Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

3 pros and 3 cons of Steve Bannon’s political death

Steve Bannnon’s record was a mixed bag of war and peace–pragmatism and ideology

Published

on

1,706 Views

Steve Bannon is officially out of the White House. The man whom many described as the ‘brain behind the Trump campaign’ has run the course of his political career with many suspecting that he may shortly return to journalism/media.

For both those who admire and detest Steve Bannon, the man took on mythical proportions. Much of what was said about Bannon on both sides of the political divide was grossly exaggerated. That being said, he was one of the few members of the Trump White House who was a genuine ideas man in an age where anything but technocratic thinking is often frowned on.

With this in mind, here are the pros and cons of the political death of Steve Bannon.

THE PROS

1. Threatening a trade war with China 

Steve Bannon was recently quoted saying the following about the possibility of the US actively fighting a trade war with a nuclear superpower which also happens to be the world’s most dynamic economy:

“We’re at economic war with China. It’s in all their literature. They’re not shy about saying what they’re doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it’s gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they’re just tapping us along. It’s just a sideshow”.

These remarks could potentially be deeply damaging to the US economy if translated into policy. Already, Donald Trump has signed a memorandum authorising the US to investigate allegedly unfair trade practices in respect of China’s use of US based intellectual property. Many in Washington are openly using the word ‘sanctions’ to describe what could result from the entire ordeal.

With America being utterly dependant on Chinese imports and with Beijing owning substantial sums of US sovereign debt, such a trade war (as Bannon himself called it) would be catastrophic for the US economy and could further heat up the many proxy conflicts the US is waging against Chinese commercial interests.

Bannon has long defined his policies as existing in a framework where a clash between China and America is inevitable to the point of being desired. Such dangerous, Manichean views could make many bad trends befalling the globe even worse.

2. War with Iran 

Steve Bannon was in the United States Navy in the Gulf of Oman during the 1980 US hostage crisis in Iran. Bannon’s ship was in the region as a adjunct to Jimmy Carter’s ultimately failed attempt to rescue the American hostages.

This event almost certainly coloured Bannon’s deeply anti-Iranian views. Along with former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Bannon was deeply fanatical about the need for America to assert aggressive policies towards Iran even though Iran poses no threat to the United States.

By being a member of a Washington choir which is dangerously close to escalating tensions with a major Eurasian power, when it comes to Iran, the peace camp needs all the allies it can get.

3. Support for Narendra Modi

Narendra Modi’s India is a country that is needlessly provoking China by infringing on territories widely agreed to be Beijing’s sovereign land. This reckless move by Modi brings a nuclear armed India closer to war with the Chinese superpower than at any time since 1962 when the too considerably weaker Asian powers fought a short border war which China resoundingly won.

Modi is also testing the patience of India’s traditional Russian ally by purchasing overpriced American weapons in order to ingratiate himself with a country that many Indians feel does not hold their short or long term interests. Modi’s pro-Israel sentiments have not only eroded New Delhi’s traditionally fair approach to Palestine but has aliened Syria, a potential market for Indian goods and services.

India’s current ‘trade war’ with China has not hurt China in any significant way, but has done a great deal to retard the progress of an Indian economy filled with potential.

On the domestic front, Modi’s Hindutva policies have led to the discrimination of non-Hindus in India. Muslims and Sikhs are finding their lives and livelihood threatened like never before in modern India. Violence against minorities is now a common feature in Modis’ Hindutva ‘paradise’.

With America facing down a self-made and damaging trade war with China and with America’s once comparatively unified social fabric descending into sectarian strife, Modi if anything should be a model of what America should not do.

Steve Bannon thinks otherwise.

READ MORE: Narendra Modi’s version of Non-Alignment is fooling no one and is bad for India

The Cons 

1. Detente with Russia 

Steve Bannon favoured not only detente with Russia but favoured constructive relations. Bannon understood that modern Russia is a moderately conservative society whose Orthodox Christian traditions resonate with many Americans who are dismayed with the hedonism and perversion that is inexorably linked with post-modern liberalism.

