The Brexit Victory: Now Things Get Realpolitik

Screenshot (56)The immediate euphoria in Britain for the Leave Side in the wake of the Brexit Referendum is both inspiring and a tad comical. One has to wonder at just how few of the Brexiters realize just where in the process to depart the European Union the non-binding recommendation to the British Parliament fits. Yes, the democratic “decision” to leave the EU is advisory only; it is a recommendation offered by the electorate to its parliamentary representatives.

As was reported by Breitbart as early as June 6, 2016, quoting an unnamed Europhile MP: “Everything after that (a successful Brexit vote) is negotiable, and Parliament would have its say. The terms on which we leave are entirely within my remit as a parliamentarian and that is something for me to take a view on.”

The unnamed MP finds himself in supportive company. Breitbart cites that there are 454 EU-friendly MPs composed of Labour, SNP, and about half Conservatives, as opposed to 147 Brexiters.

To go against the result of the referendum need not even be sensationalized with the tag of “plot.” As long as he is prepared to accept the electoral consequences of his decision, the unnamed MP is correct in stating that he is within his parliamentary right to do so. Legally and morally, he is accountable to his prerogative as a parliamentarian, not to the wishes of his constituents. Britain is not Amerika.

On June 7, 2016, Sir William Astor, signalled clearly the parliamentary maneuvering that would take place in the wake of a Leave vote, going so far as to state: “…an exit from the EU is actually not deliverable.” (emphasis mine) The Remain side was lining up its ducks, courtesy of a friendly, complicit media.

The above two signals came three weeks prior to the referendum. Now, three days after the referendum, The Daily Mail is releasing the very same scenario for its readership/demographic. The public is being spoon-fed; it is slowly being psychologically prepared for the eventual betrayal of the Brexit result. The public is being boiled slowly.

The opening stages of this realpolitik chess game hinge on the EU’s Article 50 which sets out the guidelines, from the EU’s perspective and position of strength, for a Leave scenario. The Brexit scenario is, of course, novel because no one has ever been here before. All parties are jostling for position, and they are doing so with a change of characters already predetermined. David Cameron is on his way out. The revolt inside Labour is underway with a vote of non-confidence against Jeremy Corbyn having been floated the day after the referendum. Boris Johnson, who very likely was not expecting a successful Brexit vote, is positioning to take over the Conservative helm. The SNP is making noise about another Scottish independence referendum.

These latter developments do not come as a great surprise. The most jolting development to date is the notion that has been put forward for London, with its Muslim and Millennial, Globalist demographic backing, to break away as an independent city-state. (see below) The automatic alliance here is with the SNP. The petition for a second Brexit referendum by the losing side pales in comparison to the big-picture machinations for an “independent” London city-state.

Article 50 stipulates four crucial clauses, the logistics of which are a nightmare for the Brexit “victors”:

  1. “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
  2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
  3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
  4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The “intention” to “withdraw” can only come via the supportive parliamentary vote. The very earliest that an actual exit can occur is two years after the beginning of negotiations. During that time all EU treaties with Britain are in effect. Hypothetically, based on the volume of immigrant infusion into Europe, especially into Germany, over the past year, it is possible for another two million “immigrants” to be invited into Britain during the negotiation phase. If the British Parliament drags its feet on the vote another full year could easily be tacked onto the timeline, translating hypothetically into another one million “immigrants.” Note that Britain has no vote in the withdrawal agreement to be “negotiated”; this is like attempting to negotiate with a Russian Roulette revolver. The house is stacked to the tits with leverage and position.

The first and most important hurdle for the Brexiters to overcome is the pending vote in Parliament to actually recognize the Brexit result and to trigger the maze of negotiations identified by Article 50. If this hurdle is not overcome, then the Brexit result collapses and Article 50 becomes a moot and redundant consideration, with all of the nasty consequences and repercussions that such a development would bring.

In all likelihood, the parliamentary vote will not take place until Boris Johnson has assumed the leadership of the Conservative Party, at this time tentatively slated for October 2016. The odds of Brexit being approved by Parliament are slim, to say the least, as has already been pointed out above. However, seeing as the house’s deck is so terribly stacked, Mr. Johnson will have the ideological and political luxury of faking his way through the negotiation phase.

Unwittingly, the Brexiters have become a loosely allied Fifth Column for the rising sentiment of true Ethno Nationalism as represented most strongly by Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and now, oddly enough, by London. One can sniff London’s new mayor, the Muslim, Sadiq Khan, in this mix somewhere. How much of this gambit is tactical sabre-rattling remains to be seen. The marginal murmurings of English nationalists are as yet muffled by their own befuddled confusion and paradoxical clashing of loyalties between “British” and “English” identities. It must be remembered that the Brexit victory is a victory for artificial civic nationalism, an identity that is as open for ownership to Britain’s indigenous ethnicities as much as it is to Muslim and Polish citizens. Let’s not forget that “British” is a Globalist identity; it is the other half of the Atlanticist menace.

