Originally appeared at Fsksrb, translated by Igor exclusively for SouthFront
In western countries, London still holds a special position. The United Kingdom has tinkered for fifteen years whether to join the European economic union or not, is one of the five most developed economies in Europe who has refused to join the Euro zone. Apart from Ireland, the only European country that has not joined the Schengen zone.
And while it is only been a few decades, quietly the UK seems to be suggesting the policy of the west. It is sufficient it to recall that the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984 to US President proposed to put a bet on Mikhail Gorbachev. The result was that the West began to support the first “perestroika” and then the “reform” of B. Yeltsin.
It is interesting that the English elite often demonstrate astonishing and incredibly informed understanding of political issues. Thus, at the time of the Kiev Euromaidan 2013 – 2014 British Minister for Europe David Lidington (former manager of the Rothschild company VR) often in his statements saying what is yet to happen (for example – that night 30 November 2013 militia dispersed the protesters from Maidan). That seemed odd, given that London is not formally involved in the negotiations the US and EU politicians with Viktor Yanukovich.
Similar situations were cited at the thought of that not only the United Kingdom has tremendous opportunities to collect data from around the world, but also that there is a high degree insiders of that country in all international intrigue. So it is not surprising that the United Kingdom just got the image of the world’s major gossip, as well as the “grey cardinal” of the United States. ”
Tim became the more unusual choice for the leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbin on the 12 of September, who was known for his left wing-radical views and positive statements about Russia. Prime Minister David Cameron, right now the new leader of the Liberals, called it “a threat not only to national security but also the security of every family.”
On the September 15th, there’s been another significant event in the distant Australia, whose monarch, officially, Elizabeth II with their previous Prime Minister Toni Ebot. He is “celebrated” for promising to the President of Russia V. Putin , to “shirt front” him (i.e.. That with him sharply “to talk” because of Russian policy in Ukraine) and demands that because of Moscow, there should be an organized tribunal – because of the “downed passenger plane in Donbass”.
Given that the United Kingdom and Australia as well as Canada, closely linked not only to the common head of state (monarch), but also those that are governed by the same financial groups. It is not complicated to guess that oligarchic families sent certain signals to Moscow and other Western countries. What was that signal? And most importantly – how much can Moscow trust it?
First to note is that simultaneously with the election of a new leader of the Labour Party in the UK, two equally important events occurred.
First, the lower house of the British parliament has voted to end the 2017 referendum for leaving the EU. Since Queen Elizabeth II publicly endorsed that decision, it is not doubtful that the House of Lords to vote the same way. And if you take into account that according to sociological surveys the number of those who support the release of the UK from the EU is growing inexorably, the results of the referendum (should it be held on 2017) are easy to predict. It is obvious that just in 2017 the process of social and economic collapse of Europe is to come to a climax.
Secondly, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Great Britain Theresa May has announced its intention to impose restrictions on the entry of persons from EU countries.
All this shows is that London does not want that its fate is linked to continental Europe, which is groaning under the wave of refugees from the Middle East and Africa, with an economy in stagnation.
In this world, Jeremy Corbin and his anti oligarchic rhetoric become a very useful financial groups in Great Britain. He will criticize continental Europe due to “lack of real help to immigrants”. Over Socinterne structure (whose members and Labour Party) Korbin may undermine the unity of the European Union – a reference to the fight against the oligarchs. Finally, the new Labour leader will, criticizing the current model of the European Union, which pushes for “corporate theft” instead of the idea of internationalism, with the real culprits of the current situation (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg et al.) Dissatisfaction with the switch on Euro-bureaucracy that absolutely have no say in the matter. This will supplement the emotional release of London from the EU,
even though its already very noticeable.
