most of the talk about Eastern European immigrants seems to be due to the fact that they are the only immigrants that it is acceptable to (publicly) speak ill of. As for Merkel’s refugees, if the UK government didn’t want to take them, they could simply have refused to accept the redistribution plan, alongside Poland and Hungary. There would have been little that Germany could do on the matter, since the Schengen Area had already de facto been abrogated by the countries that refused to accept the people coming through Greece and Italy in the first place. Sending people from the four corners of the earth to Britain would have remained Merkel’s fantasy, so long as the UK gov. opposed it.

    This all makes the ‘Remain’ campaign’s decision to associate themselves so closely with these unpopular immigration policies absolutely mystifying. Non-European immigration to Britain is an almost entirely separate issue to UK membership in the EU; it was incredibly stupid for the Remain campaign to allow themselves to be tied in the public mind to such an unpopular policy when it was, in fact, not immediately relevant to the debate. The only reason I can fathom as to why they might have done this is that many of the pro-EU party are genuinely in favour of receiving large numbers of non-European immigrants. I suspect that many Britons picked up on this, and were seeking to express a general dissatisfaction with both the high levels of immigration and the globalizing economic policies associated with it by voting “Leave”. Nevertheless, Brexit could probably have been easily avoided if the pro-EU group had simply made it clear that immigration and EU membership are two separate issues (for the UK, that is).

    • Agree: Philip Owen
  24. anon[142] • Disclaimer says:
    @pyrrhus

    So I gather that Cockburn is just another lickspittle for the upper classes…

    reminds me of that scene in Dr. Zhivago

  25. Sean says:

    Most of the talk about Eastern European immigrants seems to be due to the fact that they are the only immigrants that it is acceptable to (publicly) speak ill of.

    That is part of it because the conditioning for decades was anti-racist. But really the main thing was the sheer number of them that employers had access to had reduced demand for native workers, and was holding wages down.

    The only reason I can fathom as to why they might have done this is that many of the pro-EU party are genuinely in favour of receiving large numbers of non-European immigrants.

    The pro EU party is pro business basically, the anti EU feeling is working people, but not their traditional organisations like unions. The EU is a way for British productive capacity to by profitably outsourced and the wages for un-outsource-able jobs to be kept down. It is good for business, but bad for the country.

  26. “Had this been true, the British departure would be easy enough, because Britain could genuinely have threatened to walk away. But because Britain needs the EU more than vice versa, the outcome of the negotiations were always going to be heavily skewed in favour of Brussels.”

    Excuse me I am unclear what this dynamic is based on — because according to what is in the press. The EU launched a heavy campaign against GB departure. And they continue to contend that GB should remain and have engaged any and all tactics to prevent the process.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-response-to-article-50-takes-tough-line-on-transitional-deal

    https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/european-union-to-britain-were-in-control-of-brexit-talks-not-you-1675939

    https://www.theglobalist.com/post-brexit-eu-still-a-superpower/

    I think the overwhelming evidence is that the EU has no intention of a friendly divorce. The EU’s position contradicts the above reference.

  27. Bill65 says:

    Opinion We voted for Brexit and we should be out already but the EU is terrified of us leaving their cosy club of un-elected jerks.

  28. It is the somewhat ironic date of 15 April 1912, and you are a passenger on the RMS Titanic. You just felt a shudder, and start to see the crew scrambling around. Outside it is cold and dark, while inside it is warm and bright and the band is playing sweet sweet music. You feel a few more shudders, the lights blink, and the ship starts to list. Your first instinct is to head for the lifeboats, but inside it is warm and the band plays on. If you stay where you are on the world’s greatest unsinkable ship, you will be fine … better than out in a lifeboat in the cold darkness of a vast north Atlantic … right?

  29. EoinW says:

    The Dunkirk analogy is a good one. Britain could have done the easy thing and made peace with Hitler after the fall of France. Instead it made the difficult choice to continue fighting, endured a tremendous amount of short term pain, but came out better off in the end(so long as you were not one of those Britons who lost their life in the war).

    The easy route – which most westerners still prefer – is to just keep things the way they are, with the globalists running everything. Even if things are getting gradually worse for everyone, it’s still an easier choice than going to a lot of trouble to change things.

