BREXIT: History is made. Reflections on the UK referendum

By Inna Rogathci, Rogatchi.org—

~ The beauty of history is that it is alive, that it is made, conceived, tailored and carried on by human beings for human beings, and thus precisely it has room for human error resulting in something new, unpredictable, and inexperienced before. In a historical process, sometimes, these errors lead to terrible slips, and sometimes, to an enlightening novelty and fresh beginnings.
~ In my life-time, there had been three events of a fundamental meaningfulness and a tectonic character of the changes it implied: the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, and Brexit.
~ To me, Brexit did undoubtedly come as an amazing victory of human spirit; distinctively British recipe that includes generous portions of such ingredients as common sense, guts and independence. But the way to freedom would not be easy. It never is.

“When You Raise Up” – Brexit: the Torah Connection
When the world woke up on Friday, June 24th, to hear the results of the UK referendum on the country’s possible leaving the European Union, it turned to be another world due to the boldness, character and will of the British people, 17.4 million of which has decided to leave the artificial bondage and to become its own selves again, after 43 years of being its member. Forty three years is not four hundred, the time of the Jewish slavery, but it is the time of two generations, and thus is quite palpable in a person’s and society’s life.

On the same Friday, June 24th, 2016, the observing Jewish world was reading the Parashat (the Torah portion) Beha’alosha, translated as “When You Raise Up”. It is one of the Torah’s parts of a supreme importance – because of the fact that it narrates the beginning of the Jewish people’s move towards their Promised Land; the very decisiveness of the people who opted for freedom, to start to make their movement on the designated route and with conscious understanding on what they are doing, why, and what for. “They journeyed for the first time at the bidding of Hashem through Moses” (Numbers 10:13).

It is also the chapter of Torah in which the one of the most recognizable symbols of mankind appears for the first time: “Make for yourself two silver trumpets” ( Numbers 10:2), with full instruction on how and what for to use the Silver Trumpets of our victories, daily life, and the cases of emergency.

Remarkably, the narrative of Parashat Beha’aloscha is also telling on the people’s complains practically immediately after they have started their journey to freedom. The people were crying out : “Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we would eat in Egypt free of charge; the cucumbers, and the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now, our life is parched, there is nothing; we have nothing before our eyes but the manna!” ( Numbers, 11:3-6). Does it not sound astonishingly familiar in the light of the UK referendum and those who were and still are complaining there?

At this stage, we are seeing Moses being in despair with his people and asking the Creator emotionally on how he alone should govern this complaining mass? The recipe from the Upstairs comes immediately, and it is perfectly practical: Creator commands Moses to chose the cleverest seventy people from over six hundred thousand marching under the presence of his Cloud, for them to become the Elders of Israel, for Creator to increase some of the spirit which He had infused into Moses and to spread it upon the seventy chosen Elders, to be able to govern the people and to achieve their goal, the life in freedom. This was the beginning of Sanhedrin, the first ever Council, the prototype of any further Parliament in the world.
And we know the Creator’s lesson to the complaining people dreaming on ‘free of charge fish’, don’t we?, – with descending peasants in such smashing quantity that greedy eating of it has made the majority of the complainers thoroughly nauseating and pheasant’s meat staying between people’s teeth for many days until the totally spread out feeling of complete repulsion. Well, exactly as it is happening in life, regularly, from the Day of Creation.

More, the Haftara ( post-Torah reading) for Parashat Beha’alocha was the excerpt from Zecharaih which deals with the prophet’s vision of the dramatic – and very meaningful both in Judaism and Christianity thanks to its very strong metaphor – episode of Joshua, the beloved pupil of Moses, found himself in a soiled garment. How could the leader of a nation proceed in his garment soiled? What to do? To remove the soiled garment from him, clearly, – “to remove your iniquity from upon you and had you clothed in fresh garment” ( Zechariah 3:4 ).

And the new leader of the people, dressed in a fresh garment and with fresh turban on his head, in the presence of the angel of Creator who was still standing during the whole process – of the changing the leadership and clothing it in a new garment – had been warned by the standing Angel of Creator very seriously and instructed by him powerfully “to walk in the ways of Creator”, to be firmly on the side of the Good, to safeguard the laws that has become the foundation of our civilisation. The Haftara that was read on Saturday, June 25th, in the aftermath of the referendum in the UK, also bears the one of the most famous and widely beloved quotes both in Judaism and Christianity: “Not through armies and not through might, but through My spirit”, says Hashem, Master of Legions” ( Zechariah 4:6).

