Brexit

707 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

swallow wrote:

Corbyn proposed to make the Labour party back into a movement, controlled by its members and not by its members of parliament. He proposed to reject the Blairite 'big tent.' You can agree or disagree, but he didn't apply to lead a big tent party, he applied to change the very nature of that party. (Think Svend Robinson and the New Politics Initiative - a leadership campaign based on changing the NDP into a vehicle for social movements, not a big tent.) The membership by a large margin accepted his proposal. It's rich to now turn around and fault him for doing what he promised to do. It's rich to take a leader who has returned the party's electoral fortune and delivered the bulk of its vote to remain, and demand he step down. It's rich to criticize his critical support for the EU as 'weak campaigning' when it was so much more effective than the train wreck David Cameron delivered. 

..nice

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

How the elites ignore the wishes of the majority:

Quote:
Britain could remain in the EU for the foreseeable future, with Downing Street appearing not to know how to negotiate the divorce, US Secretary of State John Kerry said in Colorado at the Aspen Ideas Festival a day after speaking to Prime Minister David Cameron.

That's how. Just play dumb. You know. Like neo-liberal shit-bags (whether Conservative, Liberal or NDP) approach regulatory policy and enforcement, public safety, public health, etc., etc.. with their market idolatry fundamentalism.

Britain could remain in EU as London ‘has no idea’ how to leave – Kerry

6079_Smith_W

montrealer58 wrote:

'yob' is a classist insult. Try to learn the context of English words before using them.

Ageist maybe (though even that is a stretch). It means someone who acts like a violent, anti-social, often drunken thug.

I was a bit surprised to learn it is a 19th century term - a backwards spelling of "boy".

Here's a headline reference:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/686169/she-wont-end-it-with-rich-...

And speaking of rich yobs, Johnson won't run. Looks like everyone is abandoning the Brexit Tea Party

 

bekayne

bekayne

quizzical

the xtra lge pics are annoying. the propaganda even more.

lagatta

I always thought "chav" was a classist insult, but that "yob" referred to behaviour. We get a lot of very rich ones here for the Grand Prix.

bekayne

quizzical wrote:

the xtra lge pics are annoying. the propaganda even more.

So you're saying they had a plan?

mark_alfred

I note the so-called "three amigos" (Trudeau, Obama, Pena Nieto) have in a self-congratulatory way decried the Brexit vote as "protectionism" ("protectionism" being a bad thing, apparently) and have all spoken in favour of NAFTA and TPP.

mark_alfred

NDPP wrote:

Chunky Mark, the Artist Taxi Driver: 'Jeremy Corbyn Leadership Election is ON...'

https://youtu.be/Al0INaMcJPs

I enjoyed this video, but I didn't understand the reference to "Fat Pats Thong".  What does that mean?

takeitslowly

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/martin-nothing-lose-vote-leave-unemployed-benefits-sanctioned?CMP=fb_gu

 

 

I can sympathize with this man; I can see myself doing the same thing out of bitterness.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Thousands of protesters, unions defend Corbyn as right-wing MPs attack

Ten thousand people rallied in support of Labour's left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn -- elected leader last year in a landslide vote that marked a rejection of pro-austerity politics -- outside of Westminster on June 27, as right-wing Labour Party MPs took advantage of the fallout from the Brexit vote to move against the party leader.

The demonstration came as 44 ministers resigned from Corbyn's Cabinet -- being replaced with a more left-wing Cabinet with more women and people of colour than previously. The day after the demonstration, a motion of no confidence in Corbyn was passed by 172 Labour MPs voting in favour and 40 against, with 13 abstentions and four spoilt ballots.

It came despite polls showing that Corbyn would easily be re-elected in a new Labour Party membership-wide vote. The dispute shows the disconnect between Labour's ranks and supporters, and many MPs.

Momentum, the grassroots group that seeks to organise support for Coybyn's left-wing policies, said there were other pro-Corbyn mobilisations across Britain and pointed out that almost a quarter of million people had signed a petition supporting Corbyn as Labour's leader.

On June 28, demonstrators from Young Labour also descended on parliament to support Corbyn, Morning Star Online said the next day. Organisers of the demonstration said the attempt to remove Mr Corbyn showed a “complete disregard for the membership, without whom the Labour Party could not function”.

Some of Britain's biggest trade unions, such as Unite and Unison that organise millions of workers, have also rallied behind Corbyn. The leaders of 12 big unions putting out a statement the day after the Brexit vote in support of Corbyn, insisting the task was to "focus on speaking up for jobs and workers' rights under threat"....

sherpa-finn

Swallow wrote: I have to differ with this. The Labour movement was not founded as a 'big tent' that would mean all things to all people. It was founded as a movement of principle and social change, and it's had a lot of success over the years in changing Britain from the Tory-Liberal imperial island of old, into a very different place.

 And so, inevitably, it became a party of power, striving for the 'big tent.' That may be right, it may be wrong, as a strategy. All social-democratic parties have had to grapple with that question precisely.

Corbyn proposed to make the Labour party back into a movement, controlled by its members and not by its members of parliament. He proposed to reject the Blairite 'big tent.'

Fair enough, if largely revisionist. Since its inception, the Labour Party has constantly struggled to reconcile the tensions within, - between the different interests, constituencies and ideologies.  To suggest that this is somehow new or "Blairite" in origin is disingenuous. Back in the ‘70s, I was very much engaged when the battle of the day focused on the Militant Tendency and its role in the party, most notably the youth wing of which I was a member. That is 40 years back. And before that, there was a generation in which the cause of disarmament was teh defining fissure.  

But throughout it all, the Labour Party had leaders that recognized that the primary function of a political party is to win elections in order to advance their platform. The core critique of Corbyn by those who work with him on the parliamentary front lines, day in and day out, - is that he simply does not view that as a political priority: he is more interested in extra-parliamentary movement building.

Which is great, just not the job he currently holds.

Effectively, the current fracture is between political pragmatists within the Labour Party (those who are interested in actually winning parliamentary power and making changes - even if modest - towards social democratic goals) and the Corbyn wing which is more interested in building an extra-parliamentary social movement that will magically result in social and economic transformation.  As one MP wrote in an open letter to Corbyn this week: “The Labour Party stands for a moral purpose that you do not share. We exist to redistribute power, wealth and opportunity through parliamentary democracy. Your actions have repeatedly shown that you do not believe that.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jamie-reeds-letter-poisonous-jeremy-8314882

BTW, to label all Corbyn critics as Blairite is laughable. And no doubt prompts the opposite side labelling all Corbynistas as Trotskyists.  There is probably some truth to both, but using political curse words to try and discredit fellow party members is not helpful.  (I suppose it won’t be long before the term "Mulcairite" has the same connotation in the NDP's upcoming leadership campaign and LEAP process.)

NorthReport

Labour has rediscovered its soul under Jeremy Corbyn. If he goes, so do I

Dan Iles

Like many others I was inspired to join the Labour party by its move to the left. By ignoring us, rebel MPs are making a big mistake

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/jeremy-corbyn-labo...

NorthReport

60,000 new members is nothing to scoff at.

MPs divided over Corbyn as Eagle delays leadership challenge

Senior figures try to persuade leader to resign as a reported 60,000 new members join the party

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/labour-mps-divided-over-...

wage zombie

sherpa-finn wrote:

But throughout it all, the Labour Party had leaders that recognized that the primary function of a political party is to win elections in order to advance their platform. The core critique of Corbyn by those who work with him on the parliamentary front lines, day in and day out, - is that he simply does not view that as a political priority: he is more interested in extra-parliamentary movement building.

Which is great, just not the job he currently holds.

Here's the part that I don't get, and maybe you can explain it.  It's possible I don't have all the facts.

Corbyn won the leadership less than a year ago by a landslide.  Polls show that Corbyn is still very popular.  The Labour party is polling well, ahead of what they got in 2015.  None of the dissenters seem to very popular or have much of a following.  They don't criticize Corbyn on policy and they themselves don't seem to have anything especially new to offer.

