Author: Sheng Tang rushong source wechat official account: the chief shopkeeper’s knife has been reprinted with authorization
The resignation of British Prime Minister Johnson surprised us a little. On the occasion of the tense war between Russia and Ukraine, as the number one thug of the United States and the tough pioneer of Europe against Russia, why did Johnson resign?
There are a variety of reasons given by the public, such as cronyism. When appointing Chris pincher, the Deputy whip of the ruling party, he knew that this guy was an old gay goat. He had harassed young men in public and was reported by the media, but he still pretended to be confused and appointed this guy to become his important cabinet member. Another example is the party held during the national funeral, which is the main reason why Johnson was criticized. Let’s talk about it later. Another example is the current plight of people in Britain, and after he took office, he made no other domestic political achievements except for brexit…..
In a word, there are thousands of reasons, and there is only one result, that is, Johnson is going to go. At present, because the new leader of the Conservative Party has not been elected, Johnson is still the boss in the cabinet. It was just that the tea was cold before the people left. Among several candidates for prime minister, everyone said that Johnson would not be allowed to appear in his cabinet. In other words, Johnson is unlikely to appear on the British political stage in the next year or two.
Johnson’s resignation was not voluntary, but forced, because the resignation of his health minister and finance minister on the same day was a very obvious signal for him, that is, if he didn’t get rid of it, eventually all his cabinet members had to get rid of it. At that time, people who were alone were expelled from office. Naturally, it is not as good as resigning voluntarily now to leave a trace of face.
However, it is surprising that the British Parliament has twice voted no confidence [equivalent to impeachment] on Johnson’s party door incident before, and Johnson was involved in both cases, which is also the reason why Johnson is full of confidence. So the question is, why can Johnson get most of the party’s support in the no confidence vote, but he can’t resist the pressure from cabinet members to resign? On the surface, this is just a party struggle, and if we analyze it in depth, it may be related to a new direction choice of British diplomacy and internal affairs.
As we all know, the two previous no confidence votes against Johnson were both because Johnson held a reception during the national funeral. In doing so, Johnson obviously did not pay attention to the royal family. We can also believe that the Johnson government and the royal family are not harmonious in the internal political structure of Britain. However, the royal family’s status in Britain is not a vase role. When the Scottish referendum was held, Cameron was so anxious that she had to go to Scotland in person to win a lot of votes for the subsequent voting results. Later, the brexit vote was the same. Although the royal family would not directly interfere with the British government’s policies, the Queen’s attitude could very well influence the choice of British voters. Compared with Elizabeth who experienced World War II, Johnson is just a young man. His disrespect for her old man will naturally look good on you.
The two no confidence votes for Johnson should be a kind of punishment for Johnson by the royal family. However, because Johnson is too close to the United States and pro american elements in Britain exist in large numbers, it is obviously not easy to pull Johnson down by conventional means. Therefore, if routine fails, unconventional measures should be taken. That is to look for opportunities in the Johnson cabinet and turn his cabinet into an empty kiln. Johnson did not have his own cabinet team, and if he stayed any longer, he might be burned as firewood. Naturally, he knew what to do, that was to resign. It can be said that Johnson’s resignation is essentially a struggle for political choice in Britain. One is the pro american faction led by Johnson, and the other is the independent faction led by the royal family. [general division, the content must be more complex] and there are many people in these two factions, whether conservative party or labor party, and they cannot be simply divided by Party.
The outbreak of the war between Russia and Ukraine is undoubtedly a powerful medicine to catalyze the political changes in Britain. For the benefit of Americans, it is not worth the loss for many British people to make Britain the first target of Russia in Europe. The original intention of brexit is to play a more autonomous role in a multipolar world, rather than becoming an outright follower of the United States. If the alliance between the United States, Britain, Australia and Crewe is still a means for Britain to seek world hegemony, then in terms of sanctions against Russia, Britain has its own interests to consider. The Johnson government ignored Britain’s own interests and blindly insisted on being tough with Russia, which is not entirely in line with Britain’s own interests. Therefore, the resignation of Johnson means that Britain may have some changes in its attitude towards Russia.
Germany also has this anxiety. German Chancellor Scholz said yesterday that in order for Europe to have its own role in global strategy, the EU must modify the one vote veto clause. In other words, if Scholz’s words are finally fulfilled, the major EU countries will have more say in the future. This is what Merkel dreamed of but couldn’t.
