In Europe's great divorce … We journalists are probably too bleary-eyed after a sleepless night to understand the full significance of what has just happened in Brussels. What is clear is that after a long, hard and rancorous negotiation, at about 5 am this morning the European Union split in a fundamental way. In an effort to stabilise the euro zone, France, Germany and 21 other countries have decided to draft their own treaty to impose more central control over national budgets. Britain and three others have decided to stay out. In the coming weeks, Britain may find itself even more isolated. Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary want time to consult their parliaments and political parties before deciding on whether to join the new union- within-the-union. – The Economist
Dominant Social Theme: It's terrible, this split, but maybe it will get better. Or maybe it is for the best.
Free-Market Analysis: Here is a strong statement: The further fracturing of the EU is a setback for what we call the Anglosphere power elite, those powerful families that control central banking around the world and are trying as hard as they can to create global government.
Here's another statement: This setback is part of a string of setbacks. The Anglosphere, as we have long predicted, is not having a great time of it in the 21st century. We have never predicted its demise, but have long suggested that "it" – those involved, in aggregate – shall eventually take a step back. Their earth-spanning plans may have to be moderated at least for a little while.
We look to the elite British media for confirmation of our perspective. On this day, its editorial mavens seem confused as to how to best present the current Eurozone breakup (see other article this issue). Is this evidence that our hypothesis is correct?
Let us pause for just a minute (or at least a paragraph) to examine how elite dominant social themes are doing in this era of the Internet. Then, in the rest of this article, we will try to put the Eurozone split (if that is what it is) in context. It is perhaps a momentous thing …
Start at the beginning. We have presented the point of view (almost every day) that this Internet era – the "Internet Reformation" – is changing the fabric of elite control of the Western world and is making it at least a bit harder for the Anglosphere power elite to achieve its goal of world government.
This is not always a popular view! People who understand what is going on in the world (including some who visit here) often take a skeptical view of the idea that the Internet is having a strong impact on power elite globalism. But take a step back for a moment …
Global warming – climate change – whatever you want to call it was supposed to be the fundamental building block of a new world order. Instead, thanks mainly to the Internet, it is in shambles and may not ever be entirely resurrected.
The meme of government itself as the expert mechanism that is supposed to rescue people from the elites' phony fear-based promotions is itself held in increasing disrepute. In America, recently, Congressional approval sank to the single digits. And thanks to the Internet, everything from Barack Obama's background to his father's identity and his relationship to the CIA has come into question.
Obama's ability to portray himself as the second coming of FDR has surely been damaged by the Internet and the astonishing vitriol that has poured out about him. Presidents Clinton and Bush came in for similar attacks but the attacks on Obama seem to have been even more powerful. People in America (and Europe) are simply sick of business as usual.
The centralizing wars of NATO and the Anglosphere are not going especially well either in Afghanistan, Pakistan or even desolate spots like Somalia. Central banking itself has come under attack as it has not for about 75 years. Overpopulation, peak oil and other scarcity memes seem to us to be a good deal less persuasive at the moment than they once were.
The United Nations is not a popular entity with many in America and perhaps in Europe, too. The International Monetary Fund is disliked throughout the world and the World Bank seems to operate behind the scenes and is not much of a factor in the popular imagination.
And now the EU is stumbling as well. Dress it up any way you want, it is still Not a Good Thing for those who seek one-world government. The Economist, a promotional entity of the Anglosphere elite, is already positioning the "fault lines" between Europe and Britain as a negative for the Albion Isles. This tells us much of what we need to know. Here's some more from the Economist article excerpted above:
So two decades to the day after the Maastricht Treaty was concluded, launching the process towards the single European currency, the EU's tectonic plates have slipped momentously along same the fault line that has always divided it—the English Channel. Confronted by the financial crisis, the euro zone is having to integrate more deeply, with a consequent loss of national sovereignty to the EU (or some other central co-ordinating body); Britain, which had secured a formal opt-out from the euro, has decided to let them go their way.
Whether the agreement does anything to stabilise the euro is moot. The agreement is heavily tilted towards budget discipline and austerity. It does little to generate money in the short term to arrest the run on sovereigns, nor does it provide a longer-term perspective of jointly-issued bonds. Much will depend on how the European Central Bank responds in the coming days and weeks. Some doubt remains over whether and how the "euro-plus" zone will have access to EU institutions—such as the European Commission, which conducts economic assessments and recommends action, and the European Court of Justice, which Germany hopes will ensure countries adopt proper balanced-budget rules—over Britain's objections.
But especially for France, on the brink of losing its AAA credit rating and now the junior partner to Germany, this is a famous political victory. President Nicolas Sarkozy had long favoured the creation of a smaller, "core" euro zone, without the awkward British, Scandinavians and eastern Europeans that generally pursue more liberal, market-oriented policies. And he has wanted the core run on an inter-governmental basis, ie by leaders rather than by supranational European institutions. This would allow France, and Mr Sarkozy in particular, to maximise its impact.
Mr Sarkozy made substantial progress on both fronts. The president tried not to gloat when he emerged at 5am to explain that an agreement endorsed by all 27 members of the EU had proved impossible because of British obstruction. "You cannot have an opt-out and then ask to participate in all the discussion about the euro that you did not want to have, and which you also criticised," declared the French president.
It is clear where the Economist stands, or at least this editorialist. The EU experiment may have received a setback, but Britain has the proverbial bad end of the stick. Sarkozy is so giddy he's almost giggling. Score one (again) for the French.
Mr. Cameron, meanwhile, stated he was "relaxed" about staying out of the euro and out of the passport-free Schengen Area. At the same time he apparently claimed that the EU single market "will continue as normal."
The Economist wants us to consider a graver potential. The 23 members of the "new pact" will gang up to disadvantage Britain over time, we are warned. Regulations and other kinds of business deals will go against Britain. Britain's refusal to OK what happened in Brussels looks like a way of avoiding further centralization but eventually, British citizens will WANT to be part of that centralization.
Is this not a form of spin? What REALLY just happened? A confluence of events, including most importantly the building resentment in Britain against the EU, forced David Cameron's hand. He couldn't return to Britain with an acquiescence and so he did not.
There are many other ways of looking at what just happened and the elitist lapdogs of the British press will doubtless examine all of them in the coming days. The Internet alternative media as well shall examine the ins and outs of what just occurred. The conclusion may be that the powers-that-be WANT the EU to split up. They want the chaos because the worse things are the more order, eventually, can be imposed.
But we don't quite buy that. We agree that it may be a "fallback" but is not the PRIMARY position. The Anglosphere power elite invested half a century in building up the EU, and if they could have managed it we think Britain would even now reside in the middle of it alongside of Germany and France.
Sometimes a rose is a rose and a separation is a separation. These "unions" are not necessarily healthy. The North American Union, for instance, has yet to get off the ground and now the EU is slipping backwards rather than forward. We think we recognize a setback when we see it.
The repositioning of the Financial Times and the Economist has already begun. That they are in proverbial damage control mode only makes us more certain that this is not a welcome event for a power elite that wishes to move quickly and efficiently from an all inclusive regionality to global governance as fast as possible.
It cannot be a happy day for the City of London. What will the Queen say?