    There’s a problem with the status quo for citizens of the UK. What infects all of western culture, is this materialism uber alles mentality. The globalists have bought us with lots of stuff and, according to the MSM, we don’t want to give any of it up. Western morality has evolved to the point where it is determined solely by monetary considerations. A serious spiritual crisis which won’t be fixed until people say No to the globalists. No in any form, including Brexit. Yes there’s an argument as to how much it will cost the UK to leave. According to the MSM this is the only consideration which matters. That’s all you need to know about the MSM. All you need to know about our politicians too. Yet for normal human beings there are far more important considerations besides money. The British can never address those concerns so long as they are ruled by the EU. None of us can spiritually renew our societies and culture until we end the rule of the globalists.

    Don’t kid yourself, this is going to be an economic Battle of Britain. It will be bad, mainly because the UK has been suffering under a bad globalist economic system for too long. It will be even worse because the leaders who imposed that system will still be in charge even after Brexit. We can only hope it is the beginning to getting rid of such leadership and replacing them with people whose priority is the average citizen.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @anon
  30. @Miro23

    The current trouble is the hijacking of the European project by the same Globalists that are wrecking the USA.

    The tendency to expand was “baked in” from the start, if only by accident. The original EEC of six countries had tariff barriers against the rest of the world, and this gave neighbouring countries a reason to join – simply to improve their trading position.

    I wonder whether Monnet anticipated that the EEC would expand to cover almost all the European countries that follow Western Christianity, plus a few of their Orthodox neighbours? An EU of the original six countries, corresponding approximately to Charlemagne’s empire, would probably by now have achieved a full federal union as the USE, but still with a Franco-German core. This would have made a lot more sense than the current EU of 27/28 greatly different countries, with disparate interests.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Miro23
  31. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of self-centered idiots.

  32. @El Dato

    Actually, if the Nazis were in charge, the UK would be better off. The Nazis didn’t require payments from their trading partners and traded, wherever possible, on a commodity for commodity basis, eliminating the banks and international finance. It is the banks and international finance who were at the bottom of Cockburn’s war references, the Jumblies were merely useful idiots. All wars are economic wars.

    Of course I find it odd how Cockburn sees the UK needing the EU more than vice versa, given the UK’s massive trade deficit with the EU, where it is relatively balanced with the rest of the world.

  33. TG says:

    With respect, it may well be that the current British government is inept and stupid. But the pressures for “Brexit” were indeed rational and sane.

    Brexit was always really about immigration. The rich want open borders, so that they can import poor people and drive wages down and profits up. The average worker does not want this, but the EU mandated a near open-borders immigration policy that has proven greatly destructive to the British working class. In addition, Britain’s population density is getting high enough that, even with today’s technology, it is becoming restrictive as regards the average person’s standard of living.

    But the elites want their cheap labor, and so it is inevitable that any “deal” will somehow leave immigration untouched – the one thing that really mattered to the people who voted for Brexit!

    But when one considers the mass influx of non-EU third-world refugees that the British elite have imported, the issue may be mo0t. Britain is headed to become yet another overpopulated poor third-world country like Pakistan or Bangladesh, and likely within the span of those now living.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  34. peterAUS says:
    @EoinW

    Good post.
    Especially this:

    What infects all of western culture, is this materialism uber alles mentality. The globalists have bought us with lots of stuff and, according to the MSM, we don’t want to give any of it up. Western morality has evolved to the point where it is determined solely by monetary considerations. A serious spiritual crisis which won’t be fixed until people say No to the globalists. No in any form, including Brexit. Yes there’s an argument as to how much it will cost the UK to leave. According to the MSM this is the only consideration which matters. That’s all you need to know about the MSM. All you need to know about our politicians too. Yet for normal human beings there are far more important considerations besides money. The British can never address those concerns so long as they are ruled by the EU. None of us can spiritually renew our societies and culture until we end the rule of the globalists.

  35. peterAUS says:
    @TG

    Agree with

    …The rich want open borders, so that they can import poor people and drive wages down and profits up. The average worker does not want this, but the EU mandated a near open-borders immigration policy that has proven greatly destructive to the British working class. In addition, Britain’s population density is getting high enough that, even with today’s technology, it is becoming restrictive as regards the average person’s standard of living.

    But the elites want their cheap labor, and so it is inevitable that any “deal” will somehow leave immigration untouched – the one thing that really mattered to the people who voted for Brexit!…

  36. Miro23 says:
    @James N. Kennett

    An EU of the original six countries, corresponding approximately to Charlemagne’s empire, would probably by now have achieved a full federal union as the USE, but still with a Franco-German core. This would have made a lot more sense than the current EU of 27/28 greatly different countries, with disparate interests.