With Bannon out of the White House, a voice of not only reason but of enlightenment when it comes to Russia has been lost.

2. Realism on Syria 

Steve Bannon seemed to implicitly understand that Syria and her partners are going to be victorious in the conflict and that beyond this, they are fighting the kind of Salafist terrorism that is a danger to mankind itself.

During his campaign, Donald Trump continuously rejected illegal so-called regime change in Syria and vowed not to repeat the mistakes of Barack Obama in funding and aiding terrorists in Iraq the Levant.

While the Syrian conflict is in its final phase, Bannon was correct on Syria from both a pragmatic and moral position. This honourable position is sadly not shared by the majority of the Washington elite.

3. Venezuela and North Korea 

Steve Bannon’s pragmatic side came to the fore in respect of his opposition to recent US threats of war against North Korea and Venezuela.

Bannon rightly realised that North Korea is a ‘sideshow’ conflict and further urged restraint over Donald Trump’s recent threats to Venezuela. 

While war on North Korea is unlikely, Venezuela remains a tempting oil rich country for US war-hawks to pounce on.

CONCLUSION: 

While there were many good reasons for Bannon to go and an equal amount of reasons for Bannon to stay, the sad truth is that his departure from the White House was at least publicly, for all the wrong reasons.

Bannon is associated with a right-wing mindset that some conflate with the white supremacist thinking of the Ku Klux Klan. The fact that Bannon disavowed groups like the KKK seemed not to matter in a modern America where a good narrative trumps a mundane truth with worrying frequency.

There is of course a chance that someone in the White House felt that Bannon’s China remarks were a step too far. There is some circumstantial evidence which points to this. 24 hours prior to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States in April, Bannon was removed from his position on the National Security Council. It was a move that almost certainly reassured those who do not seek an digressive US stance towards China.

It could well be that behind the scenes, concerned individuals realised that Bannon’s remarks on China were inflammatory and deeply dangerous. The proximate timing of his removal is close both to his mad remarks on China as well as the violence in Virginia that many wrongly blame Bannon’s ideology for inspiring.

The truth may be somewhere in between. What is known is that Bannon’s record was one which drifted between common sense and madness. His pragmatic side was ultimately distorted by his more ideologically based pronouncements. This is true whether one loves or hates the man and what he stands for.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Part of what the elites coined as “Globalism” is really just Global Exploitation. They found that in China with a communist government willing to exploit their own people as low wage, slave work force for the west.

True “Globalism” would mean “Global” Environmental Standards and a “Global” Minimum Wage. That would defeat the purpose of Western Factories off-shoring to China or anywhere else, and then good luck to China..

India waits in the wings…

CumExApostolatus
Guest
CumExApostolatus

Modi gave no pushback in late 2016 when the war on cash started in India. I wonder what forces were behind that? Cui bono?

Debbie Beane
Guest
Debbie Beane

USAID, Bill Gates and other entities that push for biometrics required in every move we make. When the news on India’s situation arose, I watched an informative video by James Corbett. You can see a list of sources he used, here:

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-313-demonetization-and-you/

CumExApostolatus
Guest
CumExApostolatus

Thank you. I’d seen that video from Corbett.
Mine was a rhetorical question since I HOPE we know who runs banking around the world.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“Bannon was one of the few members of the Trump White House who was a genuine ideas man in an age where anything but technocratic thinking is often frowned on.”

Fully agree. Without Bannon and Gingrich, the actual presidency term is as good as dead. They were the only two thinking brains in the team.

Ann Watson
Guest
Ann Watson

Steve Bannon is an Israeli – he can’t but be good riddance because of that

Kasimiro
Guest
Kasimiro

Could Steve Bannon‘s influence on the future decisions be greater in the medias than in the White House? The President’s decisions are made out of the house anyway. Aren’t they? ………. The Generals in the White House are patriots and so the better insurance not to force the President into a war which he doesn’t want. As long as the army cadre support Donald Trump he can sleep well. The Generals in the government is better than in the fields. They know well enough that the US can’t go to war any more like before. The mic will have to… Read more »

Walter Dublanica
Member
Walter Dublanica

Bannan will stay because we Americans are frustrated with Congress & the military. Who is going to take us out of all this mess?

