Brexit, empire watch, featured, latest, UK

What divides Brexiters and Remainers?

Gloria Moss

The Brexit roller-coaster

The Brexit roller-coaster ploughs on unpredictably with moves by the House of Commons to block the ‘no deal’ Brexit that most Brexiters voted for. The media often brand this a ‘hardline’ position but this is misleading since this is the only option that delivers a clean exit from the EU, one of the two referendum options available. Anyone taking the temperature of views in Britain could be forgiven for thinking that Remainers and Brexiters inhabit different planets but why might this be the case?

Factors underpinning Remain or Brexit attitudes

You could think of a plethora of factors. Personality could play a role, with Remainers perhaps having a predisposition for the status quo; differing levels of knowledge could be another with some more aware than others of the full implications of remaining in the EU. Then again, personal agendas may play a part with resolute globalists eager to pursue a Remain option in order to further moves to a globalised world.

However, there is one factor that might be overlooked.

This relates to people’s life experience of the armed forces, something that under the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 becomes subsumed in EU Foreign and security policy. The reality of this, little discussed in the mainstream media, is that aspects of British Defence will be merged with European Defence, something explored in brilliant detail by Will Podmore (https://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-european-army). So, in June 2017, at a meeting of the European Council, Theresa May approved the European Defence Fund, the European Defence Industrial Development Programme and PESCO. The Council also agreed that the deployment of EU Battlegroups should be borne as a common cost on a permanent basis, something that the Prime Minister put her signature to as well.

Signing away Britains’ Defence

Signing away Britain’s defence is tantamount to signing away sovereignty and one might ask not just how this could happen following a Referendum decision to leave the EU, but also how individuals can feel comfortable doing this. I balk at this since I am aware of the cost in effort and in lives that allowed British sovereignty to persist and am aware of this at a both a national and also a personal level. For, I was brought up realising that no fewer than four members of my immediate family had served in the Second World War – my father in the Desert Rats, my uncle who was Judge Advocate in the RAF, my concert pianist mother who entertained the munitions workers and troops across Britain and her late brother, Arthur Walford, who tragically lost his young life in a training accident in the RAF in Canada shortly after enlisting.

We all know how early childhood experiences can leave their imprint and a recent study by Jean Decety and Jason Cowell of the University of Chicago found that one-year old children’s propensity to particular moral behaviours were influenced by their parents’ sensitivity to justice (see https://www.pnas.org/content/112/41/12657.abstract). Could it be that children’s exposure to families that have fought in armed conflict influences their attitude to the EU and their stance on Brexit? Some serious research could be conducted on this topic but meanwhile, let us look at the familiar experiences of the four political leaders Britain has had since 2009 when the country was signed up to the Lisbon Treaty. We take this as our starting point since this Treaty planned the merger of the armed forces of individual sovereign states with the European Community.

Familiar experiences of political leaders since 2009

The leader responsible for the Lisbon Treaty was Gordon Brown. His father, the Reverend John Ebenezer Brown, was born in 1914, graduated with an MA from St Andrews in 1935 and then obtained a Bachelor in Divinity in 1939, the same year that he was ordained. His position in the church meant that he was not on active duty, leaving his son without the familial experiences referred to earlier.

David Cameron followed as Prime Minister, having been leader of the Conservatives since 2005. His father, Ian Donald Cameron, was born with physical disabilities in both legs and so was unable to undertake National Service. This left his son, David Cameron, a politician with Remainer beliefs, likewise someone without familial experiences of Britain’s armed forces.

Following the Brexit referendum in June 2016, he was succeeded by the current Prime Minister, Theresa May, whose father trained for the priesthood in 1940. This left May as another leader without familial experience of Britain’s armed forces. Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, was in a similar position since his father, born in 1915, had trained as an Engineering Apprentice, then becoming an electrical engineer, a ‘reserved’ occupation for which conscription did not apply. When war came, therefore, he was in the home guard rather than on active duty.

Beliefs are deeply rooted

A person’s worldview is a fundamental cognitive orientation with roots in many sources. As the Brexit roller-coaster continues to be steered off-course by Remainers, it is worth seeking the roots of people’s beliefs. Are they in independently formed opinion? Or family experiences or rather secret agendas? While we might wish for the first, we might be surprised to learn in fact how many fall into the last two categories.


47 Comments

  1. doldrom says

    Most Brits decidedly did NOT vote for no deal, and this is reflected by a Parliament which in majority rejects leaving without a deal. That makes the whole article basically clueless. People were not thinking about the terms or consequences of leaving, and now nobody wants to take responsibility for the fall out.
    Contrary to what people keep saying, there was only a slim majority for leaving, so there is no overwhelming democratic mandate. For many, the migration issue was uppermost in mind, an issue which is playing out in many other EU member states as well, and is not in first instance about EU membership. On top of migration, Brits have been subjected to BS about Brussels dictating how bent the bananas should be (all fake news) for 3 decades, and long for the old days of empire and glory.
    In the end, the centripetal forces unleashed within the United Kingdom between various constituencies and with the Scots and perhaps the Irish may prove to be the main effect.

    1
    1
    • The invention and interjection of a ‘no deal’ brexit came after a majority decision to leave the EU.
      The insistence that this was the will of the people in democratic power to which parliament must honour and align is part of the mindset of pretending to effect such an outcome.

      Before the referendum brexit was cast as disaster – by fear-porn media that had no intention or likely freedom to honestly open or engage in real debate.

      After the referendum the same tactic coined the no deal’ brexit (with disaster) which at the very least undermined any leverage that the possibility of such event may have brought to the ‘negotiations’ IF in face there are actually negotiations – rather than a presentation a process of negotiations for mainstream consumption.

      The smug and ‘untouchable arrogance of the power behind the actors and of the actors backed by such power is to a large degree set secure in the belief that poeple can always be cowed into compliance and conformity by fear and carrots. As they want to withdraw carrots or reward for making a choice and acting on it – the pseudo reward of a saviour to a fallen and unworthy humanity is conferred as a social credit within an increasing top down coercive denial.

      The Stockholm syndrome is the captive who gives loyalty and protection to the abuser under the acceptance that NOT being hurt – while violence or malevolence diverts to others, is love.

      The ancient religion is of terror gods who were overwhelming to the sense of survival and who were therefore praised by ritual emulation and social sacrifice such that total ‘payment’ could be mitigated by partial limitation and the surrogate sacrifice of ‘others’.

      This pattern in its various archetypes predicates the mind of ‘power struggle’ and the hidden deceit that runs at its core.

      This Mummery is being played out on the World stage in grotesque parody of Life. But having invested in soap drama – the mind protects it investment. Those who haven’t got a life – in the sense of embracing and being it – are drawn to live vicariously – through story.

      Why haven’t we – generally got a life? Is it because a fear of life draws us ever into a living death – or rule-bound unconsciousness that gives power to systems to pre-set ‘choices’ from fear of facing realities we are unwilling and protected from and thus increasingly unable to cope with?

      Blind systems that conserve the manipulators of such systems, running on groupthink of polarised identities working as a vector of denying and depriving power of expression and creativity from the ground up.

      The true ground is not the denied – but the wellspring of Life.

      It is this that is being poisoned by deceit of an intent to deny healing and renewal in life – in attempt to systematically direct or control life. If a few have this ‘power’ to limit power, then it is the many who willingly give it by sharing the same mindset.

      The politics of despair feeds those who profit from the destruction of others – because that is all their mind lets them see.

  2. Frankly Speaking says

    ” block the ‘no deal’ Brexit that most Brexiters voted for”

    Sorry to say, but that’s completely nonsense. We voted to leave the EU, but it was never determined at the time as to HOW we would leave nor WHEN we would leave.

    Moreover, many, including Farage himself, were advocating during the campaign that Britian could be like Norway or Switzerland; the former being a member of the EEA and the latter EFTA.

    Ergo, it’s utter bollocks that “most Brexiters” and their leaders voted for “no deal”.

    3
    4
    • The terms were in or out – there were no conditions attached.
      So while the fear mongering concept of a ‘no deal brexit’ hadn’t been created yet – the absence of any specific ‘deal’ to the decision was simply the case.
      Language is contrived to propagandistic intent.
      ‘Brexit’
      ‘deal’
      and the ‘no-deal disaster’.

      Almost everything has been about money and nothing of any vision as to other ways we might organised or predicate our lives and little critique of the corporate bureaucracy or indeed technocracy that in any case operates the structure in which a diminishing quality of freedom operates under a managed existence.

      Likewise the idea that relationship only exists through deals of legally defined contractual controls – as if EU = Europe and thus withdrawing from EU regulatory bonds means anti European and xenophobic hate – when what I want is the idea of relating from a unique perspective with others in their perspective as peoples and cultures of diverse and rich differences – where willingness finds shared interests and not as fodder for corporate and globalist led agenda of control and predation.

      The Stockholm syndrome is where a captive seeks to protect their captivity as if their freedom, having aligned under the power that denies freedom for their protection and sense of identity. This is similar to sacrificing to a god of war for its aversion, such that it it is appealed to for the forfending or avoiding of a blow as a sign of favour and appeal for peace and healing.

      The human mind is conditioned to slavery by our own thinking – or rather by willingness to act from thoughts as true of us when they are not – but going along with a self-denial seems the lesser evil than meeting an active denial – or self-censor better than being judged against, vilified and rejected.
      The construct of ‘brexiteer and remainer’ is itself division.
      Identity conflict is self-conflict asserted against something in order to seem to have any substance and so people allow themselves to be defined by what they hate and what seems to hate them.
      No matter how deceptive and cunning the deceiver – people still have to be either willing to buy into it or unwilling to look at what is really involved and find out who they are in relation to the territory.
      Under the idea of protection the idea of freedom is sacrificed.
      But the idea of a protection racket is of inducing or even generating fear so as to then provide the remedy or protection or conflict /war/sickness management system that feeds upon and therefore farms conflict, sickness and war as the basis for its existence – as the mindset of conformity and compliance to a top down ‘deal’.
      Mind capture is not merely individuals, but peoples.
      Insofar as I have a mind – I bring it to account rather than follow its thinking.
      The mind can dissociate to loveless but systemic hate through the reinforcement of judgements held true or defended against question, challenge or open discussion.
      And often in the mask of concerns and protections that makes any critical awareness seem to be hateful and dangerous.

      Its a mind of deceit – regardless the agencies of its expression.