    I believe that if the EU had stuck to its original mandate of closed borders (only guest workers with no citizenship / contracts with entry and exit dates) and promotion of EU industry and EU human development, then Brexit would not be happening, and there would be no nationalist backlash.

    Even the enlarged EU would probably be OK if it made sure it had solid frontiers and retained world leading industries and skills.

    The tragedy is that globalists and special interests wanted open frontiers and outsourcing, and subverted the political leadership, same as they did in the U.S. The situation in the EU is bad, but the US is even worse with 0,1% special interests having totally looted the place.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  37. Fredrik says:
    @pyrrhus

    Not sure if this is parody or if you really think this way.

    Either way it’s obviously not going to be this way. It turned out that Britain didn’t hold many cards at all.

    Sure, there will be less immigration of whites going forward so some people will be happy.

  38. Anon[322] • Disclaimer says:

    ”The Brexit deadline is March 29 to launch a 21-months transition period with Britain still a member. The events in Ukraine are needed to fuel the fire. Making people think that the UK is lending a helping hand to a poor nation under attack is a way to improve the government’s image and approval ratings.”

    UK Commits Extra Military Forces to Ukraine: Irresponsible Policy, Dangerous Repercussions

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/uk-commits-extra-military-forces-to-ukraine-irresponsible-policy-dangerous-repercussions/5660940


    The Rothschilds’ March To WWIII

    https://hendersonlefthook.wordpress.com/2018/03/

  39. The problem in Europe generally is all good ideas end up being administered by the Jumblies who then proceed to bring their bad ideas to the game.

  40. Good! Now the French should get out also , than Russia can join EU.

  41. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @EoinW

    I think Britain would have been far better off if it had made peace with Germany in 1940.

    • Replies: @EoinW
  42. EoinW says:
    @anon

    I agree. Churchill was determined to save the British Empire at all cost so peace was never an option. As usual, average people had to pay the price for trying to save the empire.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Simon in London
  43. Thus far, the Poms seem to have been able to resist the “WRONG ANSWER! Vote Again” bullshit that was foisted on Ireland (Lisbon Treaty) and Denmark (Maastricht) and Greece (bailout).

    It’s hardly Wat Tyler, and it’s certainly nowhere near the level that should be hoped for – which is best expressed in the final stanza of Chesterton’s “The Secret People”:

    We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
    Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
    It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
    Our wrath come after Russia’s wrath and our wrath be the worst.

    Chesterton got a whole lot right in that poem, but until there are politicians’ heads on pikes I will not be happy; this excerpt is among the best descriptions of the new bureaucratic class that I have ever read…

    They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
    Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
    They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
    They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.

    All the political pearl-clutching about Brexit is State Theology: it is the pretence that trade must be en bloc and centrally-planned. That is as big a lie as the lies for which men have fought in all wars.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  44. peterAUS says:
    @Kratoklastes

    Nice comment.

    You are onto something here:
    “They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies”

  45. wwhat says:
    @DFH

    Sure? Usually don’t happen this way, most of wars simply decided by whom foreigners you will be ruled.

    With all its problems and flaws, the EU is a geostrategic force. If such union is (still) a puppet of the USA, and has no force at all to counter China, I wonder what will do Britain alone. Being wiped out, I imagine. It’s a very bad idea indeed in trouble times each on its own, we’ve seen this a lot in zillion movies. In despite on so fantasy on Russia Russia Russia manipulations, I think that China in fact are making such moves, qui prodest, well, undoubtly China.

    If anyone really believes that a Britain-alone instead a 600 million-EU can obtain better conditions from China, he/she is in full delirium. The same can be told about any other example. See Latin America, 20-a lot countries each on its way, or Africa, almost 90, and Russia and China, or the USA, on a single piece.

  46. @Miro23

    I believe that if the EU had stuck to its original mandate of closed borders (only guest workers with no citizenship / contracts with entry and exit dates) and promotion of EU industry and EU human development, then Brexit would not be happening, and there would be no nationalist backlash.

    The margin of victory for Brexit in the referendum of 23rd June 2016 was only 52% to 48%. It is likely that the balance was tipped towards Brexit by Merkel’s Boner (September 2015 onwards). It appeared that the Chancellor of Germany had gone mad, and no one in Germany or other EU countries was capable of stopping her. Even German voters refused to evict her from office.

    As a result, the EU gained a million young Muslim men, many of them hostile to its values; and it lost the UK.

    • Agree: Miro23
  47. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @EoinW

    But Churchill did NOT save the British empire. HE LOST IT. The only way he could have saved it was by peace not war. Churchill’s actions always had the opposite results of his intentions. He was actually a disaster in both the military and political spheres.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  48. Seraphim says:
    @anon

    More than that, Churchill consciously lost the British Empire.
    The Romanian and ‘French’ writer Princess Martha Bibescu, on personal terms with all European aristocracy, relates in her “Jurnal Politic 1939-1940” an encounter with Winston Churchill at Covent Garden in March 1939. According to her Churchill told her in a state of high excitation: “We’ll have the war. The British Empire will go to dust. Death threatens all of us, but I feel twenty years younger”.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  49. Paul55 says:

    There wont be a brexit its all theatre for the masses.

    Deal Wont get through parliment forcing 2nd referendum that will take place with project fear chugging along nicely to tip the vote in remains favour.

  50. Tony M says:

    This article is typical of the anti-Brexit crap the English and Scottish oligarch-controlled print media and the state-controlled broadcaster the BBC is pumping out 24/7 in increasingly desperate attempts to reverse the decision and/or prepare for another referendum which will deliver the ‘right’ result next time round. The arguments the author makes are pure fantasy, they simply didn’t feature in either the campaign or the people’s voting choices, they still don’t feature now, they are quite detached from the reality. I think the British people are going to dig their heels in – the more they’re pushed by the media, by the motley collection of remainers, the Blairite centre-right wing of the Labour-Tory Uniparty, with Blair himself and even the lying creep Gordon Brown being wheeled out to join in the chorus scolding and talking-down to the revolting masses – the more they’re going to give the rotten through and through political establishment another and yet another bloody nose. One thing that’s gone for good is deference. In the EU referendum the media’s spell was broken their Project Fear 2 (the first was in Scotland in 2014) telling us the right, the goodthink way to vote was turned around 180 degrees, pointing us in quite the other direction, and the limited power the mostly illusory democratic system gives us was used to defy them and throw a well-aimed spanner into the works.

    I live in Scotland, support independence and will never waver from that, but there a majority did actually vote to Remain in the EU, fell for Project Fear a second time, but I voted to Leave, and if asked again will vote to Leave again. The Scottish Independence referendum was an establishment dry-run for Brexit – Project Fear 1 – and was succesful, hence their confidence they could do it again. At the crescendo of Project Fear 1, 3 days before the vote, Gordon Brown came to Scotland bearing gifts – the infamous ‘Vow’, at the end of a sustained months long vicious and dirty anti-Independence anti-Scottish campaign by the British establishment, intelligence services and media in open conspiracy.

    The ‘Vow’ made in panic three days before the Independence referendum, solemnly backed by leaders of all the English-based and fanatically unionist parties – by Brown, David Cameron and Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg – promised vast new powers for the Scottish Parliament, full Home-Rule, ‘the most powerful parliament inthe world’ and such desperate guff. It was trumpeted in all mainstream media, given endless oodles of gushing TV and radio air-time by the English state-run and controlled English establishment mouthpiece BBC, and by the print-press, which is in Scotland overwhelmingly, to an astonishing degree partial and pro-union, anti-Scottish and anti-independence – levels of media-bias and control of which even the most totalitarian dystopian state imaginable would be envious of and could learn many tricks from – went large on this ‘Vow’, one daily even mocking up a document and faking the English party leaders’ signatures upon it, printing a blown-up facsimile on ye-olde parchment as their front-page, the rest were no less dishonest, as they’d been throughout the campaign and in fact have been throughout their existence, disgusting filthy lying rags one and all.

    This was the carrot, there was plenty of stick too including threatening retired pensioners, senior-citizens that their state pensions would be stopped immediately, would not be payed if they voted for independence, endless scares over currency, we were even warned of imminent Russian invasion. A police-state always there just under the surface descended on Scotland and a well and long-stoked climate of fear, known openly in unionist circles as ‘Project Fear’ reached its zenith, age-old sectarian Catholic/Protestant tensions were stoked by the unionists (Scotland’s Catholic minority have always been represssed and discriminated against); we would immediately be kicked out of the EU (IMHO no great loss), only voting No to Independence could keep us in the EU; terror, occupation and blockade were threatened -similar to the conditions which prevailed in the decade or more prior to the lop-sided union of Scottish and English parliaments in 1707.

