British Prime Minister Theresa May is probably the worst possible person to lead Britain through the tortuous Brexit process. First of all, she actually opposed Brexit during the referendum campaign, and secondly, her party, the Conservative Party, is dominated by the banker’s financiers of the City of London, not just through donations but also through various “old boy” networks.
Naturally, these string pullers are all inveterate globalists. This means of course that they want the UK to be as much part of the EU as possible. But how to manage this in the face of the strident will of the British people?
That is the question.
First of all, they have to give the government excuses for backtracking on the Brexit decision (made when 52% of the British people defied a relentless campaign of mainstream media propaganda and possible special ops in favor of the EU).
What is the best way to do this? Simple, they genuflect to the idols of “endless growth” and “ever-rising material living standards,” and start talking about how jobs are threatened and how companies need “reassurance” and a “transition period” to plan ahead, and — voila! — the watering down process can begin in earnest.
This is exactly what has happened, with EU-friendly business leaders talking about how a sudden change is bad for business. From the Express:
“Herman Schey, chief executive of a worldwide timber business, said he did not want to find out about the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and then have no time to prepare for changes. Speaking on Channel 4 News, Mr Schey, of Tradelink Wood Products, said without a transition period with the Brussels bloc, businesses would not be able to organise efficiently. He said: ‘Certainly a transition period, at least two years, I think would be a good thing. Nobody likes shocks.'”
Yes, how very, very reasonable this all sounds, but this is what is called “the thin end of the wedge.” Even worse, it is an admission that the EU has its foot on the neck of the UK economy, even though Britain is even better positioned to cause the EU economic pain as a net contributor to the EU budget and a net buyer of EU exports.
But the EU’s trump card is the City of London, a vast cluster of parasitical banking and financial interests that enrich a few and distort the UK economy in disastrous ways. The City is also particularly vulnerable to the kind of passive aggressive bureaucracy and red tape tactics that the EU is most adept at.
By threatening to replace the City by favoring their own financial sectors, the EU nations — essentially Germany and France — know that they can cow the British Conservative Party and get what they want, basically the UK as a subservient economy — a dumping ground for German overproduction and open to “free movement” of people, which probably means the UK’s future role will be a dysfunctional storage facility for Third World immigrant labour allowed into Europe by the migrant crisis.
When you hear the term “Soft Brexit” this is what they mean — a UK that has no say in the EU but in which the EU has plenty of say. Not exactly what people voted for.
Last week Theresa May invited business leaders to Downing Street to basically give in to their demands by reassuring them that there would be a lengthy transition period, during which business conditions would not change, a period extending well beyond the March 2019 deadline for the UK exit from the EU. The length of this transition period is thought to be at least three years but could be extended ad infinitum.
In the media, this is called “Mrs. May clarifying her exit strategy.” The only problem is that even this promise of supposed stability and continuity requires the full agreement of the EU, effectively giving the EU a massive bargaining chip to push Britain further into a corner.
The City of London was thrilled by May’s acceptance of a transition stage. Kristen Minshall, of CityUK, an advocacy group for the City of London, expressed her delight in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme.
“There has absolutely been a change,” Minshall said. “The renewed commitment to an early transitional deal is welcomed. However, we need much more. We need to know that ministers do not just favour, but can guarantee the transitional deal so City firms do not move people out of London.”
Minshall was joined on the program by Mark Cherry, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, to gin up the threat factor while making the economic blackmail look more broad based and democratic.
“Small businesses are the most vulnerable to a cliff-edge scenario, and have least resources to deal with this. A Brexit cliff-edge on EU trade, without a transition period, would risk damage to economy and prices. We ought to have three years in transition from the EU. We need the European market to be as open and accessible as possible.”
Meanwhile, other business leaders called for an even longer transition period. The longer this is, the greater the chances of the City of London serving its own selfish interests at the expense of the rest of the country, meaning that BREXIT stands a very real chance of delivering the worst aspects of independence from the EU with the worst aspects of membership. The hapless figure of Theresa May seems to be the ideal figurehead of this gruesome process.