This truly amazing coincidence, in fact, is not a coincidence at all. Torah and its wisdom does not based on coincidences, but on a miracles of spirit.

It is a known fact for the Torah scholars that very so often throughout the human history, certain Parashat and Haftarot are as if speaking about the current events. That is why the observant Jewish world is reading our Torah, the cornerstone of our existence, annually, in a given portions. During one’s life time, there are so many times when a Parashat and Haftara as if ‘commenting’ the events occurring in the world at that very moment.

Maybe, it is a hard thing to understand and to accept to many, but this is the standing fact, – as we could see so very graphically in the case of the historic British referendum in June 2016.

And in my reading, it is not only Heavenly commentary, so to say; but it is also an amazing sign of support, understanding and encouragement of the brave decision of the British people who did chose a very uneasy road to freedom.
Simple wisdom of Baroness Thatcher

Twenty years ago almost to the day of the British referendum on the country’s membership in the EU, late Baroness Thatcher has told me during the one of our long meetings at her impeccable office in Belgravia: “The independence of a country is defined by three things: its currency, its borders and its army”. Our conversation had a place soon after Sweden, Finland and Austria has become the EU’s newest members, and the EU Club has expanded from twelve states into fifteen. I remember vividly the euphoria in Finland about the country’s membership in the Western-‘proof’ club of nations, cheer on a possibility to escape the zone of the tough Soviet influence. The same was the case with Austria. And Sweden was happy to expand financially, commercially and politically on helpful pan-European path.

Mid-1990s was the time when everything moved in snow-balling motion: consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union, disappearance of the Warsaw Pact, speedy disintegration of Yugoslavia. The West was thoroughly enjoying sudden upper hand in that long and exhausting struggle against the Soviet empire and was hurry to build on in all possible strata – political, financial, military and cultural ones. It was a natural desire and a hasty exercise of it.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and a momentary crumble of the Kremlin global network, the West acted hurriedly: it were only four years before our conversation with Lady Thatcher in her bright office when the Maastricht Treaty has been signed laying the foundation of the Europe as we know it today. Or rather, as we knew it before June 23d, 2016, the day of the UK referendum. It was only three years since the United Europe was introduced to its fundamentally new reality with freedom of movement of goods, people, services and money. For those, who would not remember it I should remind that the change was truly fundamental and inspiring one in our all’ lives. Except for the law-enforcement agencies, in particular, their anti-organised crime’ services.

It was just a year and a half since the established club of the twelve key Western European states has been substantially enlarged with Finland, Sweden and Austria joining it. The decade before that, between 1986 and 1995, the EU kept firm, Western and established, with all its members, their economies and societies being mutually compatible. Finland, Sweden and Austria were welcomed and natural newcomers whose membership has cemented the Western characteristics of the club of the European nations.

By 1995, the political map of Europe, or rather articulated Western influence over Europe, has been gleaned up impressively. But with a slight surprise, I have noticed that the Iron Lady had been not all that joyful about the process; quite to the contrary. I was intrigued and wanted to know more on the reasons of her scepticism.

With her rarely compromising mind and her customarily sharp visioning, Margaret Thatcher seemed to have more concerns about the growth of the United Europe than cheers about seemed-to-be-so-obvious winning sides of it. I asked her on the underneath reasons of her reluctance to be ultimately jolly on the enlargement of European Union. “Well, Mrs Rogatchi, I do not believe in a delegated responsibility when it concerns the security of a state. I do not believe in a strength and capacity of an internationalized army. And I do not believe that any country should voluntarily give up its currency. That would be a madness which would lead to a complete mess as the core functions of a state would be paralyzed inevitably”. To me, it was simple wisdom based on the pretty clear principles.

But what we saw next, it was uncontrollable maniac-like EU enlargement in the immense snow-balling motto that already then, from mid 1990s onward made a distinctive impression of non-sense. Tempo did matter there: the new members were grabbed in with such speed that it has been physically impossible to make it thorough and right. Political considerations has become the only imperative, with economical and any other ones made up does not matter what.

By the end of XX century, the European Union quite obviously stopped to be the union of equal partners representing the might of Europe and has become not a Common but an Open Market Unlimited, literally. One can call it bazaar, too. The project Mighty & Sensible Europe has been transformed into the next edition of the Tower of Babel.