Given that Corbyn was elected as leader less than a year ago, by a landslide, how is the behaviour of the dissenting MPs anything but bad faith?  Are they accountable to the membership or not?

Unionist

Yes - I'd like to hear someone answer wage zombie's question.

NDPP

 

As the Labour Coup Falls Apart, the Media Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel To Smear Corbyn

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/30/labour-coup-falls-apart-media-scrapes...

"As the Labour coup looks set to fail, the media has betrayed its increasing desperation by trying to smear Jeremy Corbyn as antisemitic, yet again..."

Zionoid mafia has its knives out for Corbyn.

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Chunky Mark, the Artist Taxi Driver: 'Jeremy Corbyn Leadership Election is ON...'

https://youtu.be/Al0INaMcJPs

I enjoyed this video, but I didn't understand the reference to "Fat Pats Thong".  What does that mean?

I don't know about the thong, but I think that 'Fat Pat' may refer to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Butcher]Pat Butcher[/url] from the BBC soap opera EastEnders.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

wage zombie wrote:

sherpa-finn wrote:

But throughout it all, the Labour Party had leaders that recognized that the primary function of a political party is to win elections in order to advance their platform. The core critique of Corbyn by those who work with him on the parliamentary front lines, day in and day out, - is that he simply does not view that as a political priority: he is more interested in extra-parliamentary movement building.

Which is great, just not the job he currently holds.

Here's the part that I don't get, and maybe you can explain it.  It's possible I don't have all the facts.

Corbyn won the leadership less than a year ago by a landslide.  Polls show that Corbyn is still very popular.  The Labour party is polling well, ahead of what they got in 2015.  None of the dissenters seem to very popular or have much of a following.  They don't criticize Corbyn on policy and they themselves don't seem to have anything especially new to offer.

Given that Corbyn was elected as leader less than a year ago, by a landslide, how is the behaviour of the dissenting MPs anything but bad faith?  Are they accountable to the membership or not?

Evidently the dissenting Labour MPS think they can force Jeremy Corbin out -- if not directly through a coup, then indirectly through a leadership election. Hopefully Corbin and the membership of the party will prove them wrong.

NDPP

"It's on Like Fat Pat's Thong"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zd91b

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:
...Effectively, the current fracture is between political pragmatists within the Labour Party (those who are interested in actually winning parliamentary power and making changes - even if modest - towards social democratic goals)...

Pleaes tell me what modest social democratic goal was achieved by the UK collaborating with the USA in invading Iraq? Was that really a goal that made it worthwhile to elect a Labour government?

sherpa-finn

Yeah. I am not sure if 'The Thick of It" was ever broadcast in North America. It was on a decade or so ago and I caught a few episodes while in the UK: it was a very acerbic political comedy that kind of merged Yes Minister with House of Cards.

The expression itself is a nasty little poke at a female character on the show (Fat Pat), - and in popular parlance the phrase has come to mean that something is not just 'on' (about to happen), but is most definitely 'on', and not at all possible to be avoided.

So "its on like Fat Pat's thong".  I have heard the expression said from time to time, just before a big football match or some similar contest is about to start. In this specific context, I presume its meant to indicate that Corbyn will not resign but will wait to be challenged by an individual for the leadership, - and then that contest is 'on'.

sherpa-finn

Rev Pesky wrote: Pleaes tell me what modest social democratic goal was achieved by the UK collaborating with the USA in invading Iraq? Was that really a goal that made it worthwhile to elect a Labour government?

Maybe we will find out next week, when the Chilcot Inquiry finally reports back after 7 years of study. I suspect that the Corbynistas are awaiting the report with bated breath as they know that this single issue is the one that so discredited the Labour Party establishment with the British public. So could be very awkward timing for the rebel MPs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

bekayne

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/brexiters-didnt-pl...