    The day after the referendum and with the result they desired in the bag (which was not without allegations of vote-rigging, suspicious behaviour around the counts and absolutely improbable postal-vote turnouts) Cameron immediately (Brown had seemingly vanished off the face of the earth) reneged on the grand ‘Vow’, laughed it off as a stunt, and proceeded instead to diminish and strip away existing powers of the Scottish Parliament and announced EVEL, English Votes for English Laws, which relegated Scottish MPs in the Westminster/UK English dominated parliament to second-class status.

    England stripped of its empire, its power in the world, has reverted to, ramped up its always simmering sadistic domestic repression of the other nationalities within the British Isles. It certainly isn’t over yet but the ostensibly pro-independence Scottish National Party are beginning to look to have become since the departure of former leader Alex Salmond, if they weren’t before, a controlled opposition, a sort of ZOG-in-waiting, held in reserve and have been in the words of the bard, ‘bought and sold for English gold … such a parcel of rogues in a nation’. The SNP still seem to think Scotland’s EU Remain vote is representative when they’re fully aware just how the Scots were so easily duped to vote as their masters compelled them less than two years earlier. In the 2015 General Election Scotland rebounded and elected 56 SNP MPs, out of 59 possible MPs to Westminster, in itself a stomping majority and powerful mandate for independence, and control the Scottish Parliament, with one Tory, one Labour and one Lib-Dem MP making up the other three sent to Westminster, and Theresa May/the Tories govern Scotland when their party, their entire mandate is (still) one MP out of 59. This farce passes for democracy -a situation which even the most backward banana-republic would find shameful and the international community ought to loudly deplore.

  51. @peterAUS

    We certainly made a mistake in trusting May when she said she was going to enact Brexit, eg in the Lancaster House speech. But I’m not sure what different actions the Brexit-voting public could have taken. We could have all voted UKIP in 2017 I guess. I’m certainly going to be voting UKIP in future. If you have a different notion please tell me.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  52. @EoinW

    Churchill wanted to stop Hitler. The British Empire was never at risk from the Nazis, and only came under attack because it was at war with the Axis. Nazi Germany wanted a land empire dominating Europe that would happily have left the oceanic British Empire intact.

    Post-WW2 Churchill wanted to preserve the empire, but continuing the war with Germany rather than negotiating peace had nothing to do with the empire. His pre-war opposition even less so.

    • Replies: @excuseme
  53. excuseme says:
    @Simon in London

    Yes, it was. If what you say were true, why Britain spent so many resources and efforts to stop Napoleon, who, differently from the Nazis, he only wanted to spread modern capitalism (like Britain)? There is no such “continental empire” without risking “overseas empire”. Besides, Nazis not only wanted to took over British Empire, they wanted to change the entire system (or they tried so). Britain had enemies and risks not only outside, but inside (and maybe potentially more dangerous). The fall of the USSR is a clear example than negociating a peaceful partition is only paying time, not more.

    Britain did what it had to, to survive. The “peace” with Nazi Germany would have meant its absorption and dissappearance. Churchill knew this perfectly. Everyone knew it. That’s why they allied with Stalin, there was no other way, nor hope.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    , @anon
  54. peterAUS says:
    @Simon in London

    ….But I’m not sure what different actions the Brexit-voting public could have taken…

    That is EXACTLY my point.

    This isn’t either place or time to discuss that properly. And, save same rare exceptions, nobody here is actually qualified (or in plain lingo good enough) to do so. I am not for sure.

    But, what I can’t do I can recognize in other people.
    In this particular case the mass of disaffected people hasn’t produced a group, elite if you will, which will find the way.
    They cling to old leadership which is actually proven to be against the idea. Sounds crazy.
    They cling to old methods which got them into the bind in the first place.

    A new, smart, leadership is required. A new, fresh approach to the problem. The alternative. Which and how I do not know BUT, in all this time all those people should’ve created some.

    It starts with smart people talking with each other. They network. Then, they formalize the group and the methods. They produce ideas, blueprints, manifests, whatever. Call them intellectual leaders.
    Other smart people recognize that and having natural leadership skills and talent use those ideas to organize a movement, party, whatever. Mobilize the masses behind the idea.
    Etc…..

    That is how it is done.

  55. chris m says:

    Got to say that i disagree with quite a lot about most of this article.