A year after our discussion with Baroness Thatcher in her office in London, the Amsterdam Treaty paved the way to a monstrous European bureaucracy, and ten more countries from Central Europe, Baltic and Mediterranean has joined once selective institution. The introduction of a joined currency and Schengen zone has followed quickly transforming the continent full of rich and various history, traditions and cultures into an amorphous conglomerate ruled by superior and completely artificial power machine. That was power-about-nothing, and it has happened in no time. Europe might be too old continent to sustain such fundamental change of purpose of the existence of its states. The worst nightmares of Margaret Thatcher came true.

If you would be talking to the law-enforcement officials around the time, you would note how terribly worried they had become on the unbelievable, unnecessary and completely unjustified ease and virtually unlimited possibilities for the international organised crime operating within borderless Schengen zone, and from there globally, too. And you might be quite amused to learn that the Mob had been in a possession of a perfectly genuine plate for the Euro banknotes printing in all its denomination substantially prior of the start of the official process by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. This is just one of quite few amusing details in that whirling carnival of self-deceptions that we have voluntarily imposed upon ourselves in the realities of European Union nowadays.

Such odd development has been questioned from within the EU, too, by some of its most decent members. I remember vividly how, prior to the next elections to the European Parliament in 2004, a close colleague from a Finnish delegation to the European Parliament was voicing his concerns on manageability of the enlarged Club of European Nations: “We, Finns, came in ( the EU) when it has become a fifteen members club. Everything worked quite well then, due to certain degree of unifying bottom: countries-wise, their economies, their geo-political development and positioning, their history and mentality of people, made it manageable to govern the EU as centralised, united institution. Seeing from within and working there, I and my colleagues, we can see the limits of that manageability, so to say. From a point of view of practical, daily work, I can tell you that in my view, the normal management and efficient creation and application of policies in united Europe is doable within the limits of current number, that’s fifteen member states. If absolutely necessary, it would be still possible, perhaps, with an absolute maximum of one-two more country member. For anything over seventeen countries, it should be created a different organisation. I honestly am telling you that I just cannot see how on the earth the European Parliament and the European Commission could be efficient, normally functioning institution if it would contain over 15-17 member states”.
It was in the beginning of 2004. In a few months, the EU has become a mega-block of 27 countries, and soon it was 28 of them, with few more quite real candidates still waiting to join currently, including, not the least, Turkey – on whose membership there has been quite characteristic recent statement of a newly elected Mayor of London Mr Khan: “Let Turkey join, EU should not be a Christian club”. Thank you for your guidance, Mr Khan.

Sincerity of Doubts and Orwellian exercises

Two days prior to the historical referendum in the United Kingdom, enjoying the sun in the summer garden, my husband and I were engaged in an absorbing discussion with a close friend, an experienced British diplomat, who spent the most of his professional career in the Mediterranean region. Having just less than 72 hours to make his mind finally, our friend was seemingly in torment.

He was testing his doubts on us. “Well, I am for Stay ( camp), but then, the closer the date of the referendum, the more questions are popping up in my mind. What’s your take on that?..”, – our friend asked us. We had our takes, of course, knowing the UK well, having so many close friends there, working with our colleagues in different fields there for several decades, and visiting the country frequently. But before responding to our friend, we asked him why he would like to ‘Stay’ in the EU. There were a few key points in his self-reasoning: “Firstly, as a barrister, I thought from the beginning that it was wrong for ( Prime Minister David) Cameron to call the referendum in the first place. The country is governed by its parliament and it should be up to the parliament to decide the one way or another. They are receiving their salaries for representing people; it is their job. Secondly, we ARE Europe!.. We had always been ( Europe), and we should stay so being a part of it. Thirdly, I am an owner of some shares, and yes, I am worried on what would happen to it in the case of Brexit. And fourthly, I am quite puzzled on ‘the morning after’; on how it all will be fulfilled and what will be happening if the country would need to leave the EU. Those are my main worries, to summarise it”, – rounded our friend. – “But now, what’s your takes?” – he insisted.

Answering to our seemingly tormented by concerns and indecisiveness friend we could identify with his first point on a parliament’s role and responsibility entrusted to their members by a country’s citizens. It is a subject of different analyses on why David Cameron has decided to call the referendum on the UK staying in the European Union and what had happened in the result. In theory, we saw the first point of our friend quite well. But the beauty of history is that it is alive, that it is made, conceived, tailored and carried on by human beings for human beings, and thus precisely it has a room for a human error resulting in something new, unpredictable, and inexperienced before. In a historical process, sometimes, these errors lead to terrible slips, and sometimes, to an enlightening novelty and fresh beginnings.

It is from that point of view and the perspective, I believe, the one of the kind historian of our times Andrew Roberts came to the conclusion that “Brexit is the more impressive achievement than the French Revolution”. I would not go that far as my distinguished colleague, but I can see his point clearly – Andrew Roberts is talking about the impact that a possibility of their personal saying has and will have on the British public and British society. This alone is an immense achievement, and those who know and can comprehend the real meaning of real freedom, both inside and outside the United Kingdom, should be forever grateful to David Cameron for this his very human mistake of a stumbled, for whatever reason, politician.

Talking on belonging to Europe, of course, we, the Europeans, do belong to it per definition, being enrooted in our traditions, culture, values, and understanding – or misunderstanding – of its history. The vast part of Europeans quite often is powerfully self-reminded about their belonging to Europe after a month of being outside it, would it be the USA, or Australia, or Japan. Our culture is imprinted in our genes, it is defines who we are and who we feel we are, too.

In the particular case of Britain, we are quite aware on the double-edged mental approach, often sub-conscious one, of many Brits with regard to their own placement on which part of the Channel their minds and hearts are preferred to find themselves. It always was and it will be the case, and the double-edgeness of that particular dimension marks a life perception of a British person who feels this way in a special, subtle way. This attractiveness and closeness, importantly, of so many things completely different to the British ones, institutes its own charm and produces its own taste of a wine of life, the taste of the aged liquor, with the qualities depending on the year, of course.

As far, as I am aware nobody yet managed to denounce the unique British mentality which is quite objective phenomenon originated from a simple geographical fact, let alone a pyramid of history and culture atop of it. It is so obvious that is simply intellectually dishonest to trash it away – as high masters of well-paid demagoguery, like Mr Blair and his allies, are eager to do on every looming financially promising opportunity.

To me, the thesis of ‘belonging to Europe’ tells more about ‘belonging’ than Europe or anything else in the matter of subject of belonging. There are people who are collectivists by their psychological inclinations, who tend to belong to something bigger and more protective, in their perception, would it be a collective of people, or a conglomerate of states. This collectiveness is assuring them, psychologically, in their hopes that the things will be taken care of and in their belief that there will be a higher degree of protection, universally, – guaranteed by the size, so to say.

I find it understandable, even if I personally belong to the other group. I admit the fact and the right of people to feel this way if only because I always was doubtful on a Don Quichotte as a concept – as I just neither cannot see the point, or the beauty in fighting wind-mills of all kinds, in denying the reality.

If the people who did vote to Stay did feel that their belonging to Europe would be jeopardised by leaving a quasi-bureaucratic institution, they could not be helped in this. And their opinion should be respected, there are over 16 million of them, a bit more than the population of Belgium and Ireland together. But the fact of the day is that yet more people of the United Kingdom felt and thought differently, more than 17,4 million which is an equivalent of the population of the entire Netherlands plus Iceland; and the prevailing difference was an equivalent of the population of entire country, of Estonia. Did not they deserve to be respected? And why not, if so?..

If only George Orwell would know that the flow of his thoughts would become a second nature for so many, I doubt seriously that he would ever penned his brilliant anti-utopias. Orwell was hard-learned humanist, and used the genre in its classic meaning, as a warning. It took some while to be turned into a practical tool, as we can see now, because the things which are witnessing with regard to the very arrogant and totally disgraceful efforts to overrun the results of the UK referendum remind nothing else but Orwell applied.

There was old and not that funny political joke in the Soviet Union when during the next staged elections Brezhnev, or whoever it would be on the top of that vicious geriatric clique, would pop up from the TV screens bashing his fist and screaming: “Vote again, you idiots! And you will vote again and again until you will vote correctly!” Is it any difference with that with the blatantly communistic, or whatever totalitarian effort to appeal for the second referendum? The same goes for quite desperate and utterly poor, but bottomlessly arrogant performance of Nicola Sturgeon, the chief combatant of one part of Scotland. Just one part of it, for the record.