The irresponsibility of the Johnsonites reflects also that peculiar cultural aspect of Conservative politics that treats even the gravest decision as a parlour game, a ritualised sport for rich and articulate dilettantes who are quick-witted and rhetorically adept enough to reconfigure their most selfish manoeuvres as acts of principle, and who face no material risk in the event that their gambles fail. Thus we have the paradox of a popular revolt against complacent elites, animated by resentment of mass migration, harnessed to the service of an Old Etonian who would gladly jettison stringent border controls on day one of Brexit negotiations.

NDPP

Israeli Opposition Urges Ouster of UK Labour's Corbyn, Charging He Shows 'Genuine anti-Semitism'

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.728167

"Corbyn represents a consistent stance of hatred for Israel,' the head of Israel's main opposition Labor Party, Isaac Herzog, said."

 

Tony Blair Hints At Role As Brexit Negotiator in EU Talks That Will Require 'Serious Statesmanship'

https://t.co/vEthjCeVW2

 

Chilcot Report: Tony Blair Set To Be Savaged in 'Absolutely Brutal' Iraq War Inquiry Verdict

https://t.co/SvCsddNp83

 

  Corbyn is going to win this with bells on - no matter what the stupid, smearing Guardian predicts to the contrary..

 

NDPP

Brexit Earthquake Has Many Ruptures  -  by Radhika Desai

https://newcoldwar.org/brexit-earthquake-has-many-ruptures/

"...While Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP and Tory Boris Johnson made racist appeals and there have been rising incidents of racist violence since the Brexit vote, most Brexiteers are not racist. They were rejecting the EU as the unelected enforcer of neoliberalism."

 

Brexit Pros and Cons: The View From Germany  -  by Victor Grossman

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/brexit-pro-and-con-the-view-from-...

"...Leftist BREXITS explain that the EU idea, beautiful as it seems, was far from altruist from the start. This remains relevant today.

The constant eastward movement then directed against the USSR and its cordon of reliant neighbors, jealously guarded so no hostile powers could advance to its borders, has since the defeats of 1989 to 1993 become a similar constant attempt to surround Russia, seen as a rival, with a tighter and tighter noose, now including Poland, the Baltic trio, Rumania, Bulgaria and as soon as possible, the Ukraine, Moldavia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, with Moscow its future target..."

 

European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart  -  by Diana Johnstone

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/29/european-unification-divides-euro...

"A chorus of Europists are screaming to high heaven that the world is about to come to an end thanks to lower class Brits too stupid and too racist to appreciate the glorious globalized world that the European elite is preparing for them.

Brexit is seen as a warning signal. This the Western ruling class will hasten to shore up the EU-NATO fortress. The Washington Post quickly called for 'strengthening NATO'. This probably means even more strident denunciations of Putin and the 'Russian threat' if such is possible.

The situation of the Labour Party is critical. There is no political party in Britain (or Canada!) that is prepared to turn away from the increasingly discredited and disavowed globalization trend in order to lead the way to a truly democratic alternative.

 

 

mark_alfred

Re: post 566

Yeah, it's odd.  Seems the knives were out for a while, and that any perceived failure could potentially inspire such a revolt.  Here's a post from before the council elections:  [url]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/25/corbyn-leadership-challe... I think that the council elections were not great for Labour but at the same time were not terrible -- though hard to get an accurate read from the media sources there:  link 1 - 'twas terrible | link 2 - not so terrible.

NorthReport

Maybe why the Blairites are not taking a run at Corbyn, eh!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leade...

bekayne

Can anybody guess who was the establishment shill who wrote this?

Things are much more simple. A few million bigoted British voters, many of them old retirees and traditionally conservative, even racist bunch, got scared that their country was soon about to be invaded by unkempt hordes of refugees, or more precisely – by ‘un-people’ (to borrow from George Orwell’s lexicon). While for others, the referendum became a way to express their frustration with the fact that the British working class has lately been getting an increasingly awful deal (read: an increasingly smaller cut from that enormous global loot plundered by both Europe and North America).

Don’t search for any flickers of internationalism or traditional Left-wing ideals in the hearts of those who voted for “Exit”. A great majority of the anti-EU warriors was simply demanding better benefits for itself (the “British people”), as well as “Britain for the Brits” (whatever that really means in this increasingly multi-racial nation).

 

NDPP

Thanks, Andre Vltchek is always worth reading, even if you don't agree with everything he says...

Brexit: Let the UK Screw Itself!

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/01/brexit-let-the-uk-screw-itself/

He's probably more or less right about the European Left. 'The European 'Left' is as selfish and hypocritical as the 'Right.'  Michael Hudson too...

 

The Silence of the Left: Brexit, European Austerity and the T-TIP   - by Michael Hudson

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/01/the-silence-of-the-left-brexit-eu...

"The Brussels bureacracy has been hijacked not only by the banks, but by NATO. What used to be a socialist left has been silent about the fact that there are very good reasons for people to say this is not the kind of Europe they want to be part of..."

 

Long Live the Brexit!

http://www.antiimperialista.org/brexit

"The European Union aims only at suppressing nations' sovereignty in order to make neoliberal policies permanent. These policies' purpose is to favor the richest by crushing the poorest. The Brexit victory is a blow to that system which must be dismantled..."

swallow swallow's picture

Fair enough, sherpa-finn - the big tent tendency would be decidedly pre-Blair.

Maybe it needs two parties to really express the two tendencies - and in any other elecotoral system than first past the post, maybe there'd be 2 parties by now (and a matching Tory split too).

NorthReport

The Brexit Vote Heralds a Return to the Grim 1930s for the Liberal World Order

In the days before the mayhem surrounding Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Jeff Zucker–the impresario of CNN–hired the noted Trump campaign heavy Corey Lewandowski as a “political analyst” for a rumored $500,000. He would have been expensive at half the price. I feel bad for all the fine journalists at CNN, but Zucker is a man of our times, lured by the sirens of simplicity and ratings. The passage of Brexit and the presence of Donald Trump are the results of a massive lowering of standards that has been promulgated over the past 20 years by the media and the leadership of political parties in both countries, in the pursuit of popularity. This is what happens when democracy grows flabby. The people, when uninterested, must be entertained, and if they can’t be entertained, their fears must be exploited.

So let’s make no bones about what happened in Britain. This was not so much a vote against the bureaucratic depredations, real and imagined, of the E.U. It was a vote–by elderly, non-college-educated Brits–against the wild flow of immigrants, most of them benign and excellent workers, but many of them reluctant to assimilate and more than a few of them embracing a faddish, lethal Islamic extremism. If it was a vote for freedom, it was a vote for freedom from them. We are experiencing a similar swoon here. And as the British nativists were indulged by the Tory leadership, the Tea Partisans were indulged by the Republican establishment they’ve now overthrown.

Progress isn’t always progressive. The need to retrench is sometimes the most logical next step. It is entirely possible that our trade deals could have been a bit more protective, and probable that immigration could have been handled in a more orderly way. Certainly, the latter is true in Europe. Free trade and the free movement of people are staples of the liberal capitalism that, over the past few centuries, has brought the greatest alleviation of poverty in human history. But they need to be regulated and modulated, and the regulators–the “experts,” the “establishments” and the “politicians”–are the people charged with making democracy hum. They are imperfect stewards, of course, and witlessly reviled now.

We have been here before. There was a desire to make the world go away after World War I, which resulted in a sharp stoppage of immigration–no more of those noisy Southern and Eastern European garlic eaters–in 1924, and the punitive Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930. These, together with unregulated Wall Street speculation, gave us the Great Depression, which gave us World War II. The gray people, bureaucrats like George Marshall here and Jean Monnet in Europe–the Wise Men–were so alarmed by the barbarity of that war that they created a new international order, in which 

national sovereignty was curbed a bit in return for stability. A generous welfare system in Europe greased the wheels; lower trade barriers helped the capitalists thrive and create jobs. The great mass of people, who had suffered more than a quarter-century of war and deprivation, were thrilled with the peace.

We can argue about the effects of that solution. We can argue about whether Hillary Clinton has plausible policies to ameliorate the disruptions caused by the economy the Wise Men made. For now, I would guess her campaign has been strengthened by the feckless retreat of the “never mind, didn’t really mean that” Brexiteers, like Tory leader Boris Johnson. Clinton’s problem is that the pro side of arguments to make this messy world a little better are complicated; the con side is happily handled by con artists. And our very best leaders have avoided the big issues. As I’ve traveled the U.S. the past five years, I’ve found that the No. 1 foreign-policy issue on people’s minds is China–and they have no idea what their President, Barack Obama, thinks about it. He has yet to make a major speech about it. It’s apparently too heavy a lift. He is not alone. Republican politicians have spent the past quarter-century patronizing clever blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, instead of taking them on. And now they’ve lost their party.

 

 

 

 


http://time.com/4389132/brexit-liberal-world-order/?xid=homepage

NorthReport

Has Brexit made the UK a more hateful, racist place to live?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/fear-and-loathing-in-great-britain-...

quizzical

it's not clear this is almost the whole article from Time. it reads like your writing it.

anyway....thanks for slapping more propaganda from the msm up.

NorthReport wrote:

The Brexit Vote Heralds a Return to the Grim 1930s for the Liberal World Order

In the days before the mayhem surrounding Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Jeff Zucker–the impresario of CNN–hired the noted Trump campaign heavy Corey Lewandowski as a “political analyst” for a rumored $500,000. He would have been expensive at half the price. I feel bad for all the fine journalists at CNN, but Zucker is a man of our times, lured by the sirens of simplicity and ratings. The passage of Brexit and the presence of Donald Trump are the results of a massive lowering of standards that has been promulgated over the past 20 years by the media and the leadership of political parties in both countries, in the pursuit of popularity. This is what happens when democracy grows flabby. The people, when uninterested, must be entertained, and if they can’t be entertained, their fears must be exploited.

So let’s make no bones about what happened in Britain. This was not so much a vote against the bureaucratic depredations, real and imagined, of the E.U. It was a vote–by elderly, non-college-educated Brits–against the wild flow of immigrants, most of them benign and excellent workers, but many of them reluctant to assimilate and more than a few of them embracing a faddish, lethal Islamic extremism. If it was a vote for freedom, it was a vote for freedom from them. We are experiencing a similar swoon here. And as the British nativists were indulged by the Tory leadership, the Tea Partisans were indulged by the Republican establishment they’ve now overthrown.

Progress isn’t always progressive. The need to retrench is sometimes the most logical next step. It is entirely possible that our trade deals could have been a bit more protective, and probable that immigration could have been handled in a more orderly way. Certainly, the latter is true in Europe. Free trade and the free movement of people are staples of the liberal capitalism that, over the past few centuries, has brought the greatest alleviation of poverty in human history. But they need to be regulated and modulated, and the regulators–the “experts,” the “establishments” and the “politicians”–are the people charged with making democracy hum. They are imperfect stewards, of course, and witlessly reviled now.

We have been here before. There was a desire to make the world go away after World War I, which resulted in a sharp stoppage of immigration–no more of those noisy Southern and Eastern European garlic eaters–in 1924, and the punitive Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930. These, together with unregulated Wall Street speculation, gave us the Great Depression, which gave us World War II. The gray people, bureaucrats like George Marshall here and Jean Monnet in Europe–the Wise Men–were so alarmed by the barbarity of that war that they created a new international order, in which 

national sovereignty was curbed a bit in return for stability. A generous welfare system in Europe greased the wheels; lower trade barriers helped the capitalists thrive and create jobs. The great mass of people, who had suffered more than a quarter-century of war and deprivation, were thrilled with the peace.