    However, whatever ones own opinion maybe of the stay/leave argument,
    you do have to admit that this current Government have actually managed to make their handling of the Leave procedure into a monumental cock-up of epic proportions.

    Just as one might have expected.

    the author could at least have tried to present the current shenanigans as a sort
    of comedy of sorts

    my own opinion was and has been from the start,
    a) vote Leave and, once public has voted accordingly
    b) immediately cancel the vote and decide to stay in anyway (as is the European way)

    this way the Brexit camp wins (so they’re happy)
    and the Remain camp also gets to win ( so they’re also happy)

    so everybody gets to win, ie everybody has reason to rejoice (or perhaps not)

    when they finally get around to voting on this,
    think i will decide to watch the silent Japanese film
    “a page of madness ,1926” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Page_of_Madness)

    (it’s a story about an asylum)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  56. @excuseme

    So today, the “UK” is being absorbed and disappearing into the violent, low-trust, women-abusing Pakistani/Arab/African Islamic culture of their “immigrants.”

    Would absorption into the German culture of the WW2 era be worse?

    • Replies: @excuseme
  57. excuseme says:
    @RadicalCenter

    The “UK” are not being absorbed at all by none of these people, they are being used as jews (and others) were, as social scarecrows, they have no power at all, I don’t see any muslim country with significant economic or social power either, either Indonesia or Pakistan or even Saudi Arabia, which is nearer to Al Capone plus a Evangelical mafia than to any serious ideological competitor. If you are trying I buy that China must be scared of Islam or any other shit like that, then it is obvious why the Western World is sinking in its own feces.

    If you think that people who organised public bonfires of books, participated in common orgies to hail the chimp, and attacked antire ghettos in KKK style, not to say the future they had reserved to England (maybe the same as Czechoslovakia, Austria or Poland?) is somewhat comparable to a bunch of corrupt parties lead by debrained sales agents which don’t know what theatre work enact to idiotize even more their own citizens, then it doesn’t wonder than you really think the danger is coming from a pack of illiteracy rednecks from any shitty country. But please don’t forget that they didn’t study in Eton or received money from Soros Stupidization Schools. Or maybe yes, at the end the fanatic wahabe madrassas are paid by Western money.

    Not Chinese one.

  58. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @excuseme

    Wrong on so many counts. Allying with Stalin was the worst move of all. Britain had many options in 1940. It had even more in 1939 before it foolishly declared war.

    • Replies: @excuseme
  59. excuseme says:
    @anon

    Sure, that’s why all of British, even the pro-nazis, were praying for Stalin’s victory. Naturally there was more options, but not at the heights of 1939. Maybe they could have had a harder stance and fight for Czechoslovakia, not for a stupidly ruled Poland, or better, never giving money to the nazis and perhaps bribe communists themselves, but ideology is ideology, you can do stupid things because of your construction of the world tells you so. You has seen historically what happened to the USSR, what you has not, luckily, is what would have happened if Nazis had won. No, I’m sorry, they were not normal people and did not, ever, a single clever act. In fact, like you or not, Hitler left Germany like a bare ground, it was exactly what was expected by some (foreign) people who helped him to gain power, the same guys who sold rope to the Japs to lynch themselves, the part of the plan included left the Soviets as bad as it could be, it was not bad, the only problem (for them) of this engineering is the enormous risk to take. But this is an inherent problem of some ways or social organization.

    No, the Nazis were not normal people, were not trustful people and it is an error to whitewashing them. It’s a huge difference do criminal acts selling them as “not intended collateral misfittings”, something that most of the people does, than openly being proud of your atrocities. Like Mr.Salman?

    • Replies: @anon
  60. @Seraphim

    I’m not sure you can translate that as a conscious decision to lose the Empire. Just the old war horse perking up at the smell of gunpowder.

    He certainly didn’t get the result he wanted from WW2. The Empire went and one country (Germany) ended up dominating Europe and the Low Countries – a situation which Churchill said British foreign policy had tried to prevent for 400 years.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Jon Halpenny
  61. JLK says:

    He certainly didn’t get the result he wanted from WW2. The Empire went and one country (Germany) ended up dominating Europe and the Low Countries – a situation which Churchill said British foreign policy had tried to prevent for 400 years.

    Things are not always as they appear. Putin has alleged that Germany does not have full sovereignty. Whether that is true or misleading propaganda, the US/UK still have a lot of influence over the German government. Ditto the French, Dutch and Italian governments.

