Blog Featured

Brexit and the US-UK Defence Relationship

professor gwythian prins
Written by Gwythian Prins

As constant readers of Briefings for Brexit will know, since the website opened I have written above all on the two issues where I have professional competence. The first issue is about the deeper cultural, sociological and historical evidence and reasons which suggest that the project of European federation is now within the zone of risk of its own imminent collapse. As the EU stares down the barrel of the next Euro crisis. On the unrolling facts we may see the dynamic which I first spelled out in these pages in April 2018 moving inexorably onwards. The second is about the detailed evidence, as it has accumulated since autumn 2016, which shows that – incredibly – a betrayal of the sovereign integrity of Britain’s defence, intelligence and security assets is actually at the heart of the inducements that the May Cell has been offering the EU. Its motives are of course largely (but not entirely) a matter of speculation. Increasingly I believe those motives to have been dark and darkening.

This analysis deploys both public data and, through the now infamous ‘Kit Kat Tapes’, secret tape recordings of an official close to Mrs May boasting of intentions to hoodwink the Leave voting majority while surreptitiously shackling our country as a powerless rule-taker under the EU Defence Union. These ambitions became patent in an obscure Technical Note of 24 May 2018 which I highlighted and described as an administrative coup d’état. More shockingly confirmatory material continues to come to light, which I will be revealing in due course.

I have also described the other side of the coin: the sudden acceleration of the EU drive to create this Defence Union. I have explained in detail the still insufficiently well-understood dynamics built into this tightly meshed enterprise where everything is linked to everything else and where partnership is not on offer: only subordination. The May Government said that it could pick and choose. It could not and its successor cannot either. The strategic effect of the EU Defence Union, if successful, would be to fracture NATO, to compromise and seize control of British capabilities and to sunder our relationships with the ‘Five Eyes’ anglosphere intelligence alliance (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA and ourselves) which is the foundation of what keeps the free world free. Starting with our joint work on the GALILEO satellite system, some of this research I conducted and published jointly with Sir Richard Dearlove, former Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service.

More recently he and I joined forces with Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie, a celebrated former Chief of the Defence Staff, to write and publish a safe and protective Defence Treaty for a once again fully sovereign post-brexit Britain and the EU, instead of the instruments of colonial subjugation which the May Cell proposed through the toxic and cleverly obscure Withdrawal Agreement Bill, Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration. Other frequent Briefings for Brexit authors, notably the heroic anonymous civil servant writing under the nom de guerre “Caroline Bell” and Martin Howe QC of Lawyers for Britain, have anatomised these poisonous documents. Like them all, I believe that before it is too late it is of the highest importance that the public and the candidates for the Prime Ministership absorb these analyses and kill stone dead, with a stake through its heart, the worst treaty ever negotiated by a British Prime Minister so that we may leave the EU cleanly (i.e. on WTO terms) at Halloween.

For our pains, Sir Richard and Lord Guthrie were carpeted by Number Ten and, horrifying as it is to find errors of such basic understanding at the heart of Government, we relished the opportunity to demolish the factual inaccuracies of that ugly and clumsy attempt at discrediting both individuals and arguments.

This fierce acceleration of the EU Defence Union is, in my view, closely related to the dynamics of collapse. Given its unstoppable haemorrhage of legitimacy, the reflex response of the Brussels nomenklatura has been to run faster towards the unchanging goal of full federation. The same reflex can be expected after the recent European Parliament elections.

The results of those elections are paradoxical. The apparent winners – eurosceptic parties – are actually losers; the apparent losers – the now broken duopoly of the EPP and S&D centre left/right – are winners. This is because Verhofstadt’s uber-federalist ‘Liberals’, seconded by the enlarged bloc of 70 madly virtue-signalling Greens and in alignment with President Macron in a hurry before his star fades further, are in a position to push the ‘hard’ federalist ambition, especially if a way can be found to sling the Brits out before the Brexit Party can take their seats as the largest single national party in the Parliament, from where they can expertly wreak faragean mayhem on the federalist dreams. ‘One last push’ is always an attractive strategy to dying organisations.

Last autumn one of our generous sponsors enabled me to visit Washington DC to brief the main findings of our research on the national security betrayals to our allies. I did this both for ‘think-tankers’ and for Staffers on both sides of Capitol Hill.  Since that initial ringing of this fire-bell in the night, important friends have become exceedingly ‘woke’ (in the traditional, not in the fashionable, sense of being awake) to the potential threats to US national security residing in the May Cell’s conduct and plans.

Earlier this month, I had the privilege of returning once more to a Washington platform, to an even wider audience, and took the opportunity to present a lecture synthesising the main points of my own and collaborative research on Brexit and security over the past eighteen months. It was also televised on the Heritage Foundation website, went ‘viral’ and can be found at https://www.heritage.org/europe/event/brexit-and-the-us-uk-defense-relationship.

The main points of that lecture are summarised in the following bullet points:

  • The ‘May Cell’ (whose members are named), which runs Mrs May’s Europe strategy, is shown to have betrayed British National Security and to have deliberately put our key security alliances with the Five Eyes in peril as a central part of its ‘Hotel California’ Brexit In Name Only strategy.
  • The evidence for this (which is given in detail) is of two sorts: an inter-locking sequence of complex and obscure British Government and European Commission documents starting in November 2016 whose chronology is set out here for the first time and a 15 March 2018 secret tape-recording of British officials revealing their plans to hoodwink the British public (the ‘Kit Kat’ tapes). The official responsible has not been sacked by the Cabinet Secretary.
  • The key document which reversed both May’s stated policy not to participate in the fast-accelerating Defence EU and a fifty-year British strategic goal to frustrate any military or security EU, was a Technical Note of 24 May 2018. It was in effect an administrative coup d’état. The May Cell’s conduct is a constitutional outrage, notably that of Alan Duncan at a European Council on 19 November 2018.
  • The May Cell has declared an intention to lock the UK by international treaty into a colonial role as a rule-taker from the EU Global Strategy immediately after Leaving Day. This has to be stopped now.
  • Together with Sir Richard Dearlove (former Chief SIS) and Field Marshal the Lord Guthrie (former CDS), I have published a safe post-brexit Draft Defence Treaty that will protect British vital national security interests which ought to be immediately substituted for the May Cell’s planned Treaty.
  • In unprecedented manner, Number Ten has energetically but unsuccessfully attempted to refute its critics, notably Sir Richard, Lord Guthrie and Major-General Julian Thompson RM (of the Falklands liberation).

The speaking script, as I delivered it, we now publish in the ‘reports‘ section of Briefings for Brexit, to give readers who might enjoy the sense of immediacy than such a script gives, the sense of having been there.

 

We  continue by all means to ensure that these facts and these analyses are placed before and absorbed by our legislators and Ministers. But readers may feel some reassurance from knowing that they are very much ‘woke’ in minds that matter across the Atlantic.

About the author

Gwythian Prins