« First McCabe, then; Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Strzok, the Ohrs, Steele (in absentia?) Clinton Campaign people, etc.? | Main | Keep Your Powder Dry, Comey Is Not Out of the Woods by Larry C Johnson »

29 August 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

English Outsider

Problem is, it's not the Queen's decision. She has to act on the advice of her Prime Minister. He, in turn, doesn't get to be Prime Minister unless the House of Commons allows him to be.

The Commons had ample opportunity to get rid of Mr Johnson. They didn't take it. It's the same problem as with Mrs May. All she tried to do was denied her by the House. Yet the MP's, most of whom are "remainers", were unwilling to get rid of her and form a "remain" government.

That's because they didn't quite have the courage to go against the referendum result openly. The tactics of the remainer MP majority have been to refuse or undermine anything that gets us out but not to take the steps they could do to keep us in.

I don't at all like the politics of the new UK administration. They are neocons and neoliberals. I don't think I like Mr Johnson much either. I submitted to your site an interview of his with Deutsche Welle on the Skripal affair and I thought he came out of that very badly indeed. Nevertheless, unless he's going to sit around like the rest of them blocking everything and doing nothing positive, he had to act as he did.

My view. But then I'm dead against membership of the EU so I might not see it square. The UK expert on Brexit, Richard North, explores the matter here -


On a more important matter, Colonel - might I take issue with you on the position of the Queen? The Monarchy is the keystone of the British Constitution. Its power is only nominal, if that, on day to day affairs. It's unable to block much either when it comes to significant matters - it's rumoured, for example, that the Queen is against membership of the EU but even if that's so there's no power in her hands to determine that matter. What the palace can do is act to restrain - to stop any government deciding to stay for good, for instance, should the House of Commons ever try that on. So it's not a power centre in its own right, merely something in reserve should the power centre get out of hand.

The Queen herself? - a non-partisan focus of loyalty for the Armed Services and for the rest of us. I don't know what the American equivalent is. The flag? The President? Anyway, there needs to be such a focus and she does the job impeccably. More than impeccably, graciously. When she goes she'll be able to say what her namesake three centuries ago said - and with more justice -

"Though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves."

Also rumoured to be keen on fox hunting. Win win all round, then.

John Minehan

What the other parts of te UK do in response to BREXIT is another reason why this is probably unworkable.

John Minehan

No, but dividing that pie is more trouble than it is worth, too.

I have a cousin who is a retired British Army LtCol, who pays his pension if Scotland leaves? One particular guy but there are probably millions more with small issues of various kinds.

John Minehan

I also would not be so sure about trade with the Commonwealth . . . .

Barbara Ann

Republicans in Northern Ireland see Brexit as a once in a lifetime opportunity at reunification. There remain elements who would use violence to achieve this. Tuesday was the 40th anniversary of the second half of "13 dead but not forgotten - we got 18 and Mountbatten". Google it if you are not familiar with the expression. Appropriately enough Mullaghmore in Co. Sligo, where the IRA 'got Mountbatten', is Yeats country. Most sane participants in the negotiations see the danger of things falling apart if the Irish border issue is mishandled - if and when Britain leaves & drags NI out with it. Suffice to say it is complicated.


By God, that is well said, sir.


Another excellent comment! Thank God for this website.


I don't think they were eating us and we were not big enough to eat them. As to the US it is not a question of like but of trust and they are big enough to eat us and as you are hard buisness negotiators we will not have the muscle to get the deals the EU could. Multinationals will want there european operation based in the EU market not the much smaller UK with uncertain trade relationships with everyone in the world post brexit. I like Shakespeare & Castle Howard too but I am not expecting that to have any weight in trade negotiations.

English Outsider

I'm afraid I don't agree with what you say above. I don't believe it would pass muster with any serious student of the current internal conflict in the UK, nor indeed is your analysis of current international politics compelling.

But I must protest one misconception in particular. The Brexit conflict in the UK is now routinely portrayed by those who wish to remain in the EU as a choice between being dominated by the US or being dominated by the EU.

Thus we see the anti-Americanism of the European Progressive classes, allied with a universal Progressive hatred of President Trump both on the Continent and in England, being pressed into service as another argument for the UK not leaving the EU. If we leave the EU, it is insisted, we shall be swallowed up as a subordinate partner by the US.

This is nonsense pure and simple. Because of its size and economic and military power the US will inevitably have weight when it comes to making trade agreements. So will China, so will other large countries. That is a fact of life. But there are two very important differences -

1. The EU uses trade not merely as a means of establishing political control over its member states. It uses it as a means of absorbing those member states. It explicitly seeks "ever greater union", and entangling its member states in trade relationships that are, as we are currently finding, very difficult to break or adjust, is how that is achieved.

However close our trading connection with the China or the USA might become, we shall not find ourselves ruled from Beijing or Washington. Increasingly we are finding ourselves ruled from Brussels; and the struggle we find ourselves engaged in for independence from that increasing rule is not to be compared with difficulties we may or may not have in trading with other countries.

2. It is false in any case to say that for the UK the choice is between being dominated by Europe or being dominated by the USA. Independence means being ruled by none but ourselves. It means having the freedom to determine for ourselves the degree of closeness we have with other countries, both in economic terms and in terms of military alliances.

We have always had that freedom with regard to the United States, whether we have used it wisely or not. We now seek the same freedom with regard to that unstable and undemocratic entity, the EU, with which we have allowed ourselves to become so dangerously entangled.

It is therefore incorrect for those who wish the UK to remain part of the EU to make use of the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the European Progressive classes as an argument for the UK not seeking to regain its independence from the EU.


Bizarrely - but seriously - that's partly why the quaint idea of Monarchy has survived this long, isn't it?. Unfortunately, Monarchs all too often side with the Government.


Welcome back Babak!

English Outsider

Amir - apologies. I meant to write -"I don't agree with what you and Craig Murray wrote" - and the emphasis was heavily on Mr Murray. But the platform for the Colonel's site allows no correction and I was stuck with what I'd written.

Mr Murray is a Scotsman. Anglophobia comes with the territory there, just as for us in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Francophobia came with the territory - it's no fun neighbouring a considerably more powerful country, particularly when that more powerful country has a tendency to pinch your stuff.

Patriotism is an admirable quality, in a Scotsman as with anyone else. A dash of Anglophobia to go with it is therefore, I think, in order, especially when independence is in question as it is today for many in Scotland. But Mr Murray goes in for bucketfuls and I think that might skew his perspective.


Agreed, we shafted them when we joined the EU - which I was against. Now I think they will be better off dealing with the EU than us and expect no more favourable terms than they would would give to the BRIC nations.


My right to bear arms in defense of a tyrannical government comes from the very hand of God. A queen not so much.


"Lifestyle publicly funded"

The "Crown Estate" of Queen Elizabeth generates $366 million per year and she gives the British Treasury $273 million, or 75% of that income.

Everything I've read suggests that Queen Elizabeth is very frugal -- those multiple changes of clothing are required by her job and most outfits are sewn in-house by a few seanstresses. Furthermore, the Queen buys 4 pairs of shoes per year in black / brown / white / cream.

In short, the British do very well and elegantly at a bargain.

John Minehan

With Ireland, in general (Ulster and Eire) becoming less religious, I'd have to guess that issue creates **LESS** friction and Eire (even after 2008) is relatively more prosperous than England.

It seems like this could become an issue for Great Britain.

Of course, "breaking up is hard to do" as the Scots Referendum proved in '14. Lots of small problems to solve, so easier to stay.

John Minehan

"But I must protest one misconception in particular. The Brexit conflict in the UK is now routinely portrayed by those who wish to remain in the EU as a choice between being dominated by the US or being dominated by the EU."

I disagree.

The choice is more between being an integral part of the EU or being increasingly irrelevant.

The US has problems of its own.

Barbara Ann

Excellent comment EO, I thoroughly agree. Much of the antipathy towards BJ appears to be motivated by good old fashioned class prejudice, same with the fox hunting ban which IIRC was imposed by metropolitan culture-hating 'liberals' under Bliar. I hope Boris brings the sport back, it is a good deal more healthy than hunting Deplorables.



i was speaking of the ENTIRE monarchical establishment, all of it, not just the queen whom I think is a charming public spirited old lady.

John Minehan

This can't be worse than Cromwell and the Rump Parliament (I hope).

John Minehan

I wonder if the British Monarchy is not much like the Anglican Communion, which tends to emphasize the worship service over Scripture or Theology?


You seem to have significant loyalty to our nation state which I do not. I care little if the laws that govern my life are drafted by someone in London or Madrid what I do care about is the laws. My fealty is to family, friends and others who share my views and aims for the world it has very little to do with where they were born or what kind of passport they hold. Far to much power lies at the nation state level and not enough is devolved up to international organisations or down to more local states or regions. The Westphalian state model is a fairly recent european invention exported by the colonial powers. I am not conviced it is correct for everyone or that it will, or should, survive indefinately.

English Outsider

Well, I follow what's happening in the English political bubble more closely than usual just now, because of Brexit, and I can assure you that the anti-American argument is very frequently deployed by the remainers, almost always by the Progs. We have to be subject to the EU or to the US, they say, so stay close to Mutti Europe in case that awful Uncle Sam gets you.

Total nonsense, as I have attempted to explain above.

You a remainer yourself, by any chance? If so, welcome, foe. But let's not scrap on the Colonel's site. They do big politics here.

English Outsider

Spot on. Time to get it done.


The monarchy in the UK is an excellent "sea anchor". A force for conservatism, because the constitutional system is still built around the monarchy. If you take it away a lot of the glue holding the country together will be gone. Right now Parliament is sovereign. It took a civil war and the death of a monarch to establish that. But if the Queen is gone is Parliament still sovereign?

In terms of cost, its small. Gains from incremental tourism are probably larger. I would guess total cost is about 1bn, but more than compensated by tourism. Besides, the buildings would still be maintained or they would be lost.

Most Brits are not that far from murdering each other. The Queen is one of the institutions stopping that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad