Globalism: Cooperation or Coercion? Unmasking the Threat to Sovereignty By Dusty Wentworth

Have you ever wondered why no matter who you vote for, the same policies—open borders, green taxes, digital surveillance—seem to march forward regardless?

You’re not imagining it. A growing number of citizens across the UK, Europe, and the wider Western world are waking up to the reality that national sovereignty is being quietly dismantled. But is there truly a coordinated globalist agenda—and is Britain, under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, complicit in it?

In this analysis, we examine what globalism actually means, track its institutional power, assess developments under the Starmer government, and explore the contentious claim that illegal immigration is part of a wider globalist design.

What Is Globalism—and Why Does It Matter?

Globalism, in its broadest form, refers to the increasing interdependence of nations through economic, political, cultural, and technological integration. On paper, this sounds beneficial—who wouldn't want peace, trade, and cooperation?

However, critics argue the modern form of globalism is no longer about cooperation; it’s about control. This so-called globalist agenda is defined by:

The centralisation of power into supranational bodies (e.g. UN, WEF, WHO).

The erosion of democratic consent in domestic policy.

A push for mass migration, digital ID systems, and carbon taxation that seem to serve elite interests, not national well-being.

The question is no longer whether globalism exists—it does. The question is: is it a real and present danger to national sovereignty and civil liberty?

A Brief History of Globalist Structures

Following World War II, institutions such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank were founded to prevent further global conflicts and economic instability. While noble in origin, these institutions have amassed immense influence over time—often exceeding their original mandates.

The European Union, once a trade bloc, has evolved into a quasi-federal system that dictates economic, agricultural, and immigration policy to member states. Brexit was, in part, a rebellion against that top-down control.

But the EU is not alone. The World Economic Forum (WEF)—an unelected body of billionaires, bankers, and technocrats—openly advocates for “The Great Reset,” a radical restructuring of society, capitalism, and governance in response to crises such as COVID-19 and climate change.

Supranational Overreach in Action

Health Policy and Pandemic Treaties

The World Health Organization is currently negotiating a pandemic accord that would give it binding authority over member nations in future public health emergencies. Critics argue this risks placing British citizens under rules decided by unelected officials overseas.

Climate and Energy Mandates

Agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and COP protocols impose emission targets that have direct consequences on local industries, food production, and energy policy. These targets are decided multilaterally but enforced nationally—often without clear democratic mandates.

Digital ID and Financial Surveillance

Several G20 and WEF-linked initiatives promote central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and universal digital IDs. While touted as tools for efficiency and fraud prevention, critics warn they open the door to financial surveillance, social credit systems, and the potential restriction of dissent.

The Starmer Government: Back to Brussels, Back to Globalism?

Though Sir Keir Starmer once claimed “globalisation is over,” his policies suggest the opposite. Since taking office in July 2024, his government has demonstrated consistent alignment with globalist institutions and principles.

EU Reintegration and WEF Rhetoric

In May 2025, Starmer held a joint press conference with EU leaders to announce closer regulatory alignment—a reversal of Brexit-era independence. His statements stressed the “shared European future” and “global economic interdependence” (gov.uk).

Starmer’s earlier remarks at Davos echoed WEF talking points about restructuring capitalism and embracing digital solutions to “global crises.”

Immigration Policy: Style over Substance?

The Starmer administration scrapped the Rwanda deportation plan and instead proposed a new Border Security Command to disrupt illegal crossings. Yet, illegal immigration continues to rise, and key border enforcement tools remain under-resourced.

His new immigration white paper does promise stricter rules—longer residency requirements, tighter work visa controls—but implementation remains questionable. He has openly criticised previous governments for “weaponising migration,” instead calling for a “compassionate, rules-based” approach (The Times).

Defence and Surveillance

Starmer pledged increased defence spending and closer NATO alignment—another signal that his foreign and security policy is being framed by international institutions rather than national interest.

Is Illegal Immigration Part of a Globalist Strategy?

This is where debate becomes most contentious. Some theorists claim illegal immigration is being encouraged as part of a “Great Replacement” agenda—intended to dilute national identity and engineer long-term political shifts.

While this theory is widely criticised and has been used to justify extremist rhetoric, there is evidence that globalist bodies frame migration as a strategic necessity.

The WEF refers to migration as a “global public good” and a “vital economic resource.”

The UN Global Compact on Migration encourages member states to promote “safe and regular migration” as part of sustainable development.

Large NGOs and think tanks consistently advocate for looser borders under humanitarian and economic pretexts.

These positions are not secret. They are public policy recommendations, albeit with deep ideological roots in globalist philosophy. What’s less transparent is the coordination between NGOs, governments, and international institutions that often undermines democratic consensus on immigration.

What’s Really at Stake?

Concern Evidence Implication

Supranational policymaking WHO treaties, WEF influence, NATO integration Domestic sovereignty eroded

Immigration pressures Starmer policies, NGO influence National consent bypassed

Technocratic governance Digital ID, CBDC, ESG mandates Democratic control diminished

The pattern is clear: power and policy are being centralised. Public debate is minimised. Dissent is framed as “misinformation.” Meanwhile, the average citizen is expected to comply—and pay—for decisions made far beyond their reach.

Conclusion: Vigilance or Submission?

We stand at a crossroads. The future of our sovereignty, civil liberty, and democratic legitimacy hangs in the balance. Whether it's pandemic treaties, energy quotas, or uncontrolled immigration, the question is not if globalism affects you—but how deeply it already does.

This is not a partisan issue. It is a constitutional one.

📢 Call to Action

If you believe Britain’s future should be decided by Britons—not unelected global bureaucrats—it’s time to speak up.

Start by:

Demanding transparency from your MP on all international agreements.

Supporting independent journalism and investigative platforms.

Engaging your community in open dialogue—before it’s silenced in the name of “cooperation.”

We are not conspiracy theorists. We are citizens demanding informed consent. Globalism may be here to stay—but that doesn’t mean it should rule unchecked.

#Dustywentworth