Scholz’s words seem to be for countries like Hungary, because Hungary has used its veto power to obstruct the realization of EU policies on several rounds of EU sanctions against Russia. Although Hungary reluctantly failed to stop the EU sanctions against Russia in the end, such sanctions were also modified beyond recognition under the obstruction of Hungary and other countries. Therefore, Scholz’s remarks seem to be supported by the United States.
But don’t worry, if Germany, France and other EU leading countries finally get this power, they can also do something about the motion against Poland, Lithuania and other countries, that is, in terms of the strong policy towards Russia, Poland and other countries can’t use the advantage of one vote veto to coerce other EU countries, which is a double-edged sword. Once it is handed over to Germany, France and other countries, it is really hard to say whether it is good or bad for the strong position of the United States in Europe.
However, at the beginning, a leader as strong as Merkel couldn’t get this double-edged sword, and it’s hard for Scholz to get it now. First of all, the United States will not trust this nonsense. Second, although Poland and Hungary stand in different positions, one vote veto is a sharp weapon in their hands. I’m afraid they will be unwilling to hand it over. Moreover, the abolition of the one vote veto must be approved by all EU countries. The cancellation of one vote veto ultimately requires the adoption of the high threshold of one vote veto. In fact, I am not optimistic about whether it can be achieved in the end. Scholtz just wanted to take advantage of the Russian Ukrainian war to fish in troubled waters, but this fish is slippery. Scholtz and macron alone may not be able to catch it.
In any case, through Scholz’s fishing in troubled waters, we can still see the desire of Europe to have independent status. This is also a position adjustment of Europe itself under the impact of the Russian Ukrainian war. Europe today is actually very dangerous. The lack of energy leads to the imbalance of its basic industries, which will not stop because of the weakness of European countries and wait for Europe to adjust itself and move forward again. But because of this industrial imbalance, many industries will be transferred out of Europe. Undoubtedly, the direction of the transfer can only be China and the United States. Other regions may be able to undertake the transfer of some European industries, but based on their own capabilities, the main industries and structures can only be taken over by China and the United States. Once this takeover is established, it will be extremely difficult for Europe to transfer these industries back.
Therefore, in some ways, it is not only the United States that has been reaped in Europe this time, but also the world outside Europe, especially China, which is improving its own industrial system. European leaders such as Scholz will not fail to see this, so they are very anxious, so they need to make greater efforts on European autonomy. Only by ending the war between Russia and Ukraine as soon as possible, or defeating Russia as soon as possible, can Europe stop this kind of industrial loss. Therefore, Europe needs greater autonomy.
Of course, we can’t expect European industries to automatically flow into China, but because we have such carrying capacity and substitution capacity. When Europe is overwhelmed by the Russian Ukrainian war, we can continue to develop because of our own advantages, and naturally we will attract or independently develop those European industries that are stagnant to settle in China. Therefore, the United States launched the Russian Ukrainian war in the end who is cheaper, I am afraid the Americans themselves are difficult to control.
The far-reaching significance of the Russia Ukraine war is that it accelerated the loss of European industries. In the short term, the United States will be full of oil because of this loss. However, in the long run, the United States can absorb European capital, but it has no strong competitiveness in undertaking European industries. In the end, this undertaking will only give Asia a relatively strong development opportunity. For a long time, economic experts all over the world have said that East Asia and Southeast Asia will become the new economic engine of the world, and the war between Russia and Ukraine has added an accelerating impetus to this new engine. This matter has become an inevitable trend that cannot be changed. In view of this, Scholz and other talents are so anxious to get more autonomy to prevent this loss as soon as possible.
The setting sun is infinitely good, just near dusk. In fact, the sunset in Europe is not very beautiful. If this kind of industrial bloodshed cannot be stopped as soon as possible, a dark Europe in the new century may be a spectacle that our generation can witness with our own eyes.
Of course, Europe can also have another option, that is to abandon the United States and enter Asia and strive for cooperation with Asia. But this choice is more difficult than their struggle for autonomy, because this choice not only needs to withstand the pressure of the United States, but also needs to get rid of their inner demons. This demon is the pride that Europeans are unwilling to get rid of at present.
Will Britain go down again in the internal struggle, and will the struggle of the EU make the storm more violent? The future world will not be bright for Europe anyway.