The Brexit Referendum result has opened a Pandora’s Box of realpolitik possibilities that simply did not exist prior to June 23, 2016. This is taking into account only the few that have arisen within the first week of the Brexit vote. It has also opened a bag of comical and highly questionable political, copy-cat posturing on the Right. Geert Wilders, as has Marine Le Pen, have both called for “exit” referenda in their respective countries of The Netherlands and France. Mr. Wilders holds no political power and is in no position to leverage anything. Madame Le Pen has been politely informed by Francois Hollande, President of France, that such a referendum is not on. The scatter-brained opinions offered on social media are likewise amateurish and comical, to say the least.

Some of the most ludicrous chirping about the Brexit phenomenon, as exemplified by some Amerikan blogger named Greggie Johnson,  has come out of Amerika. In particular, it is the preposterous assessment that Brexit has the least thing to do with The Orange Saviour, Donald Trump, saving Amerikan Whites. Firstly, “saving” Amerikan Whites is hardly Mr. Trump’s snake-oil mission. Secondly, Amerikan political commentary on anything to do outside of Murka takes on the tone of an eager, gay, high school valedictorian address as a book review of The World As Will And Representation. The depth, cough, and sentiment are matched here by the conservative proximity to make-shit-up, as evidenced by the pedestrian likes of Milo Yiannopoulis. The Amerikan Right may not get much right, but it remains an exceptionally accomplished, delusional leg-humper believing that no international thought and development is valid minus its culturally imperialist input and spin. How Anglo-Amerikan Atlanticists do love their Globalist identities while in the same breath harping against same!

Furthermore to dispel any outright silly thoughts about the Brexit vote igniting and empowering any notion of a neo-Pax Anglo-Britannia is the example that has now already been set by Texas. In the wake of Brexit, Texas has rejuvenated its secessionist bid with a “Texit.” It is the Ethno Nationalist layer that is hidden beneath the easily observable phenomena that is so handily evident for pedestrian scribblers which stands to be released by Brexit. The common denominator of regional secession hypothetically pulls together the most odd collection of a global alliance, to name but a few: England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Texas, Alaska, Dixie, Cascadia, Quebec, Novacadia, Flanders, Basque, Catalonia, Bavaria, Lakota Nation, Aztlan, Nation of Islam, NAmerikan city-states, and now London.

This is not an expansionist era as was, say, the case during the 1930s; it is an era of contraction. It is an era of collapse, fracture, and devolution. Pandora’s Box delivers! This is now the potential of geopolitical realpolitik in the wake of Brexit. It is not a pixel graphic march towards a pixel graphic Feldherrnhalle.

Also blind to the gay cheerleaders for a Nigel-Donald offensive to save the West is the fact that the Leave Camp had its chestnut pulled out of the fire by a mass defection from Labour. This is an obvious null spot for a country where class distinctions do not exist. It is the moment that UKIP has been working towards. There are numerous factors to be taken into consideration to see if UKIP can now hold onto this working class support. Without it, UKIP will never form government.

Yes, the EU is the Globalist bad guy, this is a no-brainer, but it is such within the above outlined historical and geopolitical context. By the time the British people had awoken the day after their historic vote, their standard of living had been shaved by ten percent. The international markets had spoken; the pound was kicked to its lowest level in 30 years; the flight of capital was on. For how long and to what extent are the British people prepared to sacrifice in order to uphold their “revolution?” More to the point, for how long are the British parliamentarians prepared to allow their overseers to take a hit to the tune of $127 billion in the span of 24 hours? The stakes are real. This ain’t no disco.

Lastly, are British Nationalists prepared to entertain the notion that, “The enemy ladies and gentlemen, is Britain?” Of course not. But neither are the civic nationalists of Amerikan and Kanadian ilk, for that matter. Their civic nationalist identity betrays them; they are Globalists in drag. What needs to happen for this degree of truth to finally sink in, that the British State is the enemy of the ethnic array of indigenous “British” peoples, is for the State to fuck them over, fuck them over real hard and for all to see. This is now in the works with the pending betrayal of the Brexit vote and its corresponding sentiment by the British Parliament. Already the hints are being floated.

If, during these fascinating times of decay, decadence, deracination, collapse, and rebirth, one is to voice the political principle of, “Worse is better,” then one must also be prepared to go to the wall with it and own it. Now things get realpolitik.

(Mr. Ronin is the author of ANSCHLUSS: The Politics of Vesica Piscis.)