* * *
Regarding the financial concerns expressed by our British friend, of course, we sympathise. But are we talking about Albanian sort and kind of economy here, or there is the fifth-sixth economy in the world, with very solid national reserves, the most vibrant in Europe, for this matter, international financial centre, the economy that fruitfully dealing and happily set up with all major Asian economies, and having quite substantial trade with all its partners over the Atlantic and Australia?
It is clear that first couple of years would be difficult for pound and British economy, but even the most gloomy analyses, if they are not shamelessly manipulative ones, never show indications for a possibility of a serious stagnation or economic catastrophe in the case of United Kingdom’s, with its existing own currency, departure from the Brussels docks. There are so many pluses in the economical independence of the country with the UK’s size and kind of the financial system and trade practices that it is easily makes a long and impressive listing of it. But the point I would like to bring to the discussion is not measured by zeroes or digits. Freedom never comes cheaply. Because it is the seal of dignity. And these kinds of seals are not for sale.
* * **
As for the final concern of our friend who did not know how to vote on the referendum’s eve yet– how it all will evolve in the case of the UK will depart from the European Union? – we could only ask in return: isn’t it much more logical and straightforward to be responsible for your own life, in all its dimensions, from educational to financial ones, by yourself, by the institutions of your own country, by the people whom you elected than let it be decided for you and on your behalf by complete strangers who neither care, nor know enough to make their judgements? This is not even starting to count too long list of misjudgements we are ordered to implement because of the EU surreal decision-making, from the disaster in immigration policy to the completely ruined industries in the individual countries, would it be milk farmers in Finland, meat producers in Czech Republic, or fishermen in the UK?.. It all is a painful truth, and not even the beginning of it.

Uniqueness Versus Amorphous Mediocrity

Discussing with our friend, we told him on how do we feel about Europe and belonging to it, and what are our concerns with regard to its reshape and transformation. Being brought up in rich and versatile culture known to the world as Europe, a person just cannot help itself but to feel European. It goes without saying, it is who we are. On the way of our maturing, we were privileged to learn the world of voluminous, long, rich, dramatic, full of human efforts history; we were breed by all different cultures in its original languages; we were intrigued to see many of so genuinely different countries which are laying geographically on one continent, – but this geographical position absolutely does not prescribe them all to become amalgamated. It is a sheer trivia to repeat the thesis that people never learn – we never are, indeed; – and another one on a chaos, uselessness, and catastrophe, in the end of the social experiment of the Tower of Babel.
Anyone who ever took over ten minutes to examine the Brueugel the Elder’s Tower of Babel painting would see that the main message coming from the great work of the great artist signals us: Mission Impossible. The disturbance of a gigantism of never finishing but always growing super-Colosseum (on which Bruegel is known to model his vision of the Tower of Babel) emanates from the classical art work.

And yet we never learn. Three hundred and sixty years after the Bruegel the Elder’s showing us the core of the problem of a Tower of Babel concept, in 1928 brilliant and exceptionally sharply minded Maurits Cornelis Escher created his vision of the myth which happened to be so poisonously attractive to human societies. The Escher’s Tower of Babel is very close to that one in Brussels, multiplied in many of those soulless buildings serving the longest-standing utopia of mankind. As beautiful as a picture etched by Master Escher, in its form and message the Tower is cold, abstract, forcibly powerful and too sharp to be a comfortable and accommodating place. It also is never completed, of course, and the people placed on its top by Escher are so very small and absolutely unimportant. It is a very accurate picture of Brussels Tower of Babel today, unfortunately.

“ Do you think that us, our children and grandchildren were and will be born for cladding bricks on the orders of group of bureaucrats in Brussels fulfilling their persistent plans to go on indefinitely in building that phantasmagorical construction?.. We think that life is a gift for something far better and far more sensible”, – we said to our friend who did not argue, actually.
He was very perceptive to all our points: on openly explosive situation with security within the European Union today; on a criminally blind policy of opening the borders not to immigrants, but to so many known terrorists in their midst; of jeopardising each and every country-member’ of the European Union stability by flashy, giant influx of people from totally

different culture, traditions, behaviour and values invading Europe in a viciously orchestrated flood of arrogance, violence and completely ungrounded demand. As an experienced practising diplomat, our friend knows the real situation, the real figures, the real statistics, and the real agenda of many parties involved, too. He was just nodding approvingly, as we were voicing our concerns to him.

