The Atlantic Commonwealth

While recognising and celebrating the greatness of European civilisation, rejection of the wholly artificial construct that is the EU is incumbent upon any British standard-bearer for Europe. It represents nothing more than the triumph of one particular group of usurers over another, when the end of them all must be the goal.

Furthermore, Britain’s best expression of its civilisational character is to recognise itself as it is, the ultimate expression of maritime Europe. Britain has historically looked out to the sea but has allowed itself to be distracted from this destiny to the advantage of other powers. The Empire was an expression of this essential character, yet imperfect in that it was based on racism, thus it contained within it the seed of its own destruction. The Commonwealth held such promise, but was allowed to descend into nothing more than a rather pointless exercise as the burden of usurious debt resulting from the world wars meant Britain had to abandon its independence.

So what is left to be salvaged from all this? Australia and New Zealand have moved on and are economically part of the Far East now, Canada heavily tied to the United States. Cameron’s recent visit to India plainly revealed immense lack of interest by India, sure they would invest, but with no special treatment or preference involved. But the essential economic truth is that for Britain to be independent there must be a return to manufacturing in this country, perhaps not exactly the old industries, but manufacturing none the less, and for this a source of raw materials is needed. Both this fact and our maritime destiny dictate we rebuild our relationship with Africa. Not an imperial relationship this time, but one of partnership, a re-engagement. So Anglophone Africa with Britain, Gibraltar, the South Atlantic dependencies including the Falklands and perhaps even those Caribbean states that would still wish to join in with what might be termed the “Atlantic Commonwealth”, tied neither to Nato nor the EU. It may even help were the HQ to be sited in Gibraltar, the last outpost of Europe before the start of Africa.

I have referred to “partnership” with Africa, but what would this mean in practice? British companies exploiting resources in Africa and paying off client elites in order to rape the natural wealth is what can be witnessed to often on that continent, this is most definitely not partnership. Oswald Mosley supported the “British Socialist “ idea for the economy, where private enterprise was combined with Syndicalism, this most certainly meant worker part-ownership. A good proportion of the profits would have to go to those that laboured in the organisation; this could only come about if the essential functions of national finance were directed by the state. So extending this concept to British/African economic partnership, the African arm of any company operating there would have to be part-owned by African workers, and a good proportion of its African generated profits would go to them.

The Chinese know a good thing when they see it; they are piling into Africa, as is the USA. Yet we are willing to abandon all the bonds that have been build up, at times painfully, over the centuries. Africa deserves better than underdevelopment, Britain deserves more than the EU.


Dale Saxby