Brexit: A Chance to Bring Back Sovereignty


A number of British and US media have already published panicking reports on the upcoming referendum in the UK over whether to remain in the EU or to regain part of the sovereignty that remains in Brussels’ hands. 

According to the newspaper The Guardian ten days ago, the amount of voters wishing to withdraw from the EU has increased significantly to 53%, with the “remain” tally falling to to 47%. The Bruges Group accounts for 52% vs. 33% (the rest haven’t decided yet). Experts from the academic community argue that such high figures are being recorded for the first time.

For the liberal media, the problem is that public opinion polls in England have shown a significant increase in the number of those supporting the UK’s withdrawal (known as Brexit) from the European Union.

This is even reflected in the pound sterling exchange index. June 13, there were jumps in the British currency, and then it stopped at the level of 1.4275 against the US dollar. These leading index of the British stock exchange FTSE 100 were the lowest since mid-March 2016, about 6044.97, down 1.16%. 

However, these pessimistic facts have long been held prominent among British liberal lobbies and think tanks serving Washington's interests. In unison, they speak of the catastrophic consequences awaiting the UK if it withdraws from the EU. Their point of view is quite reasonable, and we will show why EU supporters believe that Britain should preserve its membership.

The Centre for European Reform, headquartered in London, has published a series of reports concerning the UK’s remaining within the European Union.

In one article, John Kerr, the former British Ambassador to the EU and US, notes that Brexit would shake the four pillars of British foreign policy. First, the link with Washington would be broken. Kerr says: “Britain at its best is in step with America at its best. That would not change if Britain leaves the EU, despite current trumpery on both sides. But influence on American policy is a function, not of sentiment, but of perceived power. We are useful to the Americans to the extent that we can convince or cajole our other friends to adopt common or at least congruent policy. We cut ice in Washington when we are seen to cut ice over here; to cut ourselves off from our continent would see us cut down to size – 60 million, not 500 million – in the US. No wonder the transatlantic foreign policy community overwhelmingly hopes we will vote to stay.”

The second pillar is NATO. Britain has strong positions there. Thus, according to Kerr, Brexit would hurt NATO and Europe’s security. 

Pillar three is built on the lessons of history. The EU, without the UK, would be less open, less liberal, less secure, and less aligned with British values and interests.

Pillar four is the belief that a rules-based multilateral order serves Britain. This is built on the rule of law, the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, and on aid and trade structures optimized to support economic development.

This passage shows that high-ranking UK politicians formally recognize that their country serves Washington’s interests, is the conductor of the White House’s ideas, and in fact does not have its own sovereignty, hence the fear to appear to be what they really are as a political nation. Certainly, from a historical point of view, Britain has always been interested in multilateral ties, but rather from a divide and conquer standpoint in order to gain additional advantages from the problems between contending parties. 

Another of this think tank’s publications says that Britain’s right-wing populists will not stop at Brexit – they want control of the Tory party. Even if Britain votes to stay, Cameron’s days as Tory leader are numbered. He will be forced to eventually stand down, and his position will be taken by right-wingers or populists. Thus, even if the British people don’t vote for Brexit, Cameron will never be Tory leader again. 

The liberals have tried to use Eastern European nationals as another tool for influencing public opinion on Brexit. There are many people with dual citizenship, as well as many migrant workers. After joining the EU, many citizens of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic headed to Britain. Thus, it is obvious why Bloomberg published that “Remittances back to Poland are about 50 per cent larger than investment inflows into the country, including foreign direct investment (FDI) and returns from investments overseas. Remittances are about 40 per cent bigger than investment flows in Hungary.”

In general, the liberals defend free migration and stress its advantages for the UK. Such is apparently approved by the fact that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in public spending, as well as by the major benefit that British people can live freely elsewhere in the EU.

Of course, from the point of view of the European crisis, this thesis is quite doubtful. 

Oxford University is very strict on the referendum idea itself. Erik Jones writes in his article, The UK Referendum is a Bad Idea; Voting to Leave Would Make It Worse, that allowing people to discuss such a thing is wrong. He says that people make mistakes, and “real people like to delegate responsibility for making complicated decisions…popular referendums do not protect parliamentary sovereignty; they usurp it.” 

Such a defense of political groups’ interests is a serious degradation of the idea of democracy as a more adequate way for people to show their will, such as through the referendum. 

Since 1978, European countries have held 54 referendums on integration issues. It is evident that the British liberals are cunningly critical toward people’s will. The problem is the fact that the Euro-bureaucracy has usurped power and regards only its right to rule as legitimate. Thus, during the Greek referendum on its economic reform program in the summer of 2015, Juncker’s statement were perceived as threats by the Greeks.

The USA is also doing its best not to allow the Eurosceptics to strengthen their positions on the eve of the referendum.

The famous globalist Parag Khanna published an article which described the possible further problems which Britain would face if it left the EU. For some reason, he thinks that a post-Brexit United Kingdom would not become a giant Switzerland or Singapore, both of which rank higher than the UK in competitiveness, connectedness and innovation. Given that the anchors of the Eurozone, France and Germany, will remain, the UK’s prospects for leading Europe from outside the continental bloc are less than slim. The United Kingdom can hardly rely on its leadership of the Commonwealth, which is no longer even nominally coherent. In fact, Parag Khanna is quite right that Britain exploited dozens of countries and nations, and that being done with particular cruelty (such as in the early 20th century when African people were held in cages in British zoos). Who will come back to this torturer and pay tribute once again by their own free will? 

In addition, Britain is faced with the growing power of China with which it can not cope alone, and the risk of total sediments in Canada which receives more foreign direct investment than the United Kingdom.

It is significant that the author, while constantly attempting to encourage his readers onwards to a beautiful future under the guidance of experienced liberal mondialists, is caught in the traps of neocolonial thinking, and calls China a future threat to the UK on these grounds. 

More articles about the dangers of Brexit were later published by Stratfor. UN bureaucrats have also provided propaganda to keep the UK in the EU. Christian Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN’s Convention on Climate Change, threatened in Brussels on June 22nd that a Brexit would entail rewriting the Paris Agreement on climate change. 

For Eurosceptics, it is obvious that what is to be done is to act contrary to the globalists and Atlanticists, i.e., actively promote the withdrawal from the Brussels dictatorship. Since May 25th, the UK government has no formal right to interfere in the debate on the June 23rd referendum, and the changes of Brexit are fairly high unless, of course, the British Atlanticists, together with their patrons in Washington and friends in Brussels, use proven liberal methods of falsifying votes.