“ And it the end, my dear friend, I simply am not prepared to flush the Italian history, the French literature, the Spanish music and many other things of the distinct national character into the Brussels toilet because a bunch of over-ambitious mediocres with a funny profession of a politician and completely self-centred bureaucrats are eager to flush it down. As a matter of fact, I am not prepared to give up any of histories of any European country, the same as none of an individual European countries’ culture and traditions, because I see it as a richness of this life and this world; and to me, they are valuable and meaningful in the way they had been a couple of millennia. It is a simple and obvious choice for me. But I can see the problem looming for the young generation here. As they grew up simply having this amorphous nothingness as their normal environment, they do not know the flavour of real thing, of a thing authentic. And I do feel sorry for them”.
Our friend was thoughtful and not very talkative the rest of the sunny afternoon in our summer garden. In some while, shortly before his departure to catch the train on the way back home, to London, he said with a disarming smile: “There are so many things to ponder yet. Well, who knows, maybe, by coming home in a couple of days, I’ll vote for Leave”.

The Brexit and the Wall

I feel truly privileged to live in the period of history when one could be a first-hand witness of the events of a real historical importance. This privilege fills one’s life not just with a feeling of a bystander’s curiosity, but, much more importantly, it fills it with appreciation of a real-time’ meaningfulness. In my lifetime, there were three such events, so far: the Fall of the Berlin Wall; 9/11; and Brexit.

Putting the tragic 9/11th aside as a subject for this essay, I do feel the Fall of the Wall in Berlin back in November 1989 and Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom 27 years later, in June 2016, as quite compatible events of the world’s modern history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall meant freedom, mentally, and in that case, literally, too, for the millions of the citizens of the Warsaw Pact member countries, plus, soon, for the 245 million people living in the USSR. It was a giant achievement. One needs the experience of living in that cage to appreciate the meaning of that historic breakthrough.

Twenty seven years later, in a time of a generation, we are witnessing another breakthrough to freedom, this time by the Westerners who have got enough of the EU dictate in the sake of dictate, and a bit of power, of course. In the case of Brexit, we have got distinctively British recipe for the remarkable achievement of a free spirit. It includes generous portions of such ingredients as common sense, guts and independence.

I find the result of the UK referendum remarkable because it has been achieved against all odds: the mighty machinery of the EU, the orchestrated and paid for – by the tax-payers money – heavy campaign of its own government, the organised lament of both domestic and international financial institutions. This is not to mention Obama and his Administration’s snobbish orders, the factor which turned to be so overwhelmingly self-revealing – ‘to listen to Obama and to do to the contrary’ – that it could become a good material for ‘Yes, Prime Minister!’ sequel unless we are talking about acting president of the United States.

Impeccable Andrew Roberts summarised it customarily undeniably: “Almost every single agency of the international Establishment was deployed to thwart them – the CBI, IMF, Bank of England, OECD, big business, Goldman Sachs, all but one party leader, the World Bank, Presidents Obama, Hollande and Abe, the EU Commission, two-thirds of the cabinet, the Treasury, The Guardian, Davos, The Times, and so on – yet over 17.4 million people told them precisely what they could do with their expert opinion”.

The paradoxes are the salt of history, and in the case of Brexit, we are observing it in a full splendour.

For any consistent historian it is obvious that the trigger of any development of the European Union from the very first days of the conceiving the idea of the Inter-Western-European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 that has been transformed into the Common Market sealed by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, until this very day, has been always prompted by the development behind the Iron Curtain, and nowadays, by the policies of the current Russian leadership.

First the Western Europe, and later on, the same players with a very substantial addition of the part of Europe freed from the Soviet dictatorship were acting in their unstoppable building of the European Tower of Babel being prompted by the policies and agenda of the Kremlin, both then and now. It all is quite understandable, and such is the logic of the historic process we are living through; but it will be also only healthy to see – and to realise – that a substantial copy-cat’ phenomena has occurred in what supposed to be the opposition to the idea and the essence of the communist dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Far too many of the Brussels regulations, ideas behind it, and the ways of its implementation are stunningly similar to the system of the Soviet management, known also as a dictate. Of course, there is no Gulag in the EU, and the comparison does not mean equalisation. But today, the power of the central body of the European Union prevails over 508 million people, twice as much as it used to be in harshly centralised Soviet Union. The size of that power is frightening, honestly. And it often feels as quite unnecessary, too.

The conscious choice of the people of the United Kingdom ‘between freedom and serfdom’, quoting Melanie Phillips on that, made on June 23d, 2016, evoked in me the similar feeling of flying towards freedom as it has been done by the crumbles of the Berlin Wall twenty seven years before.

All Lost United

Many of our friends who are viewing the Brexit in the same way have become euphoric after the referendum: “Londonistan lost. England won”, – noted Daniel Greenfield. But it seems, as there quite a battle is laying ahead for the people of the United Kingdom who are seeking Brexit following the referendum’s result.

For Londonistan to lose, eventually, it would need a synchronised effort, given many factors evolving a post-reaction to Brexit: frantic trouble-making attempts by the new London Mayor, including an exotic idea of eviction the capital of the United Kingdom from the country and swearing its loyalty to the EU.

Notably, it is the same Mayor Khan who has famously made a Freudian slip the morning after the referendum saying: “in my city, visitors are still very welcome…” Oh really, your city, Said Khan?.. Although, giant Allah is Great! – Sukhan Allah! boards of the advertising campaign all over buses in London in support of Islamic Relief in May 2016, just prior to the referendum, with aborted similar campaign in support of Christian relief organisation at the same time, gives you some food for thought, does it not?..

There is quasi-aggressive quite substantial part of the Labour party responsible for bringing to power their current leader, the open anti-Semite and devoted active supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, and seriously large completely pro-Corbyn grass-root Labour movement, vile and ignorant, happily so.

We have also a pleasure to observe cheating and arrogant current Scottish leadership whose activities do have a pretty clear definition in legal terms. Not accidentally, the first person whom Nicola Sturgeon contacted the morning after the referendum was, according to her own statement, the Mayor of London Said Khan, her best ally in the United Kingdom, tellingly. They have agreed on joined actions, we were informed by the First Minister of Scotland. Previously, in the history of United Kingdom such activities quickly prompted a free accommodation in the London Tower, according to the state law.
Additionally to those self-proclaimed separatists, there are some voices heard now, advocating for starting the mess with making new united Ireland from the UK Northern Ireland and the existing Ireland, and we all know what it could lead to.
Not exactly helpfully, there is a swarming army of lazy & sleazy EU-style’ bureaucrats gathered around Mess Blair and Mandelson who are demonstrating just amazing sustainability in supremely egoistic style of public governing and their recipes for that, customarily extremely costly for public, states and institutions, but did these stars of sleaze ever care?..
Additionally to unhappy with the referendum results politicians, there also enough of greedy bankers and those in business for whom money is everything ( fortunately, though, there is some healthy representation from that quarters to be found, as well).

There is a generation of young people who did not know their country any different from being under the EU shadow, for whom it is just a natural thing to be, but a horizon of an independent UK is frightening terra incognita.

All those parties who lost the referendum are moving closer each to other. Proved to be quite poor losers individually, they opted to join the forces in arrogant and openly hostile attack in effort to block Brexit by any mean. As so many times in history, the way of losing has become an unmistaken litmus test on a fundamental characteristic of human beings and their society, decency. In the case of the UK referendum, this test’s results are very graphic, indeed.

Atop of all that, the country which has voted to leave the conglomerate of supposedly freely joined union of states, now is facing unprecedented unleash of the EU and the European leadership’s fury. They are quite determined on two main things: to punish the UK exemplary, as a warning to any future dissident state member; and to introduce a new model of the European Union which will make any future Brexit impossible. Lucky United Kingdom, one cannot help to think, and very poor those in the EU who might become unwilling prisoners of the dangerously leaned European Tower of Babel.
To me, Brexit did undoubtedly come as an amazing victory of human spirit, but the way to freedom would not be easy. It never is.

June 2016
(C) Inna Rogachi
Dr Inna Rogatchi is the author, scholar, film-maker and political analyst. She is the author of the internationally acclaimed The Lessons of Survival film – http://www.rogatchifilms.org/lessons-of-survival/. Among her forthcoming books is The Human Connection: Twelve Portraits on the Ruins of the Wall (C). More information at Rogatchi Films – www.rogatchifilms.org, and The Rogatchi Foundation – www.rogatchi.org