Walter Dublanica
Member
Walter Dublanica

Bannan is absolutely right about the need for America to have friendly relations with Russia which is a White Christian country. Who wants a war with a country that has 7,000 nuclear weapons??

Latest

Fake news media FREAK OUT over Trump and NATO (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 172.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the media meltdown over remarks that U.S. President Trump may have made with regard to NATO, and how neo-liberal war hawks championing the alliance as some sort of foreign policy projection of peace and democracy, are really just supporting aggression, war, and the eventual weakening of the United States.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO, Authored by David Swanson:


The New York Times loves NATO, but should you?

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia.According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Turkey prepared to take Syria’s Manbij, won’t let it turn into ‘swamp’ like N. Iraq

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Ankara has “almost completed” preparations for another military operation in Syria and will launch it if “promises” made by other parties about the protection of its borders are not kept, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.

Turkey still hopes that talks with the US, Russia and “other parties” will allow it to ensure its security without resorting to force but it is still ready to proceed with a military option and will not “wait forever,” Erdogan said. He was referring to Ankara’s plans for the northern Syrian territories east of the Euphrates River, which it seeks to turn into a “security zone”free of any Kurdish militias.

“We are on our border with our forces and following developments closely. If promises made to us are kept and the process goes on, that’s fine. Otherwise, we inform that we have almost completed our preparations and will take steps in line with our own strategy,” the president said, addressing a group of businessmen in Ankara on Monday.

He did not elaborate on the promises made. However, they are apparently linked to the withdrawal of the Kurdish YPG militia from the Manbij area and the regions along the border with Turkey. “We will never allow a safe zone to turn into a new swamp,” Erdogan said, referring to the northern Syrian territories and comparing them to the northern Iraq, where the militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – an organization that Ankara considers a terrorist group – have been entrenched for decades.

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias, which form the backbone of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well. “Our proposal for a security zone under Turkey’s control aims to keep terror organizations away from our borders,” the Turkish president said.

He went on to explain that Ankara does not seek any territorial gains in its military campaigns in Syria but merely seeks to restore order in the war-ravaged country. “We will provide security for Manbij and then we will hand over the city to its real owners,” Erdogan said. “Syria belongs to Syrians.”

Turkey also seeks to establish a “security zone 20 miles [32 kilometers] deep” into Syria, Erdogan said, adding that he already discussed this issue with the US President Donald Trump. “Those who insistently want to keep us away from these regions are seeking to strengthen terror organizations,” he added.

Ankara has been long planning to push YPG units out of the area east of the Euphrates River. Its operation was delayed by the US withdrawal from Syria. However, Erdogan repeatedly hinted that his patience is wearing thin and he is not ready to wait much longer. He warned Trump against backtracking on his pledge to withdraw some 2,000 US forces out of Syria following a suicide attack in Manbij that killed four Americans. If the US president halted the withdrawal, it would mean that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) had won, Erdogan argued.

He has also reiterated that Turkey is ready to take over Manbij “without delay.” The US military is currently working on security arrangements with the Turkish forces to create a buffer zone between Turkey and the Kurdish fighters. The Kurds, meanwhile, invited the Syrian government to take over the city and have reportedly begun to leave the area. Turkey has dismissed the reports saying its a “psyop”.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Political Knives Dull Themselves on the Rock of Brexit Article 50

The invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored Tom Luongo via Strategic Culture Foundation:


Theresa “The Gypsum Lady” May went through an extraordinary twenty-four hours. First, seeing her truly horrific Brexit deal go down in historic defeat and then, somehow, surviving a ‘No-Confidence’ vote which left her in a stronger position than before it.

It looks like May rightly calculated that the twenty or so Tory Remainers would put party before the European Union as their personal political positions would be terminally weakened if they voted her out of office.

While there is little stomach in the British Parliament for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, there is less for allowing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. And that is the crux of why the incessant calls to delay Brexit, call for a ‘people’s vote’ or, in Corbyn’s case, “take a no-deal Brexit off the table,’ ultimately lead to a whole lot of political knife-fighting and very little substantive action.

The day-to-day headline spam is designed to wear down people’s resistance and make it feel like Brexit getting betrayed is inevitable. That has been the British Deep State’s and EU’s game plan all along and they hoped they could arm-twist enough people in parliament to succeed.

But the problem for them now, since the clock has nearly run out, is the invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

And I don’t see anyone on the Remainer side working towards that end. That should be your clue as to what happens next.

Why? Because they know they don’t have the time to get that act past Parliament. So, the rest of this is simply a PR campaign to push public opinion far enough to allow for an illegal canceling or postponing of Brexit.

But it’s not working.

According to the latest polls, Brits overwhelmingly want the original Brexit vote respectedLeave even has a 5-6 point lead over Remain.

And, I think Theresa May now realizes this. It is why she invited the no-confidence vote against her. She knew she had the votes and it would give her the ammunition to ignore Corbyn’s hysterical ranting about taking a no-deal Brexit off the table.

Whether she realizes that the only negotiating tool she has with the EU is the threat of a No-Deal Brexit, exactly like Nigel Farage and those committed to Brexit have been telling her for two years is still, however, up in the air.

It looks like she’s finally starting to get it.

The net result is we are seeing a similar outing of the nefarious, behind-the-scenes, power brokers in the public eye similar to what’s been happening in the US with Donald Trump and Russiagate.

May has been singularly unimpressive in her handling of Brexit. I’ve been convinced from the beginning that betraying Brexit was always her goal. Negotiating a deal unacceptable to anyone was meant to exhaust everyone into the position to just throwing up their hands and canceling the whole thing.

The EU has been in the driver’s seat the entire time because most of the British establishment has been on their side and it was only the people who needed to be disrespected.

So, after all of these shananigans we are back to where we were last week. May has cut off all avenues of discussion. She won’t commit to taking ‘no-deal’ off the table to tweak Corbyn. She won’t substantively move on any other issue. This is likely to push her deal through as a last-minute panic move.

Corbyn is still hoping to get new elections to take power, and the majority of MP’s who don’t want to leave the EU keep fighting among themselves to cock up the entire works.

All they are doing is expending pound after pound of political capital beating themselves against their own act of Parliament which goes into effect on March 29th.

By the time that date comes around the frustration, shame and humiliation of how Parliament has mishandled Brexit will make it difficult for a lot of Remainers to hold together their majority as public opinion has decidedly turned against them.

In the past the EU has had that façade of democratic support undermining any change at the political level. With Brexit (and with budget talks in Italy) that is not the case. The people are angry.

The peak moment for Remainers to stage a bipartisan political coup against May should have been the most recent no-confidence vote.

With May surviving that it implies that Remainers are not willing to die politically for their cause.

This should begin to see defectors over the next couple of weeks as they realize they don’t have a hand to play either.

And by May refusing to rule out a ‘no-deal’ Brexit it has finally brought the EU around to throw a bone towards the British. Their admitting they would extend Article 50 is just that. But they know that’s a non-starter as that is the one thing May has been steadfast in holding to.

On March 29th with or without a deal the U.K. is out of the EU. Because despite the European Court of Justice’s decision, Britain’s parliament can only cancel Article 50 at this point by acting illegally.

Not that I would put that past these people, but then that opens up a can of worms that most British MP’s will not go along with. The personal stakes are simply too high.

When dealing with politicians, never bet against their vanity or their pocketbook. In May’s case she may finally have realized she could have the legacy of getting Britain out of the EU just before it collapses.

And all she has to do between now and the end of March is, precisely, nothing.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending