As we awaken this morning to a situation of political chaos, it is clear that following the historic victory for our nation when the British people voted for Brexit in 2016, the ‘deep state’ has successfully counter attacked leaving Theresa May’s Conservative government ham-strung and desperately looking to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) for their support in forming the next government.
As I have already previously explained, Theresa May did not need to call a general election at this time. She had the means to push through her plans for Brexit and had she done so, her place in British history would have been secured. Steering Britain through the murky waters of exit negotiations and delivering Britain from the vampire death grip of the European Union (EU) would have placed Theresa May alongside the likes of Margaret Thatcher and would have given her the potential, if she would have followed through with wholesale reductions in non-White immigration to stand alongside Winston Churchill among the Pantheon of British politicians of modern times.
In an earlier article I asked whether Theresa May deliberately threw this general election. Prior to the EU referendum campaign last year, she had never spoken out against British membership of the EU and had campaigned, albeit in a rather lukewarm fashion, for us to maintain our EU membership.
What we saw among other Conservative politicians was something peculiarly reminiscent of what had taken place during the first EU referendum, the Common Market Referendum back in 1975. When the referendum campaign began, politicians that had never previously opposed EU membership stepped forward and declared their opposition, so that both sides of the referendum campaign were dominated by individuals who had previously been quite happy with Britain’s EU membership. This was the ‘deep state’ at work, ensuring that whichever way the referendum went, we would have pro-EU politicians leading the country in the aftermath. Ensuring that if the referendum result had been to remain, we would have had a pro-EU government that would as quickly as possible have moved to ensure that no further referendum would ever be offered again and that Britain would be permanently subsumed into the European superstate. This was the ‘deep state’ at work, ensuring that if the referendum result was for Brexit, we would still have a secretly pro-EU government that would do everything in its power to frustrate the will of the people and reverse the referendum result at the earliest opportunity.
In my earlier article questioning Theresa May’s motivations, it was not my intention to declare that she personally has been consciously a part of a conspiracy to frustrate the will of the British people, although this could well be the case. My intention was to suggest that at the very least she appears to be a pawn who has been manipulated by the host of advisers and spin doctors and think-tanks that surround her. Manipulated into acting in a way that will confound our desire for Brexit.
Theresa May will have been advised seven weeks ago, that the Conservatives were ahead of Labour by a country mile in the opinion polls. She will have been told that UKIP were in disarray following the loss of Nigel Farage as their leader and that the Tories would pick up all of the support previously enjoyed by UKIP. She will have been aware of the longstanding campaign of character assassination of Jeremy Corbyn by Jews accusing him of latent anti-semitism and would have been advised that the general election would be a walk-over thereafter providing her with an unassailable Commons majority. Once the general election was called however, it would be easy for party apparatchiks, the spin doctors, and advisers and think-tanks to position strategically placed ‘banana skins’ within the Conservative Party manifesto, designed to trip up Theresa May and sabotage Conservative support among key sections of the public.
This morning we find ourselves with a ‘lame-duck’ prime minister surrounded by friends and enemies alike, questioning her capacity to lead and/or calling upon her to resign. She has just two options open to her:
Firstly, to do as she appears to be doing this morning, which is to court the support of the DUP. This might enable the Conservatives to remain in power, if the DUP provide their support. However, the DUP will almost certainly exact a price for their support, and since the EU referendum campaign in which the majority of the Northern Irish electorate voted to Remain, the DUP have called for a ‘soft-Brexit’ so as not to risk a return to the social and political division that has blighted Ireland in the past. We can guess what the price of their support is likely to be.
As we all know, ‘soft-Brexit’ actually means ‘no Brexit’. It means Brexit in name only, with Britain remaining within the regulatory straight-jacket of the European single market. Soft Brexit would leave Britain a hapless dominion of the EU with no say over how our economy is regulated or governed and no control over our borders. This would be the worst possible outcome and worse than remaining within the EU. It would be like remaining within the EU but with the UK having no MEPs and no representation on the Council of Europe or within the European Commission. We would effectively be a subject people.
The second course of action open to Theresa May would be to survive the next few months as best she can with a minority government, with or without DUP support, and for her to call further general election in the autumn, as happened in 1974 when a hung parliament was initially elected.
A second general election would provide the opportunity to appeal to the common sense patriotism of the British people and to impress upon the nation that in the immediate, the importance of Brexit outweighs almost everything else. The period running up to the second general election would need to be used to impress upon the British public the disastrous outcome that will emerge unless the government has a Commons majority.
Entering into Brexit negotiations without a commons majority, or entering with a precondition that the outcome of negotiations must be a ‘soft Brexit’ in order to assuage the demands of minority parties, would be like declaring war and then almost immediately agreeing terms of unconditional surrender to our enemy.
The idea that anyone can negotiate a ‘soft Brexit’ that amounts to anything other than a complete capitulation to the EU is completely illusory, and we no longer have the option of deciding to stay within the EU on our current terms.
Theresa May chose to assume the leadership of our nation and to lead us through the Brexit negotiations and if she still harbours any ambition to secure her place in history then she must regain a Commons majority so that she can face the EU negotiators before the two-year window of Brexit negotiations elapses, sure in the knowledge that she can walk away from the negotiating table and Britain can trade with the EU on WTO rules if need be. This is the only source of leverage that she will have in those negotiations, because trade on WTO terms would hurt the EU more than they would hurt us and only if we are prepared to resort to WTO terms will we have any bargaining power and will the EU offer us anything better.
If now or following a second EU referendum, or following a Commons vote, or following a further general election, we decide as a nation to remain within the EU, we will need to renegotiate the terms of our future membership, and irrespective of who conducts those negotiations on our behalf, if the EU are aware that we are prepared to accept virtually anything rather than trade with them on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms, we will have no ability to bargain with them – we will be at their mercy — we will have no option but to accept whatever they offer, and whatever they offer beyond WTO rules they will exact a heavy price for.
It is an often repeated truism that international trade is simply warfare between nations conducted by commercial and economic means and now that Brexit has been triggered, we are effectively at economic war with the EU. The triggering of Article 50 was the formal ‘declaration of war’ and we now either fight on to achieve an outcome that frees us from domination by the EU, or we prostrate ourselves before our adversary and surrender.
If Theresa May is sincere in her stated aim of taking us out of the EU it is clear that she must extricate herself from the influence of those within her own party, within our political establishment or within the ‘deep state’, who have other plans. We must not let our enemies retain the initiative. We have waited forty years for the opportunity to leave the EU and it would be an act of criminal incompetence to let that opportunity slip through our fingers now!
By Max Musson © 2017
# # # #
JOIN WESTERN SPRING
Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:
[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]# # # #
John Beattie
- Edit
Power changes people. PRIOR to election, the DUP talking about a watered down version of Brexit. BUT now they will coast with Conservatives and Prime Minister May’s tough Brexit stand, regardless of globalist crying lying pubic press.
Max Musson
- Edit
The less said about the ‘pubic’ press, the better! 😉
Nationalist4UK (@Nationalist4UK)
- Edit
I’m really quite clueless with the outcome of the General Election, I thought it would be a landslide victory for the Tories but yet they didn’t gain the majority all because of First Past The Post system.
I’ve voted for UKIP in the election, and I seen BNP has been standing in my area and they gained last place with triple digits of the vote.
Since the article 50 is activated, the only difference it will make is not to vote on the 2019 European Parliament election just to give a virtual feel that we are out of the EU.
Plus the traitors in government wants to keep Britain in the European Single Market, similar to Norway, Iceland and Switzerland as they are part of the European Single Market but not in the EU. I think the real purpose is to retain the free movement of people which benefits businesses to hire cheap workers from Eastern Europe.
And here’s Nigel Farage’s statement on the government if they mess the Brexit up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U18JECC_qr8
To be honest, I don’t really take that much note in UK politics because I know straight off they are destroying the country on a daily basis.
francis
- Edit
In many ways the DUP is a good coalition partner because they oppose cultural Marxism, abortion and so on. The lefties are not crowing now because of this.
Had 2.5 million UKIP voters not voted Tory, Corbyn would have won by a landslide. That is how bad it is. Voters font want neoliberal economics, nor do they want austerity and Corbyn offers them this.
Personally I thought the Tories were going to thrash Labour, but now I see how they got the so called youth vote which made a huge difference. London is now Labour through and through.
Perhaps war is the only option left now.
John Beattie
- Edit
Relying on DUP is ‘potentially dangerous’ Lord Mandelson warns Theresa May
RELYING on the Democratic Unionist Party could be “dangerous” a Labour Lord has warned Theresa May as PM seeks an alliance.
jewboy VERY UNHAPPY = GOOD NEWS FOR UK
Albert
- Edit
The future of politics will greatly shift to the left due to the cultural marxist brainwashing of our youth.
And that has always been the plan of the cultural marxist sit back and wait…once the over 60s are gone ..
Alec Suchi
- Edit
Winston Churchill is held in high esteem within conventional society and praised by main stream historians but is reviled by nationalists and patriots who consider him as somebody who served outside vested interests and by extension his own interests but which were counter to the country’s interests. An avoidable World War was a consequence of such a state of affairs. Regarding the outcome of the Referendum only time will tell.
Max Musson
- Edit
I appreciate that Alec, I used the term ‘Churchillian’ from the conventional perspective, the one that would factor in Theresa May’s thinking.
Byrthnoth
- Edit
I know that this sounds like wisdom after the event, but it now seems obvious that calling a general election during the Brexit negotiations demonstrates extraordinary bad judgement. Yes, it is true that Theresa May was influenced in her disastrous decision by those opposed to UK independence, but rather than the ‘deep state’ operating to obtain this outcome it seems that the initiative came from Jean-Claude Junker if the 11th June edition of the Observer is to be believed. Here is a quotation from an article in the Observer titled ‘Brexit talks in jeopardy, chief aides sacked , opposition to DUP alliance.’
.
“The Observer has learned that May took the fateful decision to call the election having been urged to do so by commission president Jean-Claude Junker. It is understood that Junker had advised May to call an early general election as a result of his concerns that the 17-seat majority she had inherited from David Cameron would not be enough during the pinch points of the new negotiations, including over the UK’s divorce bill, estimated to be as much as 100 billion euros. During the bilaterals, in the margins of summits, Junker repeatedly told her he thought she should do it, one EU source said.”
.
Anyone with any common sense should have understood that the EU negotiators would have no incentive for wanting the British government to gain a greater popular mandate for Brexit, so obviously Junker anticipated that the outcome of the election would weaken the UK governments position. Anyway, as Yanis Varoufakis has pointed out in his memoirs about the Greek debt negotiations, the Eurocrats will take no account of a popular mandate that an EU member government may obtain if their position is in contradiction with the interests of the EU as a whole (as they see it). This demonstrates the fundamental principle that was supposed to justify the creation of a ‘supranational’ authority over European nation states. That is this ‘supranational’ authority would assert the collective interests of the community and not be swayed by narrow national interests. This is not my opinion – I am just being the devils advocate here.