And inside, in the UK, an opposition politician can not harm the opposition groups Until the parliamentary elections in 2020 and they are still far away. Even if it came to power, Korbin, there’s not much chance to change anything. In the UK, for politicians like him there are enough filters. Although the model of the state organization is defined as a constitutional monarchy, the constitution of the country is not present, and that means that there is no constitutional demarcation which define the powers of the executive, legislative and judicial authorities. Taking into account that the country holds, so case law, the Court’s decision, the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal and the High Court have the same importance as the legislative acts of Parliament, and the judicial body – wide space for making arbitrary decisions.
Before the arbitrariness of the judicial system, the government can not do anything. And if this does not help, the ruling clan – the upper house of Parliament, ie. The House of Lords, thanks to the institution of peerage which is under the complete control of the monarch. Finally, legally, the queen has every right to appoint or dismiss the prime minister without thinking about the results of the elections, solely because she wants to. The fact that the prime minister is appointed by the leader of the party that won the elections does not foresee any law, but represents only a result of tradition, which is easily broken. Especially as the monarch’s (thanks to the media, which are controlled by transnational corporations) are always more popular than any prime minister.
If you consider all things, it’s easy to remember that even such an idealist (at least verbally) as Korbin, was not suicidal when he entered into battle with the oligarchic clans, where he was foredoomed. And that means that his victory as well as the resignation of Abbott, can be evaluated as a signal to Moscow.
The requirement for a possible easing in the current relations between Moscow and London could represent the approval to the Kremlin to go to make concessions in matters of privatization. The Rothschilds traditionally show Special interest towards natural resources of Siberia. In early 2000, the British weekly “Sunday Times” published sensational information that Mikhail Khodorkovsky 53% of shares of “Yukos” -a surrendered to Lord Jacob Rothschild “in custody” with the right to transfer to the property if the Russian oligarch lost the ability to be a beneficiary , ie a person who has income.
In fact, it was already a blurred misappropriation of huge Siberian natural resources. Due to the transfer of Yukos assets in property companies “Rosnef” was not achieved. But with the Rothschilds remained a taste of missed profit.
At a time when Dmitry Medvedev was President, the largest British financial clan almost again gained access to Energy resources in Siberia. The company VR controlled by the Rothschilds in January 2011 made with “Rosneft” an agreement to form a joint company for the exploitation of shale gas deposits in the Caribbean Sea. But it was obvious that they wanted “more” and the greedy to shares of AFK “Sistema” in the company “Bashneft” and “Rusneft”. It is interesting that their representative in these matters was one of the most influential members of the Labour Party, Lord Peter Mandelson, as the umpteenth time shows of whose opinion depends policies Labour.
And if the Kremlin does not understand the signal, Korbin who today speaks of righteousness annexation of Crimea to Russia, will easily find an argument that will condemn the Russian Federation. For example, the refusal to introduce institutions uni-sexual marriages, whose legalization in the whole world newly Labour leader declared, “and not its main task on everyone threatened that they must introduce appropriate changes in their national legislation, as it will bear the” economic and diplomatic consequences “.
In doing so Korbin will be neither the first nor last politician who, starting with anti-oligharic rhetoric, end the call to sanction Moscow. He’s still in the memory of the Spanish Socialists and opponent “capitalist order”, Javier Solana, whom the Western media in the early nineties advertised as not the main peacemaker in the world and opponents of the dictatorship (even he was in prison at the time of Franco). Since he became secretary general of NATO, the “protector of peace” with ease in 1999 supported the barbaric bombing of peaceful towns of Yugoslavia, and when he became supreme EU foreign policy campaigned for intervention in Iraq in 2003, and supported the and the killing of Russian peacekeepers in August 2008 by Georgian units in South Ossetia.
A similar evolution underwent two head of foreign policy department of the European Union – an active fighter for peace and “opponent of the capitalist system,” Catherine Ashton and Euro-communist Federica Mogherini, which have since found themselves in a new office in Brussels, became furious perpetrators of the policy of sanctions against Russia.
After all, the example of Alexis Tsipras is clearly demonstrated their value to all those western left-wing radicals.