Manny wants to grab our assets

“But Manny, you haven’t tried to grab my assets for years,” smiled Macron’s foster mother Brigitte in that seductive way for which French women of any age are so justly famous.

“That’s because English assets are so much more tempting, maman” explained Manny, who’s known for his Anglophilia. Of course he’s also known for his fanatical Europhilia, and this passion easily overrides whatever mythical affection he may feel for England.

That’s why Manny has been issuing threats to Britain ever since the Brexit referendum, when he even wasn’t yet France’s president. One such was that, by leaving the earthly Eden of the EU, Britain would descend into Hades by becoming like Jersey and Guernsey.

Yes please, I wrote at the time. General prosperity, social tranquillity, top tax rate of 20 per cent, almost nonexistent crime – what Manny saw as a threat looked more like a promise to me.

But now that he has moved his foster mother into the Élysée Palace, Manny is threatening to go back on that promise by crippling the City of London. Though financial services aren’t quite as crucial to England as they are to Jersey, that square mile of our capital produces some 25 per cent of our GDP.

By way of punishing Britain, and also pour encourager les autres, Manny is threatening to limit British fund managers’ access to EU money. That would force a movement of assets away from the City and into Paris.

Considering that the City manages close to a trillion pounds’ worth of assets, the blow would indeed be heavy. But that’s where Newton’s Third Law comes in: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

England isn’t a schoolboy, as Manny was when he first met his foster mother. We don’t have to bend over and accept chastisement meekly just because 17.4 million of us have voted to reclaim our ancient sovereignty.

We can fight back by making Manny’s earlier threat real and turning ourselves into a giant Jersey, complete with no red tape and huge tax breaks for investors, both financial and, in our case, also industrial.

Manny and Brigitte should bang their heads together and figure out what would happen if foreign manufacturers paid a corporate tax of 10 per cent or less in Britain, as opposed to the 28-33.33 per cent rates that currently exist in France.

Actually, what would happen to some French manufacturers as well? Would they be prepared to punish their shareholders in order to punish Britain? Much as one is confident of French businessmen’s patriotism, somehow one suspects they’d be moving across the Channel en masse.

In short, Manny has been a naughty boy. However, he has earned a few merit points by announcing plans to stop Russian propaganda channels RT and Sputnik from spreading fake news, especially in the run-up to elections.

Marine Le Pen, that great champion of civil liberties (except for the Jews), threw her hands up in horror. Freedom of speech is sacrosanct, she screamed, and Manny is jeopardising democracy.

Le Pen’s party receives not only moral but also financial support from Putin, which diminishes the effect of her outrage. But, if we disregard the source, the underlying argument is worth a comment.

Freedom of speech isn’t a suicide pact. If an enemy wages information war against a country, that country is justified in trying to spike his information guns – even at some cost to free speech.

Let me put this in French terms, so that Marine can understand. France declared war on Nazi Germany on 1 September, 1939, but the guns stayed silent until 10 May, 1940. That period was known as the Phoney War.

Could France have been accused of abusing free speech if she jammed Nazi propaganda broadcasts during the Phoney War? Of course not: propaganda is as much of a weapon as cannon and tanks. (I realise Marine could give a different answer to that question, what with her manifest attraction to strong foreign leaders.)

If that was the case then, it’s 100 times truer today, when the information weapons at the tyrants’ disposal are so much more sophisticated. Marine must realise that, though she correctly identifies Putin as her friend, whatever is left of the free world sees him for the implacable enemy he is.

Western democracies have laws governing political campaigns, their financing and use of media. Putin’s kleptofascist junta consistently tries to subvert that process, by dumping a torrent of fake news in support of its preferred candidate, typically one of neo-fascist leanings, like Marine.

It’s the government’s duty to defend the country against this kind of enemy action, and Manny is absolutely right in doing just that. I’d block Russian channels altogether, not just during election campaigns, but, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “Half a loaf is better than no bread at all”.

To sum up, Manny’s report card shows an F (with conduct marks) for his ill-advised threats against Britain and an A– for his understanding something Marine, and her like-minded friends in other countries, don’t: Putin’s Russia is the West’s enemy and should be treated accordingly.

I wonder if Brigitte agrees with my rating of Manny’s performance. Possibly not: for all I know, she may mark him down deliberately, for the sheer pleasure of whipping that cane out.

1 thought on “Manny wants to grab our assets”

  1. 1. I wish Brigitte would stop wearing the short dresses and skirts.

    2. Marine Le Pen is actually for the Jews having civil rights and protection. Marine wants to make the Muslim toe the line and thereby protect the Jews indirectly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.