Brexit Was Bigger Than You Thought

Brexit Was Bigger Than You Thought

by David Archibald, author of Australia’s Defence (Connor Court) and Twilight of Abundance (Regnery)

13 July 2016


The day after the UK voted to leave the EU, a number of pundits noted that the exit put the Paris climate agrement in doubt, which is of course a good thing.  But it is much more important than that. Brexit looks like being the high tide mark of the whole globalisation project.

Consider that the EU effectively runs Gaza as a colony. Not only does the EU provide the bulk of the money to keep Gaza going, they provide the bureaucrats to run the place too. The EU has been the major funder of the Palestinians in Gaza and is well aware that 250 million Euros-odd a year of their funding goes to buying weapons for attacking Israel.

Twelve years ago, European Union Parliament member Ilka Schroeder noted that the Europeans saw themselves as the future global power and that, in effect, their support for the Palestinians should be understood as a proxy war by the Europeans against the United States as, at least prior to President Obama, Israel was the United States’ major ally in the region.  So Gaza should be considered as the second front in a European war on the power and influence of the United States. The perfidious Europeans, having burnt through most of their own coal and oil and realising how parlous their long term energy supply position is, have asked for a legally binding commitment guaranteeing the export of oil and gas from the United States.

The US also funds Gaza but stranger things happen – the US sends food into ISIS-controlled areas of Iraq while bombing them at the same time.

The day after the UK voted to leave the EU, the German and French foreign ministries came out with a joint statement that the European project was on track and that they still dreamed of empire.  Specifically they nominated Africa and the Middle East.

But the biggest effect of Brexit is its effect on what was supposed to follow from the Paris climate treaty, which is equalisation of international access to food to stave off starvation. Part of the whole climate push is an argument that we need to go vegetarian so that everybody will have enough to eat. This movement has a number of forms. Early in the Obama administration one form was ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which is based on the notion that no bad things should be allowed to happen to anyone, anywhere.

Five years ago the French had a go at getting control of world food supplies in much the same way that John Howard brought in the carbon tax – start with an auditing process and control naturally follows. Howard’s auditing step was the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act of October 2007.  This was his last dark deed in Government. The French attempt was in Paris in June 2011 at a meeting of the G20 agriculture ministers. They wanted the world’s major grain traders – Cargill etc. – to report monthly on what they were doing. This is a photo of the gathering:

G20 Agriculture ministers Paris 2011

The notion continues across the Atlantic.  The US Congress has voted in favour of the Global Food Security Act of 2016 which “requires the President to develop and implement a Global Food Security Strategy to promote global food security, resilience, and nutrition.”

This is the big project of international lefties. Global warming is just the lead-in to everyone eating an almost strictly vegetarian diet. At least the lefties are thinking ahead. It seems that nobody on the right thinks about the day after tomorrow.

For example, nobody, on the right or the left, has been thinking about where the fuel and fertiliser for agriculture will come from when the fossil fuels starting running down. Currently coal and natural gas, via the Haber Bosch process, provide 70% of the world’s protein. The left has yet to explain how these things will be provided at a reasonable cost once our economies are running on 100% renewable energy, and neither has the right.