in ,

5 Questions for Peter Lavelle on Brexit

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

Question: There was no shortage of scaremongering coming from the “remain” camp before the vote. Has this changed since voted for Brexit?

Answer: Unfortunately, no. The political establishment in the UK and Europe (and Washington) are now in a state panic. The center of the political discourse is collapsing all around us. The thought that voters would actually decide to quit the EU never was ever taken seriously. And as a result the political establishment is in a dangerous state of denial. Instead of coming to grips with a clear democratic choice, the political establishment is playing “the referendum result is only advisory” card. This is truly playing with fire. European and Washington elites preach democracy, while being adamant they know better. This is what I call the “Brexit state of mind” – citizens across Europe and America are becoming acutely aware the powers-that-be demand to rule them, not govern in the name of the people. The political establishment’s spin is falling into tatters.

Q.: What are some of the most important meta-outcomes of the Brexit vote?

A.: The vote has demonstrated the brittle nature of how Britain and the west in general in are ruled. Both Conservative and Labour parties are in chaos. The Tories wanted to have it both ways – supporting the neo-liberal economic order while saying they claim to defend Britain best national interests within the EU. Labour on the other hand couldn’t really decide on a meaningful “remain” pitch. In the end both parties are statist and defenders of the status quo, without any meaningful strategic vision. The voters realize this and decided on their own. To sum up: the Conservatives were (and still are) spineless sycophants protecting the financial world’s cozy relationship with the state and Labour remains resigned (if not privately committed) to the neo-liberal economic order dressed up with hollow left-wing and progressive rhetoric. The political center is showing itself to be empty and vacuous. This is an opportunity to challenge the status quo.

Q.: How is the political order changing or even collapsing?

A.: One of the most remarkable things happening at the moment is the collapse of the western narrative about politics and the important identity issue. The west’s political establishment (Washington Consensus) has grown accustomed to determining the order of politics and then on very specific terms spoon-feed their agenda to citizens via tightly controlled (and essentially fake) elections. We are constantly told going to the polls and voting is a celebration of our democracy. This is a formula to entertain and energize the masses. Nonetheless, it does not really matter – whatever the outcome the Washington Consensus wins. Hegemony cannot allow any room for inquisitive minds and doubt. This is how it works. Importantly, Brexit puts into question this narrative.

Regarding the question of national identity I want to be very careful. An important part of the EU project is to homogenize everything social and cultural. This is a purposeful political agenda. National and cultural identities are looked down upon and even demonized as backward looking and parochial. Why is this? It is because both are at odds with the post-modernist agenda. Identity is at the very heart of what politics should be about. The Washington Consensus demands that politics in its true normative sense be abolished – in a sense the very idea of citizenship is also being destroyed. Once that is done resistance to the status quo is assured. This is a Bolshevik way of viewing politics.

Q.: Speak to the issue of Europe’s security in light of Brexit.

A.: Washington is furious about Brexit. A Europe that is not “united” and not in “solidarity” is an act of disloyalty of the highest order from the Empire’s perspective. The Europe Union was designed by Washington to be a security provider able to lift burdens from the shoulders of the U.S. Barack Obama openly injected himself into the Brexit campaign with a unambiguous warning: “vote the right way” or face the consequences. I seriously doubt the U.S. will “punish” the UK on the back of this vote, but a stark conclusion can be drawn: Washington will never willing allow its European minions an independent security policy. Europe will be told what to do in the spheres of security and defense reflecting Washington’s defined interests (even if that means Europe’s security is compromised and put at risk, i.e. Ukraine, Syria, Russia and refugee crisis).

Q.: React to the endless claims Russia benefits from Brexit.

A.: At present the EU is Russia’s most important trading partner and geographical neighbor. Indeed, Russia has a keen interest in what happens in Europe. Western mainstream pundits mindlessly say Russia benefits from Brexit as a way to “divide and conquer” the Europeans. This mantra is quite hollow – Europeans are already divided for some of the reasons I have mentioned above. Ukraine is a case in point. The Europeans negotiated a settlement to the Ukraine crisis in February 2014. The Americans rejected this and forced a regime change by use of neo-fascist elements. When Ukraine started to collapse, it was the Europeans who where forced to sanction Russia for Washington’s policy choices. This has not been in Europe’s interest. In fact, Washington-directed sanctions divide the Europeans and not Russia. I remain convinced that Moscow much prefers speaking to the Europeans when they are united, particularly on issues of trade, business and investment. Simply put, everyone can win with this approach.

Though NATO is an entirely different matter. Ever since Vladimir Putin became president, Russia has repeatedly called for an entirely new European security order among equals replacing the Cold War architecture. Washington rejects this out of hand. It demands to be the hegemon of the Euro-Atlantic space. This explains Washington’s drive to expand NATO eastward. Russia is the convenient “security threat” to make this a reality. Though this is a dangerous path. Remember your history! Napoleon united Europe to invade and destroy Russia. When this strategy failed it was Russia that united Europe to defeat the Europe’s then hegemon France. The claim of “Russian aggression” is an illusion and public relations power play. Europe need not worry about Russia, but it should worry about a country far away that claims to always know Europe’s security interests better than the Europeans do.


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Is an Independent Europe Possible?

India and Pakistan join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation