Brexit

Building more borders or more walls is an unhealthy societial sickness that clearly smacks of racism. Donald Trump anyone!  

We need to be tearing down wallls and borders instead

When I see white supremacists andf xenophobes and neo-Nazis and all the most revolting of the UK tabloid press all pushing for a Brexit - aloing with the neo-fascist UKIP party and the most rightwing factions of the Tory party...it tells me everything i need to know about why Britain should remain in Europe and people should vote a big fat NO to the idea of a Brexit.

One would think and hope after the murder of the remain-supporting MP
that the remain side would trounce their really sick opposition

But that's not what you said people said, Magoo. 

This amalgamation of Europe was done to prevent another World War
So far so good, eh!

Brexit is looking real tasty! 'Leave' is polling ahead just before the vote!

Although the 'Leave' side is based on all nonsense, the ramifications are all good.

For one, you always hear economists making up bullshit numbers on how free trade deals will create billions in new GDP growth. The deals are implemented, then all economic indicators go down the crapper — years later; meaning the economists are never held to account.

Now they are saying the Brexit will cause economic devastation. Huge losses in jobs and GDP growth. So what happens when it doesn’t? Then people will have the British example to cite that ending free trade deals won't do any damage to the economy. (Which it won't. If the economic gains are bullshit, so are the agenda-driven predictions of economic losses.)

This could be the catalyst that turns the tide on free-trade globalization. This paves the way for a social-green fair-trade globalization inversion.

Second, this could be the catalyst that destroys the euro-zone (which if not dismantled by common sense, will be dismantled by fascist revolutions and world war.) A common currency zone is based on terrible economics. It's much better if countries have their own currencies and central banks.

If a country gets into fiscal trouble, it can lower its currency and pay down its debt. (Like Canada in the 1990s.) If a mercantilist country is running a big trade surplus, its currency rises and its trade surplus disappears. (A big trade surplus in one country is funded by borrowing in other countries that run accompanying trade deficits.)

In the case of the euro-zone, Germany is a mercantilist country running a bigger trade surplus than China. It seems the entire country is unionized, which made it easier to cut labor costs to make the country more competitive with China. This put a huge burden on the rest of the countries in the euro-zone. They have to cut government spending (lowering their trade deficits); have a lower inflation rate than Germany so their labor costs grow at a slower pace; etc. Lots of pain; absolutely no chance of gain.

In short, the euro-zone is another one of these "economic sins" ideologies. The people must pay for their economic sins with economic pain. (Except for the rich, whose incomes rise, who cause all the problems in the first place.) These Medieval-barber blood-letting schemes always collapse because they just make matters worse.

If the IMF has a developing country over a barrel they can put the screws to them and the country has no recourse but to suffer a pointless depression while plutocrats snatch up their assets at bargain basement prices.

But if plutocrats try pulling this scheme on territories like Western Europe and North America then the people rise up. Last time when 'liquidationists' attempted to deflate the economy to raise their real wealth, they triggered fascist revolutions and a Keynesian 'New Deal' that created modern living standards.

Ending the euro-zone will stop a certain path to world war. (Another financial meltdown could still trigger one, however.) A 'New Deal' is most likely to form out of the aftermath of the euro-zone as it's become abundantly clear that free-market ideology is a two-time loser and the neoliberal era must be invited to leave.

NorthReport wrote:

This amalgamation of Europe was done to prevent another World War So far so good, eh!

They said free trade would end war. Saw it on an episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit."

Doesn't appear to have worked.

Perhaps the people who come up with sales pitches like these are simply f*cking liars!

Husband calls for fight against the hatred that killed her

Jo Cox was working on report dealing with anti-Muslim violence just before her death

NorthReport wrote:

Building more borders or more walls is an unhealthy societial sickness that clearly smacks of racism. Donald Trump anyone!  

We need to be tearing down wallls and borders instead

Straw meet man.

The European Union as we know it started in the late 1940s with e the European Coal and Steel Community between France, West Germany and Benelux...that quickly evolved into the European Commin Market which had a European Parliament in Strasbourg. European integration was essentially to NOT having the countries of Europe not reverting to all the enmities that characterized the interwar period.

Hollande Capitulates to EU Pressure on Labor Laws Risking His Own Presidency

quote:

PERIES: And when you say the eurozone is trying to conform to this kind of labor regulation they want across Europe, why do they want that? Why do they want that kind of conformity?

LAMBERT: Well, that is a big debate. And my opinion is that that is the reason why the European Union was created. The European Union is not like the United States, the addition of separate states under a federal government. It's a plan to create a common market. It's a corporate-oriented project that was intended to make it easier for companies to make profit and to streamline regulations that would hinder their profit-making. Hence what we have seen under the guise of creating solidarity, pushing for peace and prosperity, is ever better regulations in favor of companies and tougher and tougher laws directed, passed by Brussels for workers. If you look at free trade agreements, the one we are negotiating at the moment with Washington, the--

PERIES: TTIP.

LAMBERT: --exactly, TTIP--is a demonstration of this way of looking at the world. It's basically a dream come true for companies, but the promise of a much harder life for workers in France, Spain, and Germany and the rest of Europe.

Brexit would make Britain the world's most hated nation (mostly a good review of the EU and its history, its importance, and the Euro mistake):

http://gu.com/p/4mx8j/sbl

Quote:

I love fake revolts of the underclass: I’m a veteran of them. At secondary school, we had a revolt in favour of the right to smoke. The football violence I witnessed in the 1970s and 80s felt like the social order turned on its head. As for the mass outpouring of solidarity with the late Princess Diana, and by implication against the entire cruel monarchic elite, in the end I chucked my bunch of flowers on the pile with the rest.

The problem is, I also know what a real revolt looks like...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/brexit-fake-revolt...

Your post is Alice in Wonderland.  One phase?  Yes, it's one phase.  But the most important phase.  One currency, severe restrictions on the ability of country to exercise its own fiscal policy.  Remove protection of workers?  That's what the EU does.  When there is a conflict between capital and corporate rights against unions, the former wins.  As was noted earlier in the thread.  No escaping globalization?  Besides a cliche, what does that mean.  If there's no escapiing globalization, there's no need for the EU. 

One of the best ideas?  Vicious competition?  Growth and employment were far greater in the decades prior to Maastricht than after.  Not to mention that countries with economies, like Greece and Spain, have been forced to play by German rules when it comes to fiscal policy and currency.  Which has resulted in unemployment rates over 20%.  What a great idea!  And if they try to break free democratically, they are crushed by the EU.  So much for democracy.  In short the EU, post-Maastricht, has been an abject failure.

josh wrote:

Your post is Alice in Wonderland.  One phase?  Yes, it's one phase.  But the most important phase.  One currency, severe restrictions on the ability of country to exercise its own fiscal policy.  Remove protection of workers?  That's what the EU does.  When there is a conflict between capital and corporate rights against unions, the former wins.  As was noted earlier in the thread.  No escaping globalization?  Besides a cliche, what does that mean.  If there's no escapiing globalization, there's no need for the EU. 

Except that it is not one currency. Britain uses the pound and the Bank of England sets interest rates.

I repeat - virtally all of progressive civil society in the UK is 100% pro-Europe - the people who want a "Brexit" are virtually all neo-fascist xenophobs from UKIP and the knuckledragging wing of the Tory party who just see it as a way to get rid of immigrants. If you want to make common cause with those thugs go ahead - make my day!

I didn't know that Corbyn (who is 100% pro-EU) was a Blairite

I actually think there isn't enough integration in the EU. I would like all of Europe united into one big country called the united States of Europe and just abolish the UK, France, Germany etc... altogether - just have one big country with one parliament and maybe the old countries can function like canadian provinces with just a few powers over education and folklore. in fact i'd like to see the day whenj nation states are abolished all over the world and we have world federalism!

Agreed that Europe would do much better if more fully integrated. One currency, zero internal borders. The UK could help by showing some constructive leadership, end this Brexit sham, give up the pound and join the euro

Brexit is a fake revolt
Working class culture being hijacked to help the elite
By Paul Mason in the Guardian

swallow wrote:

Quote:

When the EU referendum was first announced, I made a Lexit argument when the topic came up. A vote for the EU is a vote for capitalism, austerity and militarised borders, I’d say. The reality is that argument has elicited only the minutest of echoes. The Brexit campaign has been entirely dominated by the ugliest form of Euroscepticism imaginable. As Priyamvada Gopal has put it, a vote for Brexit is a vote for the “magnificent lie that exploitation, austerity, greed and impoverishment have all come to Britain from the nasty outside”.

[url=http://criticallegalthinking.com/2016/06/19/brexit-nostalgia-empire/]Brexit as Nostalgia for Empire [/url]

An article from a leftist Euroskeptic, pointing out that a Brexit win would be on the backs of racism, immigrant-phobia, and dreams of restoring the British empire. 

That's a simple evasion.  Just because the UK may be imperfect doesn't mean that the EU isn't worse.  And it's not just the UK that is at stake.  It's whether yoiu want neo-liberalism to be stronger and on a wider scale.  A step in defeating neo-liberalism, ot at least halting its spread, is to weaken the EU.

josh wrote:

Inside every Blairite is a Thatcherite dying to break free.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/26/robert-mundell-evi...

The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession.

"It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians," he said. "[And] without fiscal policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is by the competitive reduction of rules on business."

He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace 

No two economists agree on anything But the fact that the most despicible politicians in the UK are supporting Brexit should be enough to put an end to this absurd idea that putting up more barriers will help people
And the fact that the EC is in place to avoid World Wars and has been working should be enough to bury Brexit People who avoid learning from history are doomed to repeat it

josh wrote:

That's a simple evasion.  Just because the UK may be imperfect doesn't mean that the EU isn't worse.  And it's not just the UK that is at stake.  It's whether yoiu want neo-liberalism to be stronger and on a wider scale.  A step in defeating neo-liberalism, ot at least halting its spread, is to weaken the EU.

Possibly true from the European point of view.

The whole article is worth a read, and exalains why British left Eurosketpcics are linging up to support Remain rather than Leave. I think the author's point of view is that the Brexit campaign is fuelled by racist populaism and hatred of immigrants and could lead to a government headed by those people. UKIP's adulation of Boris Johnson shows who they want as PM. Then there's the Brexit campaign's single-minded focus on immigrants and advocacy of an Australia-style immigration policy, the domination by English voices who wish to re-assert control over Scotland and Wales. It is all shot through with the racism and England-first nationalism of the English well-funded far-right counter-elite, which calls for a new age of English supremacy and bases its arguments not on an attack on neo-liberalism (which it welcomes) but on attacks on foreigners. 

Trump wants to tear down NAFTA. Is that an attack on neo-liberalism too? Might be good for the world, actually. So maybe we should all be hoping for a Trump presidency as a blow against neo-liberalism?