Skip to main content

Americans Demand that Britain is Reduced to being a State of the Union

*** TTIP negotiations have been leaked! Effect of TTIP on NHS, Effect of TTIP on Environment  ***

At present most of the countries in the EU use the "Euro".  This Eurozone is permitted to merge together and become a single country within the EU without any change to the EU Treaties.  Stage one of this merger is almost complete and the second stage of Eurozone unification, although a long process, begins in 2017.  What happens once all these countries have merged, leaving Britain as an outsider? Britain can either choose to leave the EU or accept that it must, in the long term, become a member of the Eurozone and be no more than a regional state in the EU.

The USA and all its organs of political power and influence are intervening in the British referendum on the EU to demand that Britain submit to becoming no more than a US style State.  Why?

The latest interventions by US Treasury secretaries and Obama talk about "Britain's influence", but of course, the UK is going to be terminated within the EU and will have no influence.  The EU already manages the UK's foreign affairs, dealing with Russia, Turkey etc. for the UK.  What these Americans really mean is that US Influence will be threatened and the new Western Bloc that the US is creating will be threatened.

The British media have covered President Obama's intervention as if Britain were already involved in a trade deal with the USA that it would lose if it left the EU.  There is currently no trade deal between the EU and the USA. Brexit would make little difference to UK-USA trade terms.

However, there is another deal that is currently under negotiation between the USA and EU, called "TTIP" - the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, that is not being reported by the media.  TTIP negotiations are secret and have been called an assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.

TTIP will allow multinational corporations to sue governments if they pass laws that contradict free market economics.  The NHS would be in this category and US healthcare companies could sue the UK if it prevented free competition in health.  TTIP goes well beyond a trade treaty and is the first stage of extending US and corporate control across Europe.  David Miliband, an American lackey, made it clear that Brexit would threaten this "International Order" by which he meant that Brexit threatened the American efforts to create this Western Bloc or empire.

It is an ironic twist of history that David Cameron is playing the role of Benedict Arnold in reverse.

TTIP has had much more media coverage in Germany and has created mass demonstrations. As one of the Germans at the last demo said:

"We want to keep our educational standards, not adopt the American educational system. And we want to hold onto our environmental standards too."



Brexit threatens the US plan for the EU to be a proxy that confronts its enemies such as Russia and ISIS as it expands eastwards.  The ever-expanding EU permits conquest by the corporate "West" without any US blood being spilt.  This plan will only work if the EU has British armed forces at its disposal and the extra weight of the UK economy.


I will describe below how the USA has, time and again, set up others to fight its wars and then stepped in at the end to rule the peace.  Are we so stupid that we will fall for it again?  Will it only be after the EU has been pulverised in a battle with Russia that we will finally realise that the USA has its own interests?


Also see Surprise! Surprise! The EU was invented by the USA.

and Membership of the EU: pros and cons

US-British history 

By the time the US finally entered WWII in the West, two years after it had begun, the tide was already turning in favour of the Allies but at a huge cost in British lives and material. Some ordinary British people were embittered at the American delay so the government mounted a pro-American campaign.  However, it was not until late in WWII, in 1944, that Churchill stressed the special relationship between the US and Britain and this is when the term "Special Relationship" became widely used in the UK. 

It is crucial for British people to understand that most ordinary Americans have never heard of the term "special relationship".   The only time Americans use it is when US politicians want a quote in the obsequious British press.  Most Americans learn about the British at school where they learn that they are the enemy and vicious royalist thugs.  This is why the "baddies" in American films always speak with British accents.

Lets be clear about the US-British relationship.  The First World War was almost over in 1917 when the USA declared war and did not declare war on the Austro-Hungarian Empire until December 1917 and it was not until mid 1918 that significant numbers of troops were sent and August 1918, at the battle of Aisne-Marne when US troops played a full role. By this time the Germans had lost most of their army (16,000,000 dead, wounded or missing out of 25,000,000 troops). The US contributed 4.7m troops amongst 43m in the allied armies.  What American entry into WWI got them was control of the peace because they were the only victorious power that was not devastated by the war.

In Britain the Second World War  lasted from September 1939 – September 1945, in the USA it is the war that lasted from December 1941 to September 1945.  The Americans were content to see the British Commonwealth fighting alone against the Germans, Italians, Vichy French, Japanese and assorted other Axis powers, all supported actively by the Russians with resources and even armaments.  It was only after the USA was directly attacked by Japan that it had to intervene.  The USA was extremely slow to mount military action in the West and before the USA intervened the Axis suffered catastrophic defeats in N.Africa by the British and Stalingrad by the Russians (who changed sides having been attacked by their German allies).  These actions each cost the Axis 500,000 troops and began the steady road to defeat.  What American entry into WWII got them was control of the peace because they were the only victorious power that was not devastated by the war.

After WWII the USA had effectively conquered the world.  The British, although responsible for many of the victories, were financially broken by the war.  Rather than becoming another colonial power in the fashion of the nineteenth century, the USA fashioned a peace out of financial pacts and military alliances.  It governed its conquests using the World Bank, IMF, NATO, GATT, UN and EEC etc which it established for this purpose.  This is the "International Order" that David Miliband mentioned that the British are now threatening.  The Americans don't want to see their empire threatened by the evil British.



Don't miss: Surprise! Surprise! The EU was invented by the USA.


20/4/16
























Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b...

Do Muslim women want to wear the Burka (Burqua)?

Do all islamic women want to wear burka?  Can a woman's freedom to wear what she wants oppress other women?  Are western feminists aiding a cult that is dedicated to the destruction of feminism?  I hope to answer these questions in this article.  I would much appreciate any comments you might have if you disagree with the article, especially if you have a feminist viewpoint. Here is a description of the problems of wearing burka by a woman of Asian origin: "Of course, many veiled Muslim women argue that, far from being forced to wear burkas by ruthless husbands, they do so out of choice. And I have to take them at their word. But it is also very apparent that many women are forced behind the veil. A number of them have turned up at my door seeking refuge from their fathers, mothers, brothers and in-laws - men brain-washed by religious leaders who use physical and mental abuse to compel the girls to cover up. It started with the headscarf, then went to th...

The Roots of New Labour

This article was written in 2009 but is still useful to understand the motivation behind New Labour - from the global financial crisis through the over-regulated, surveillance society to the break up of the UK into nationalities. The past lives of Labour Ministers have long been sanitised and many biographies that include their shady communist and Marxist pasts are inaccessible or removed from the net. The truth about these guys is similar to discovering that leading Tories were members of the Nazi Party. If you are a British voter and do not think that this is important then I despair for British politics.  Had these people taken jobs in industry their past might be forgotten and forgiven but they continued in left wing politics and even today boast of being "Stalinist" or International Socialist (or in Blair's case, Trotskyist ). Peter Mandelson (first Secretary of State and Labour Supremo): "Mr Mandelson was born into a Labour family - his grandfather wa...