This author thinks that the Brexit trade deal does in fact restore British sovereignty. But he points out a rather insulting provision that the European Union put in to jab Britain. I think this might be a useful tool for Britain against the EU.
While the deal has provisions that appear to let the EU hang on to influence over British law, in practice the provisions are toothless.
There are sections [Law Other 137, for example] involving ultimately pointless chest beating over the ECHR, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Pointless because these clauses will never be violated: neither the EU or UK are rogue states. We are friends, allies and equivalent partners trying to uphold democracy. The pantomime suggestions the UK would go rogue were, unhelpful, at best.
If the EU people put this in to jab Britain by implying Britain could be a rogue threat to the peace and happiness that the EU is supposedly building, it might be a double-edged sword that can be used when the proto-imperial EU sheds that prefix and goes rogue.
And I think it is more likely than not:
Europe without American help has the economic, demographic, and scientific base to keep a weakened Russia out of Europe. But if left on its own, Europe's long history of autocracy will return and risk a Europe that again poses a threat to America.
The unofficial reason for NATO after World War II was to "keep American in (Europe--unlike after World War I), keep the Russians (Soviets) out (of Western Europe, after the Soviets advance to the Elbe River), and keep Germany down (after starting two world wars)."
The modern purpose of NATO is to keep America in Europe, keep Russia out, and keep European autocratic impulses down. The third reason is a real threat that is easy to forget in the post-World War II time frame that we remember as the normal state of European affairs. And the first reason is the means to achieve the third.
We forget the role that America played in creating the free and democratic Europe that we wrongly assume is the natural state of now-free Europe[.]
That post is a reminder--one that I needed when I first ran across another author who mentioned it, and I said to myself in a blinding flash of the bloody obvious that I hadn't really thought about, "Well duh"--that the modern democratic Europe was built by America's presence in NATO after World War II and the expansion after winning the Cold War. Prior to 1945, Europe was not the beacon of democratic freedom without that ugly "American" military might thinking that the Europeans claim to be today.
So Britain, which does have a long history of democracy and freedom, is not a potential rogue state.
But the EU, with its host of member states with rather thin resumes' of real democracy, is not the bastion of rogue-free governance that it annoyingly claims to be.
I think that the EU actively seeks to become a multi-ethnic empire through a gradual accumulation of power that ultimately suppresses those ugly nationalists who the EU elite believes were the cause of the many wars in European history.
Without NATO and America, rule of law will slip away in Europe as brute force is increasingly used on the people of Europe to keep them in line; and the EU will shift to open hostility to America.
America needs to remain involved in NATO while keeping NATO strong as an institution to prevent Europe from being controlled by a hostile government that can mobilize its still vast demographic, scientific, and economic potential to be a real military threat.