  3. Einstein says

    As a free people under the Common Law (1215), we make our own laws and rule ourselves through Trial by Jury.
    This is the single most important reason Brexiters want out of the EU.
    European Law is made by Commissioners who appoint the judges.
    Commissioners are not answerable to the electorate.

    10
    1
    • Sebastian says

      More fake news by those who say the UK is not involved in EU Government!
      Who appoint the commissioners? Answer: our governments who are elected by us!
      Who elects the MEPS? Answer: our electorates!
      Where do the bureaucrats come from? Answer: EU member states!
      Truth is we are a major part of the EU Government!
      Benefits: we share the common benefits of working and living together without Nationalist barriers

      1
      2
  4. In a world of lies – which do you prefer?
    Hopefully none of them – but this alignment with honesty of being puts you at odds with the narrative identities of the world – and of your own past learnings. Persecution doesn’t have to be ‘inter personal’ – it can simply operate through the thought-framing of of our own unwatched mind.

    The way it works is to have agents in effecting both sides of (sometimes psEUdo) conflicts in order to direct an outcome that no one in their right mind would want.

    People can be induced to want anything given the right framing. It is this recognition perhaps that induces such brazen and open manipulation in derision and neglect. But then we become simply a means to an end – and this way of seeing – or rather not seeing others as living beings – as sharing the same Life – is NOT in our right minds.

    So the underlying psyop is to ensure that no one is in their right mind – or are walled out in terms of influence.
    This not about ideology but sane observations or true witness – and unwillingness to ‘conform and comply’.

    I voted for freedom to arrive at outcomes through a process of open communication and accountability – but I recognize that leaving EU – if allowed to occur – would not automatically bring that – in fact it could bring US trade – ‘parity’.

    I increasingly see that deceit ‘rules the world’ by ruling out truth.
    And deceit runs a mind by ruling out truth.

    Under the guise of ‘ruling over’. Judgements set up a complex of rules and filters such that the Voice for truth can only stand at the door and knock. Because if truth OPPOSES a living will – it is no longer Itself.
    And by that ruse are we triggered out of our right mind – simply by triggering fears, guilt or lures of self inflating power or privilege.

    Entanglement in a ‘world of lies’ can assign blame to whatever or whoever but waking responsibility for our own mind – that is being mindful as to what we are using it for in the moment of action – rather than as a justification post facto is a natural part of a true self-love – because without it we cannot BUT see others unworthy and use that as a means to make a false sense of becoming something ‘worthy’ – but predicated on giving worth-ship to a hidden hate.

    Invested illusions divide us – but just because toxic debt is packaged into assets that seem to offer a better deal or a lesser evil – does NOT mean we HAVE to buy it.

    There is no real choice as to what to do – but from a decision NOT to choose the farming of the mind/the world and check in – connect – put our thinking down and listen, feel and connect to true desire – that the world rules out – because as you may find out – this is where the fear rises from. Everyone learns to mask over their true being in a loveless world/a loveless mind. This is what we have to sacrifice to ‘come in’. Yes there are all sorts of variations with more or less of the denied sense of self in consciousness. But no matter how we try to hide it or redistribute it – an evil in our world/in our mind compels us even as we try to fight it or think to have escaped. A self-destructive hate.

    I don’t believe this CAN be seen but from the perspective of no longer accepting it true. No longer choosing to act as true. the addiction to conflict is like any other, replaced by conscious choices made consistently and persistently – whenever there is recognition of the freedom to choose. And as I say you have to believe or accept or be at least open to that you are worth it. And faking it does not yield true fruits – except of course true feedback to a self-betrayal.

    There is a whole world of acquired and inherited patterns, conscious or otherwise, down through the generations – but assigning cause or blame to the conditioning is to not see the framing as a call for revisiting its underlying belief/experience/strategy. To see while ‘in act’ is a grace. But that is where a different choice can be made. Not in the post mortem afterwards – though we can make fine promises or set all sorts of agenda and give that power/sacrifice our life to that.

    Communication breakdown can be managed – but unless communication is restored, it is a death spiral.

  5. BigB says

    As the facts of EU Military Unification, or ‘Defence Union’ leach into the public awareness: no one has yet asked “Why?”. Why does the EU need its own autonomous – yet inter-operable with NATO – Defence Union? The military boondoggle angle has been countered – that common security and defence specifications – universalised across NATO – will be a cost saving exercise. I feel better knowing that the EU has wasteful military expenditure and duplication as a fiscal priority. Then there is the communist, sorry, Russian Federation threat. Or credible lack of it. It’s invention is certainly part of it …but not all.

    No one has mentioned the EU’s avowed expansionist agenda: increasing its sphere of influence through Turkey and the western Balkans into Central Asia …and through Libya into the G5 Sahel and Central Africa. Checkout the “EU Enlargement Policy”; “credible accession process”; and “European Neighbourhood Policy”. This “holistic approach to security and crisis management” is based on imposing the SDGs, the “the Rules Based Global Order”, and “Global Governance” …allowing its citizens to “reap the gains of globalisation”. Mmmmmmm. All details are available on the EU’s own EEAS site – Mogherini’s personal fanzine.

    Surely the salient point about the EU’s military expansionist intentions is that it has never been mentioned once – by either side – in the EU mockumentary ‘debate’? Mogherini introduced several new terms: “cooperative autonomy”; “strategic autonomy”; and “sustainable security and peace” – as an extension of a “Common Security and Defence Policy” (CSDP) across the newly peripheralised, expansionist EU “superpower”. One might ask how she can conjure up 30 billion euros – or 100 billion euros with Bill Gates – in order to act as a sustainable security provide and climate change mitigator across its yet to be acceded territories …when austerity, starvation, suicide, and youth unemployment, failing institutions and unsustainable debt characterise its current peripheral and protectorate domains.

    So now you know what the “EU Army” is for. To pacify Central Africa and Central Asia for the corporate-banking-civil society-military-industrial-complex. As a soft and medium power projection complement to NATO’s hard power war criminals. We have been lied to from day one. No one – Leave or Remain – voted for expansionist, “strategically autonomous” unification – “diplomatic action grounded in the Lisbon Treaty” – extending the “Rules Based Global Order” with civil/military/paramilitary action directed by… …? It won’t be under our sovereign command, that’s for sure.

    19
  6. Giant of Monte Parma says

    The question you want answers to is which of your leaders is on statins.?

    Statins alter personality. Statins alter mood.

    Statin users have yellow skin.

    They are mordlin in outlook and should not be allowed to exercise power. Our leaders take drugs that have them view the world through undertaker lace.

    6
    2
  7. Maxine Chiu says

    When the EU was formed, I was very pleased and excited that at last we would have a bulwark against American power….Something to counteract America’s disastrous and aggressive military policy….But alas, the EU simply became America’s lackey in this and all other respects…So much for the EU!

    23
    3
    • At the time I did not have anything against American power. I had not yet run into the abuse. Having grown up in West Berlin we had rose-coloured glasses. We knew how they lived across the Wall, no thx.

      “”We all know how early childhood experiences can leave their imprint …” he writes. I had been born in a German town which was 80% destroyed during the raids in April 1945. Three years followed which allowed survival on potato starch powder before the family returned to Berlin. When I see the ads for ‘toddler nutrition’ I laugh.

      War is evil, we don’t need more wars, more damaged people, more devastated settlements. My spouse spent the years from 4 to 6 on the road and in cattle trains after they had been kicked out from Wroclaw/Breslau by Stalin’s lackeys. Wars lead to situations like that. Early childhood education for two years = eating grass between Breslau and Ballenstedt, 1946 to 1948.

      We don’t need to be armed to the teeth – it only leads to more wars. If tools did not lead to use, we would not have so many gun deaths in the US. You will use the guns to kill, you will use the bombers to damage other people. The damage for punishing disobedience is usually great and does not lead to unconditional obedience but to more strife.

      The problem with Britain in the EU is psychological. Britain is no team player. As Cameron said ‘Britain can lead the EU’ – no, the membership is 28 and you do consensus decisions. The leadership position that Cameron wanted for the EU did not exist.

      What divides Brexiters and Remainers is the mental attitude; ‘fitting in’ or telling everybody what to do all the time. Britain does not do ‘fitting in’ and must therefore leave until they have learned what it means to be a member. Some people have said that Britain was the US voice at the Brussels table – another reason to make them leave quickly if that is true.

      18
      5
      • Andy says

        You are very mistaken. The UK has never fitted into the EU because it has a radically different culture and history. You may loath and dispise the UK, most Continental Europeans seem to do, but that is a fact. We have a different political system and we have a radically different Legal System. The EU has never respected these differences and has sought to create, by lies and subterfuge one has to say, a ‘United States of Europe’. I see no popular consent for this daft idea just as there was no popular consent for the creation of the Euro, and look where that has got you.

        I wish the UK had never joined the (as it was) EEC but remained in EFTA. Had our political leaders had had more sense this is what they would have done and Europe would be a radically different place, and that would be to the good. All I have seen over the past 2 and a half years is a hostile – ‘this will not be an amicable divorce. . . ‘ – attitude which has soured relations between the UK and EU for a generation or more, and for that the EU is responsible. Considering the blood and treasure the UK has expended to save Continental Europeans from themselves many in the UK regard this as a poor reward.

  8. Mucho says

    To appreciate just how pivotal the US is to the EU, how the EU was and is a CIA construct, subservient to Washington, this interview with Paul Craig Roberts, who worked in the US government under Reagan is a massive eye opener. The interview took place before the Brexit vote and it’s like he had a crystal ball……”you won’t be allowed to leave”, he says. How right he is proving to be. Amazing interview:
    BREXIT : Dr. Paul Craig Roberts 2016 :

    • (I have read that Kissinger once said that the global power of the US is based on Europe. If the US did not have Europe, they would not be a global force.)

      I have put that in brackets because I cannot remember where I read it, if that was factual or fake news, context or what. The wording is also from memory.

  9. Hugh O'Neill says

    It would be a sad day indeed if our tribalist positions/political opinions were formed purely by what our fathers did in the war. Then as now, the propaganda was of tsunamic intensity and honest opinions cannot be formed on lies. Thanks to the sterling work of a very few brave authors (I am currently reading Ian Cobain’s “History Thieves”) the curtain has been pulled back just a little. We now know far more than our parents ever did about the skulduggery of the system and are getting wiser to their tricks. The EU is indeed a monstrous monolith with its own agendas, but non-aligned countries are anathema to the power blocs. The UK has had 2 giant feet across its neck. As Bevin has suggested above, we would also have to leave NATO and the 5 Eyes, and exile all of MI6 and MI5 and probably the 1922 committee and the Bullingdon Etonians too. The Class system enshrined in secrecy and old school ties (and regimental clubs) is the unacceptable status quo incompatible with Universal Suffrage.

    16
    • Hugh O'Neill says

      Ruminating over porridge, this article is a hearkening back to a nostalgic age of British Sovereignty and Empire, when the wealth divide was just as bleak and children had to climb chimneys. My grandfather worked in the mines from age 13, and his forefathers illiterate miners, such is the lot of the poor working class irrespective of their talents.
      So the question is when did Britain lose her sovereignty? Was it when Julius Caesar came, the Jutes, Angles and Saxons, was it the Norman Conquest which brought feudalism and the French language, castles and serfs, heraldry etc. Was it the Reformation, when commons were stolen for private property? Was it when Elizabeth Tudor was crowned, despite the stronger claim by Mary Stuart? Was it Cromwell? Was it the Glorious Revolution when The Restoration Stewarts were replaced by the Dutch House of Orange? Was it the German Hanoverians? Was it the Great War in which Britain tried to destroy the rising Empire of Germany and had to sell the family silver to US Banks and have been mortgaged to their souls ever since?
      It looks to me that the longest continuum is the aristocracy created post-1066 and the narratives they created to justify their privilege have been the distorting lens which imbues the whole education system and entrenches the inflexible layers of Class. Maybe old Etonian, Eric Blair, knew a thing or two. I certainly don’t, but I have questions.

      15
      • carmpat says

        Well, one question might be: is Sovereignty (whatever the hell it is) a good idea anyway? And, btw, why do we still have a sovereign??

        1
        1
  10. Wazdo says

    I’m sorry! Since WW11 Britain has been occupied by troops of all shapes and sizes from the United States of America. They have a multitude of bases all over the UK servicing their army, navy, airforce and security personnel.

    GCHQ is known to be totally subservient to the NSA and CIA.

    We have no independent defence force and if we join the Europeans military set up we will only do so if Uncle Sam agrees and we remain under his domination.

    Sorry!

    30
    • Ken Kenn says

      Agreed.

      You can go into psychoanalysis all you like the EU Army will be under the jurisdiction of NATO ( read the US) and thereby contribute more to the US perceived over funding.

      Oh and I forgot – turning the screw on Russia making the Third World War inevitable rather than potential.

      Meanwhile various EU countries are signing up to The Belt Road Initiative.

      Aah……………..now it all makes sense.

      9
      1
    • mark says

      If anyone doubts this, they should listen to the speech by former Tory leader William Hague, real nauseating, lickspittle toadying to the Exceptional and Indispensable People.

      12
    • carmpat says

      Anyone remember that US forces – along with innumerable combatants from the Empire and the rest of Europe – fought with Britain to defeat Hitler? Good thing we didn’t have to depend on our ‘independent defence force’ then, eh?

      2
      9
      • @carmpat,

        Not forgetting that the US came in at the end to tidy up, exactly as they had done in WWI, so Hollyweird could rewrite history as you would prefer?

        After the USSR had done the heavy lifting & lost 27 million people?

        After Brit, European & US Banksters had financed Hitler?

        After Brit, European & US Banksters had financed the Bolshevik Revolution, the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War & the English Civil War?

        Spot the deliberate mistake?

        John Doran.

        11
      • mark says

        They weren’t doing us any favours. They never do anybody any favours (except Israel.) They were just looking after their own interests – picking plums for US corporate interests.

        10
        • In response to the theme :

          The war narrative is the gift that just keeps giving. I now see ww2 (among other things) as a pivot to the West – bringing Europe as an effectively controlled asset. The shifting forms of multiple hosts allows a parasitic intent to entrain and maintain the mind that is legion (divided).
          Giving hate as an act of self love or protection is always directed by hate.
          The tail that wags the dog is hate presenting itself as exceptional, special, exclusive, elite, power and protection to a victim manipulation.

          If malware was openly knocking before entering who would invite it into their mind?
          Hate is malware and in a sense already in, a love of true is compromised from within by defences that give power to fear and embody fear in hate.

          How to sweep malware from the Template? Bring hate to truth instead of letting hate bring us to lies and deceit and destruction. (Notice the resistance of hating to love!).

          US corporates are not US except in certain facets of current presentation and leverage. The corporate interest is hacked by regulatory corruption to operate asset stripping as an alien will – that is transnational and non human – but working through the capture and entrainment of humans.
          Fear generates division and opposition as an alien will. Each seeing in the other the justification for attack.

          The power of the mind as suggestion and entrancement is largely or totally unrecognised by the mind under hypnosis. But what we give determines the nature of our receipt but who has learned to give hate priority as a self vindication is running with the self that thinks to have escaped hate by giving it. The consolidation of such a mind or power is ‘globalism’ of domination, by hate over the life and body of the world that can only fail it – because that is not our true function and running against the grain can only generate dissonance and pain that is then exported or outsourced to keep a special self apart … and isolate.

          No one can release what they are not aware of or the owner of.
          Power is given the hated by projection.
          But this is where freedom of the will re-minds the willing that what we accept true for ourself and therefore project, give or extend is our election regardless the framing of the mind in sick appeal to our allegiance.

          True corporate accountability under Law of service to the whole (and true or just account) would check the breach and bring an end to a negative ‘economy’. But in a world given to hate, wholeness has few witnesses, for hate is always a private agenda seeking allies and assets but only to use and discard.

          It is hate that must hide under the mask of power or protection, kindness or concern, else no one would give it any mind but recognize deceit as an error calling for correction – that is – translation or revealing to a true account – as a restoration and appreciation of wholeness.

          When the operating system of a mind is predicated on hate – it automatically defends against anything true as a matter of survival set against threat of extinction – because to the split off mind if hate EVERYTHING and everyone else is enemy – regardless the seeming of temporary alliance or entente. When common enemies to such a ‘joining in hate’ are gone, the hate then was held in abeyance rises because it never really went away and so is simply revealed.

          The revealing of hate as hate is the condition in which any residual moment of right mindedness moves to refuse identification and allegiance. The still small voice is as loud as our willingness to hear it, and grows within us by acting from as accepted true.

          Everything we act or live from as true is a decision. But giving life to the body as an exclusive sense of possession and control is an investment of ‘flesh in the Game’. And corporately or corporeal defined reality is locked in by election to hurt and being hurt.

          If everything is subordinated to ‘possession and control’ – (marketisation and weaponisation) – there is only one inevitable outcome. ‘Everything’ is another term for wholeness – that a split mind is made to rule out, and maintain unawareness of. A still small voice witnesses to wholeness that such a mind mind cannot see, believe or understand – but you can accept, appreciate and extend.

  11. Sebastian says

    The whole point of the EU is establishing and organising level playing fields and also like in football common rules so we can all play together!
    This takes administration but the result was that we individually could move around Europe so that Liverpool, Lisbon or Luxembourg would be equally accessible and with comparable services available!
    Each one of us could move around and would be equally protected by various EU local authorities and services like education, health and legal enforcement!
    This is why we want to remain after all the problems of the past. Our real enemy is MSM which is why I am here

    8
    16
    • Some Random Passer-by says

      Money is what divides us.

      The haves and have-nots.

      Take free movement. What good is it when you haven’t the money to be able to use it, but it brings more and more competition, making your life harder and less able to use free movement?

      Who cares what colour the passport is when you can’t afford one?

      For the record, ex Army.

      22
    • John says

      The MSM is the enemy that’s true but remaining is not an option the EU is a huge reason why we have austerity

      12
      3
    • Francis Lee says

      ‘Level playing fields’ Yes like Greece and Latvia have a level playing field with Germany. Or a bit like Dagenham and Redbridge have a level playing field with Manchester City.

      When states in the Eurozone use the same currency, those with higher productivity and low cost advantages in the northern bloc have an inbuilt competitive advantage compared with those states in the eastern and southern periphery. This result in a current account deficit for Portugal, Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland and so forth, and a current account surplus for Germany and the rest of the northern bloc – in perpetuity. And, in order to correct their trade imbalances the peripheral economies are required to implement what is become known as ‘internal devaluation’ (austerity) quite simply because they don’t have their own currencies and cannot devalue

      This means cutbacks in social spending on health, education, wages and so forth. The object is to make themselves poorer in order not to import stuff and thus bring the currency account into surplus.

      Thus the divide grows wider; instead of convergence with have divergence. These centrifugal forces are pulling Europe in different directions. It cannot last and it won’t.

      28
    • mark says

      The EU is all about globalism and corporate interests.

      What do we need an EU Army for?
      We’ve got Gavin Williamson and his agricultural tractors with missiles on them to protect us!

      19
  12. bevin says

    One thing that has been made clear over the past twenty or so years is that the EU does not take referenda seriously. We have seen, on several occasions, key EU decisions rejected by voters in France, Ireland and their views being treated with contempt. The Irish were told to “Try again and get it right next time!” with a barely suppressed ‘Or Else’ added.
    In fact over the years the gradual transformation of a Common Market into a new Hapsburg Empire has taken place with a minimum of discussion and debate and no reference to the electorate. Enormous changes have been made in the way of protecting corporations and the wealthy from democracy and in neutralising radicals by making their policies incompatible with EU membership.
    And now, as the author points out, without any reference to the peoples of Europe the armies of twenty seven member states are being put under a centralised and irresponsible command.
    The current danger, brought to us by Tony Blair from the political grave, is that the Labour Party, by promoting the need to maintain a Common Market will preserve the worst aspects of the EU while sacrificing the notional but important right to veto decisions from Brussels. The Common Market is the basis of the regulations which matter most, including the right to control movement across the borders, capital controls and currency. The point of leaving is to reclaim sovereignty in these and all areas: it ought to be carried out in concert with a withdrawal from the NATO and putting an end to the “Special Relationship” of being ordered about by the United States government.
    The relationships that an independent Britain could forge with Eurasia and other sovereign countries like Cuba and Venezuela would not only be mutually profitable but would allow the British people to play an honourable part in the international community. And this at a time of impending environmental disaster when the need for independence and honesty is greater than it has ever been.
    NATO and the EU are two aspects of a political addiction which has proved very profitable for a thin layer of functionaries in society but has come at the cost of enormous suffering by the great majority for whom the prospect of carrying water and hewing wood for an international master class-during good behaviour- is only too close.

    22
    1
    • BigB says

      That’s twenty eight ‘member’ states, Bevin. Even according tot the EU’s own internal reports: there is no EU Military Unification or ‘Defence Union’ without UK forces. They simply do not have the functionality and inter-operable capability without us. Besides which, this seems to be a British project. I should add, a British Labour project – initiated by Nye Bevin in 1948: as a Western Union against the rising communist threat. The modern iteration stems from Blair in 1998: as confirmed at this years Munich Security Conference – at which Mogherini declared the Defence Union a ‘fait accomplis’ …”no longer the impossible dream of our founders”. There is also a web of bi-lateral treaties – such as the Lancaster House Treaties with France – that tie UK forces into the Defence Union. There can be no Defence Union without us. [All articles available on UK Column website. Mogherinis’s speech at EEAS site].

      • bevin says

        Ernie nor Nye.
        Nye Bevan was kicked out of the PLP for protesting against German re-armament and NATO. Despite your continual efforts to deny it, there is an honourable tradition in the Labour Party of opposition to NATO and US imperialism. Motions to leave NATO almost invariably secured the majority support of Constituency parties and were, until 1959, defeated by the TU block votes.

      • bevin says

        Not Nye, Ernie. Nye was sacked by Attlee for opposing the NATO-German rearmament scheme.

        Until 1959, when it passed, Labour party members were always opposed to NATO, though outvoted by TU block votes.

  13. Mouthy Northern Bloke says

    The biggest thing dividing leave and remain seems to be outright hatred – and I can’t see Britain being united again in my lifetime at the very least (I’m 61).

    Everything is based on ‘belief’ and the ‘beliefs’ on both sides are verging on the evangelical.

    The only ‘fact’ is that ‘leave’ won the referendum. As a remainer, I fully accept that and we should have left within about 6 months of the referendum – giving us ample time to prepare.

    It is painfully clear that March 2019 was only selected as the ‘leave’ date in the hope that Brexit could be stopped over a couple of years or more. Disgracefully undemocratic.

    However, if you suggest that to many remainers all you will receive is abuse.

    As a remain voter, admittedly a somewhat skeptical one, I am disgusted and appalled at the behavior and attitude of many remainers, not least Westminster.

    In fact, my skepticism has completely faded away and, due to the undemocratic and unforgivable behavior of Westminster and so many remainers, I am now, for democracy’s sake if for no other, a firm believer in Brexit – without a deal as well!!

    39
    6
    • Sebastian says

      My father served in WW2, (a Major in Royal Artillery!) My grandfather too, alas he was killed! My father like other servicemen stayed on to help rebuild ruined countries! He believed in UK in Europe working together and would be devastated to see the renewed intolerant nationalism that is undoing the progress made in the 40 years of EU! You omitted to note that the greatest advocate for the EU was Ted Heath, a Captain in the war.. Also Denis Healey, and the majority of that generation! Anyway Vicars like medics served bravely on the frontline, if you think about it! I respect my forefathers who united and fought to improve society by common cause. I am desolate at it all being undone

      8
      15
      • Mouthy Northern Bloke says

        I do understand your sentiments but, to me, the people of Europe being united in peace is a whole different matter to a huge political monolith called The EU.

        I actually believe that, ultimately, The EU will achieve anything but peace if it succeeds in slowly reducing member countries sovereignty’s as it clearly desires – and never more openly than now.

        There may come a day when humanity can accept such a thing – I doubt it, knowing humanity, but you never know eh? – but that day is many many decades away at best.

        As European people, wishing to live in peace, the British will continue to want a national identity separate to the amorphous mass called Europe, as indeed, will the Germans, the Italians, the French etc etc.

        Even The UK is not fully united in terms of pride. Many say “I am Scottish / English / Welsh first, then British”. Some say “I am European” but, as things stand, they are very much in the minority I believe.

        Enforcing political beliefs – such as a ‘United States of Europe’ with a centralized government – will not work. it didn’t work, ultimately, for any ’empire’ historically. Some survived for a very long time but, eventually, they fell.

        Empires are never good places for ordinary people to live – from The Mongols to The Roman to The British to The (fortunately extremely brief) Nazis.

        Peace in Europe is a very good thing. A European Empire is not.

        8
        1
        • Andy says

          You have the nub of it. The EU is busy building itself into an ‘Empire’ just as Barosso said. The problem is to do so it is riding roughshod over the individual member states ever increasing its power at the expense of theirs. All this does is suck the life out of National democracy which some might not care about, but there is no democratic control over the EU. And now this undemocratic monolith wants an Army. Such an arrangement has been the executioner of Liberty down the ages, and this will be no different.

          • Sebastian says

            There are separate states within Europe and it’s a folkloric thing, which is good. We Citizens of this region called Europe want the freedom, sharing and participation that we strive for naturally without barriers or Nationalistic separatism.
            The EU is the administration needed to work together towards achieving level playing fields and fair play! As opposed to jingoism, elitism and aggressiveness leading to conflict
            Like most British I don’t want to give up our Freedoms of being British European with mutual access to all the benefits of working together with adjoining Europeans! (eventually to be shared with our Commonwealth )
            We have 73 MEPS and government appointed representatives! The administration is equally open to GB civil servants and apparently is no bigger than Birmingham Council? The resulting
            joint rights and freedoms worked for the overall benefits of various countries! Not perfect but miles bettet than separatism! I want to be free not have a Berlin Wall of restrictions and separations! In the EU we enjoy reciprocal health treatments, what’s wrong with that? We have the right to buy and sell our goods and services without documentation or barriers, that’s brilliant! We drive anywhere with common documents! The list of benefits goes on and on! We have access to European court’s in case our courts fail, not often but errors are possible in best systems! Anyway our judges also sit on European courts. For me this represents a panaces that runs parallel to our sovereignty.- as we accept each others sovereignty. The only people who were adamantly against EU were the likes of Murdoch who could not control it, like they could our National Administration on our National level! They subliminally control us because we want to trust them. But EU is big enough to resist Corporate control through the Media
            They are constantly leading us to division which could result in possibly another catastrophic conflict after 70 years of Peaceful coexistence. Many like me want to keep our European citizenship because the previous systems of conflict caused a lot of unnecessary suffering not to mention daily inconvenience

    • wardropper says

      No, it’s not hatred, although the MSM would be perfectly happy to foment that for its “news” value…
      My sister is not as informed as I am politically, and still trusts the “establishment” far more than I ever will, but we will never hate each other.
      She may think me obsessive about political information, and I may think her in denial about it, but that has nothing to do with human ties. She’s still a wonderful sister.

    • Here’s hoping the “hatred” you rightly recognise turns out to have a creative function. Both sides imagine that they are on the side of virtue. Those who buy into the Culturally Marxist faux-ethicism of our globalist rulers refuse to see that they (like all submissives to Communist/Collectivist propaganda) are being deceived and that their centrist/moderate stance really represents support for the ongoing murderous bankers’ world-government project. It is difficult and terrifying to realise such a thing. I know because, like most people I was once there.

      The tide is moving only one way … whatever coups obedience-monkeys like May, Tusk and Barnier think they are pulling off.
      what we have to worry about are the plans their masters have waiting in the wings.

      7
      1
  14. There are far more important differences I think. Reading a few articles by Varoufakis and Monbiot it is clear that there is a deep dissatisfaction within even the centralish left with the neoliberal undemocratic functioning of the EU. However they dismiss populism and populists in general as being extreme right wing because that is how the establishment went out of their way to paint EU opposition in the run-up to the referendum and ever since in unending project fear and smear.

    This disguised the fact that there were millions of working class left wing and centre voters who wanted to leave the EU and who voted for Brexit although they found it difficult to admit it as it implied they had some how become right wing.
    Perhaps the only difference between the neoliberal globalists and everyone else – is whether people think that it can be reformed from within or whether it is best simply to leave. As Bill Mitchell and many others have pointed out the EU is not redeemable without scrapping the whole project and going back to the drawing board. Having watched UK politicians troop endlessly to Brussels trying to reform the EU for years and coming back empty handed every time, then it is reasonable to conclude that all its members need to leave one by one before something more suitable could be established. The UK needs to lead the way before its too late and the EU becomes the neoliberal concentration camp that Varoufakis fears.

    26
    2
    • mark says

      It’s not just a case of the EU being incapable of reforming itself – though that is true.
      What is the response of the EU Politburo to Brexit, and populist opposition in France, Holland, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia?
      Just business as usual and double down – go hell for leather for an EU Superstate and EU Army.
      That is what we were trying to escape from.

      10
      1
  15. Michael Cromer says

    LEAVE means LEAVE – The Government cannot undermine existing Law that is part of the Withdrawal Agreement – Theresa May was not qualified to negotiate with the EU and she should be ‘Sectioned’ under the Mental Health Act in my opinion.

    27
    2
    • Refraktor says

      It is interesting when that statutory instrument or whatever it’s called did not pass through the House of Lords. Theresa May’s extension of Article 50 was probably unlawful and we likely in fact Brexited the European Union on the 29th of March 2019. It will be instructive to watch the courts wriggling out of this one.

      • Refraktor says

        Correction that is wrong. It seems Theresa May held the prerogative power to pass her extension. All the same it seems there is a legal challenge ongoing presumably on the grounds that Michael Cromer has identified.

    • Robbobbobin says

      Governments. and govermental organizations can and do, with or without due notice, ignore, re-interpret, temporarily abrogate or invent, strike off, instate and generally fuck around with law for immediate political expedience all the time. Get real, look around you. If the law is anything other than a high level guessing and wool-pulling game, why does the US President’s sole power to nominate US Supreme Court judges matter a damn? For “little people” The Law is not some kind of floodlight that illuminates the arena of social, political and commercial discourse and its limits for the mythical everyone is equal, it’s a searchlight that, for the most partpart, they don’t get to aim, but for the high-rollers it’s an irrelevance at best, an inconvenience or nuisance in general and an actual hindrance at its extremely rare worst.

      “Qu’on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j’y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.”
      — Cardinal Richelieu (or not, as the facts may be)

      Oh, yes, and relevant here: “Savoir dissimuler est le savoir des rois.”

  16. Karin Heinitz says

    Interesting angle.
    My soldier father had a very strong sense of justice and a deep mistrust of politians. He was German.
    Justice is equally important to me and I share his mistrust.
    It’s a nice idea that this transcends the tribes.

    19

Comments are closed.