    Deutsche Bank is rumored to be in trouble. Did they have full control of their business decisions?

  62. @chris m

    when they finally get around to voting on this,
    think i will decide to watch the silent Japanese film
    “a page of madness ,1926″ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Page_of_Madness)

    (it’s a story about an asylum)

    Is this anything like Freaks, the 1932 Hollywood collaboration of a couple of Tods, C.A. Browning and C.A. Robbins?

  63. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @excuseme

    About six million Polish citizens were killed in the war and Warsaw was totally destroyed. The USSR also annexed over 100,000 square miles of her territory (larger then the U.K. itself). About 100,000 Czechoslovakian citizens were killed in the war and Prague was almost unscathed by the war.

    But being a “LIBERATED” Pole was better then being a “BETRAYED” Czechoslovakian, huh sport.

  64. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Churchill was much happier at war then at peace. See Buchannan’s latest book on this.

  65. Svigor says:

    As in, Britain defeated EU/globalists in a major war? Yeah, that fits.

  66. @James N. Kennett

    The EU responds to applications for membership. It does not solicit them. Russia itself had extensive talks about joining or intensive cooperation with the EU until oil and related products became its overwhelming exports. The Russian attitude became that the EU had to buy oil anyway. This mercantilist attitude rather ignored the importance of imports.

  67. @Miro23

    There was substantial debate in the EU 15 about deepening or widening. Most of the original members wanted to deepen. Moving to the East was a UK policy backed by Scandinavians.

  68. @Johnny Rottenborough

    The EU laws are made by the Council of Ministers and ratified by the European Parliament. The British people have a proportionate share in voting on them.

  69. @Simon in London

    No Brexiteers wanted anything. They all ran away from responsibility.

    Leave vote for 17.4 million unicorns. There can only be one! Remainers had a real and existing horse. It’s still the same horse. The last unicorn may not be as popular as your own special darling.

  70. @YetAnotherAnon

    If you read books such as Clive Ponting’s “1940, Myth and Reality” or “Churchill, The End of Glory” by John Charmley, it becomes clear most of the British Tory ruling class knew that another major war would finish the British Empire. This explains why they followed a policy of appeasement in the 1930s. It is not clear, however, if Churchill understood that a war would finish the Empire. He acted as if he did not understand.

  71. Cockburn is bang on! 17.4 million Leaver voted for 17.4 million unicorns. Yet, there can only be one! Guess what, it isn’t the one they wanted – when we had half day school holidays for Commonwealth (formerly Empire) Day. Meanwhile, 16.1 million Remainers voted for a real and existing horse. Leavers are terrified that the remaining unicorn, still not real and existing, won’t beat the horse. One curious observance is that there are no riders for either beast. The Leaver leaders all ran away when asked to lead their unicorn into the ring. The Remainers have never had leaders.

    So far as I am concerned, the arguments for Remain were:

    A very successful but unfinished Peace project (it can be debated)
    Prosperity (undebatable)
    Wider horizons (eg 138,000 small businesses export without paperwork)
    The power of prosperity and alliances to enhance our sovereignty

    So far as I am concerned, the arguments for Leave were:
    Sovereignty (meaningless without power)
    Control of immigration (it can be debated)
    Prosperity (completely ridiculous)
    Democracy (complete misreading of the EU)

    So to immigration where I have some sympathy with the Leavers but not enough.

    Half of UK immigration is non EU. All those black faces at Calais did not come from the EU. They came from Africa via the failed states of Libya and South Sudan. The UK could do a lot more to control those problems at source with decent politics and the Foreign Aid budget. We have mostly done so in Syria where we pay for millions to live in half decent refugee camps. Hungary doesn’t.

    The EU half can be much more strictly controlled than it is. We have no EU obligation to pay social security or healthcare to job seekers. Job seekers can be removed after three months if they are not employed. We don’t this.

    Meanwhile, the UK is not in Schengen. The UK can set up a free movement area with Canada, Australia and New Zealand if it wished. This would improve sales of services. The trouble is the other countries don’t want it for good reasons but my tea is ready.

  72. scuzzy says:

    Those wishing to leave the EU didn’t really care about who gets what. They just want out. As anybody with a brain would want out of a had relationship.

    Philip Owen – how many times are you going to post on this article? You’re a fool. Based on your comments you’re a globohomo.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr