After more than four decades of being shackled to the European Union (previously the European Economic Community), Great Britain declared its independence. The vote for Brexit (52 percent of Britons cast ballots to leave the EU) is a vote for sovereignty and self-determination. Britain will no longer be subject to European legislation, with Britain’s Parliament retaking control. British judges will no longer be overruled by the European Court of Justice, and British businesses will be liberated from mountains of EU regulations, which have undermined economic liberty. The majority of the votes to leave were by the older Britons, with the vast majority of the votes to remain n the EU coming from the younger generation who had been the victims of the heaviest propaganda tactics.
Brexit is a portmanteau of “Britain” and “exit”. It was derived by analogy from Grexit, Greece’s potential exit from the euro-zone monetary union.
The following Video was widely seen as a rallying cry to all of Britain to vote to bring back their independence:
We Americans have July 4th, and the Brits now have June 23rd.
In the words of Nigel Farage, leader of the the UKIP and top proponent for the United Kingdom to leave the European, the Brexit vote was Britain’s “Independence Day.”
June 23rd will be the day that the British people filed their papers to divorce a global bureaucracy that buried national sovereignty in bureaucratic red tape. After constant failures that left many Brits without jobs and living in a nation being colonized by migrants with no attachment to British culture, enough was enough.
After almost three decades of rule, globalism was witnessing a Judgment Day and Brexit represents a nationalistic movement that has laid in wait for two decades; a movement that is jumping the pond to the United States and finding a home with Donald Trump’s “America First” campaign.
But how did globalism get here? How was the vision of the international bourgeois was rebuked and rejected in such a short order?
Much to the chagrin of the “Remain” crowd, the answer is not rooted in boorish patriotism. Rather, it is rooted in an understanding that global governing at the expense of national sovereignty never works. People will not die for bureaucracies, but they will die, sacrifice and share for their country.
Many people fought to avert globalism in the aftermath of the Cold War, but its siren song proved irresistible. And when President George H. W. Bush decided to intervene in the Iraq/Kuwait conflict in 1990, he made it known that his intervention was spurred by global, not necessarily American, interests.
“Out of these troubled times … a new world order can emerge,” Bush told a joint session of Congress in September 1990. And Bush readily admitted such an order would be “a world quite different from the one we’ve known.”
It was in the midst of the Gulf War that Bush 41 set in motion his post-Cold War vision of America. Rather than dismantle the global apparatus the United States needed to contain communism, Bush and his newly empowered neoconservatives sought to use the existing apparatus to fuse globalism with American hegemony.
This NWO placed global bureaucracy over love of nation. It prioritized international cooperation at the expense of national will. And it was one in which the West, largely United States, would use its bounty to underwrite and meddle in the affairs of the world.
It was a time to recognize, in Bush’s words, a “world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice.” No longer was intervention limited to a nation’s vital interests; intervention was now warranted when the collective conscience of the globe was impugned.
The only problem? The shared responsibility was not shared. European nations and Asian-Pacific nations pushed their security costs off onto a United States willing to go in the financial red to maintain its role as sole global super power.
From Kosovo to Afghanistan to Iraq II to the China Sea, the United States serves as the military muscle of a NWO that wants the West to foot the bill. But the NWO is not just about military strength.
Racked with guilt, the NWO now requires Western nations to open their doors to foreign migrants with no ties to its culture and to embrace trade deals that export its jobs. In the eyes of the NWO’s elites, it is right and proper that today’s Westerners pay for the sins that their ancestors supposedly inflicted on developing countries.
Once the most powerful nation on the planet, Britain is a pawn in a global game in which the shots are called by Brussels, not London. The EU has not just emasculated the empire on which the sun never set; it has caused Britain to import third world migrants who are remaking the British identity to be anything but British.
London has a Muslim mayor and Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, has called Donald Trump’s plan to place a moratorium on Muslim migration “stupid.” It is clear London has fallen.
And as Britons reject the migration invasion, Cameron doubles down proclaiming Britain is “the most successful multi-racial multi-faith multi-ethnic [country] in the world.”
But Brits don’t want to be multi-cultural, they want to be the same Brits that changed the world from an island off the coast of France. They want to be the Brits who had the confidence to lead the world for the better. They want to be the Brits who were respected, not pitied.
Whether the protectors of the NWO admit it or not, the world is changing. Brexit won, the Scots – though defeated – will be rejuvenated in their quest for independence, Venice wants to break away from Italy, and Catalonia is giddy to secede from Spain. The old tribes of the West are getting together for a reunion.
And, yes, America has Trump.
Just last week Trump became the first major presidential candidate in decades to reject the NWO. Quoting Lincoln on tariffs and declaring he will place “America First”, Trump is making it known that under his watch America will be first, second, and third; NWO be damned.
What does that mean? 2016 is the year the NWO comes crashing down.
Brexit Explained: This book will try to give a detailed and thorough account of the processes that led to withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the so-called “Brexit”, that came to fruition with the results of the June 2016 referendum. It will focus on the immediate and the long-term consequences of this event, with potential threats to British economy, the impact it may have on the lives of UK citizens, the worst-case scenarios for the resolution of the crisis, and also the reality of any benefits that Brexit may still bring. It is worthy of note at this moment that the economic, political and historical implications of Brexit are subject to ongoing public debate.
The book will attempt to explain, in basic terms, the overall history of UK’s involvement in the “European project”, the continuing tensions and the most recent events that led to the referendum and its results.
Brexit: Aftermath. What is the Way Forward? – The people of Britain have voted, they have decided that now it’s time to take the next step through the development process. Why now Britain want to withdraw from the EU? Why Britain joined the EU, did it have anything to do with helping the economy? Britain government’s views and position in the period leading to the referendum. Possible scenario and routes Britain is likey to take after Brexit, a look at the period before article 50 is invoked, 2 years after that, 5 years after that and 10 years after exiting the EU. What is the future of the EU post Britain? Would Britain ever rejoin the EU?