We can argue about the effects of that solution. We can argue about whether Hillary Clinton has plausible policies to ameliorate the disruptions caused by the economy the Wise Men made. For now, I would guess her campaign has been strengthened by the feckless retreat of the “never mind, didn’t really mean that” Brexiteers, like Tory leader Boris Johnson. Clinton’s problem is that the pro side of arguments to make this messy world a little better are complicated; the con side is happily handled by con artists. And our very best leaders have avoided the big issues. As I’ve traveled the U.S. the past five years, I’ve found that the No. 1 foreign-policy issue on people’s minds is China–and they have no idea what their President, Barack Obama, thinks about it. He has yet to make a major speech about it. It’s apparently too heavy a lift. He is not alone. Republican politicians have spent the past quarter-century patronizing clever blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, instead of taking them on. And now they’ve lost their party.

 

 

 

 


http://time.com/4389132/brexit-liberal-world-order/?xid=homepage

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The Brexit Vote Heralds a Return to the Grim 1930s for the Liberal World Order

I knew it was only a matter of time before this became all about Justin Trudeau.

NorthReport

Laughing

NorthReport

Bingo!

Jeremy Corbyn critics should 'put up or shut up' says AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-36686440

NorthReport
NorthReport

People are really, really hoping this theory about David Cameron and Brexit is true

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-really-really-hoping...

NorthReport

A warning to Gove and Johnson - we won’t forget what you didJonathan FreedlandJonathan Freedland

Though events are moving fast, it’s crucial to hold on to our fury at the selfishness that caused this crisis

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/boris-johnson-and-...

quizzical

events are moving fast?

NDPP

Chunky Mark, the Artist Taxi Driver: 'The Public Humiliation & Political Assassination of Jeremy Corbyn has been Absolutely Shameful.'

https://youtu.be/6_Cu9OIMM1U

"The Guardian newspaper had to apologize and twice yesterday to correct stories. Journalists have lost their heads. And none more so than the so-called 'Left'..."

NorthReport

It appears that referendums are becoming more and more discredited. They mostly remind me of the propositions in the USA which more often than not are spearheaded by rich Americans wanting to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Why the Brexit follies could save the EU

In the modern history of Britain, the events in this past week have been particularly momentous. But at week’s end, there are three scenarios that are beginning to take shape.

First, there is no certainty that Brexit — the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU — will actually ever happen.

Second, the idea of a 50-per-cent-plus-one referendum deciding such colossal issues in the life of a nation is increasingly being discredited.

And third, it will likely take another election to even begin to restore the credibility of the Britain’s floundering and self-absorbed political and media elites.

In spite of the shock of the referendum result, the country’s politicians have asserted that the vote is not reversible. But, in fact, it is. Referendums such as this one are “advisory” to the government; they are not binding.

In order to leave the EU, the British government needs to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and indications are that this won’t happen before the end of this year. Then, and only then, do negotiations begin for a two-year period. And there is a history in the EU of “second referendums.” Voters in Denmark and Ireland, for example, initially rejected EU treaties before subsequently electing to adopt modified arrangements.

The longer the wait, the more damage there will be to the U.K. economy, raising the real prospect of buyer’s remorse. The fact is that the Leave campaign — led by Johnson and Gove — consistently lied in a campaign that was a victory of demagoguery over democracy.


https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/07/02/why-the-brexit-follies-cou...

NDPP

The Brexit Reshuffles World Geopolitics  -  by Thierry Meyssan

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192607.html

"No one seems to comprehend the consequences of the British decision to leave the European Union. The discrepancy between reality and the discourse of the political media illustrates the disease from which the western elite is really suffering - their incompetance.

The Brexit also means the end of the military-economic domination of the US since NATO and the EU are simply the two sides of a single coin.

We are moving into a new era..."

NorthReport

Former Corbyn adviser Thomas Piketty criticises Labour's 'weak' EU fight

French economist calls party’s campaign to keep Britain in EU ‘very weak’ and confirms that he quit as an adviser two weeks ago due to work commitments

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/thomas-piketty-quits-as-...

NorthReport

When is George Osborne going to resign?

mark_alfred

Re:  post # 594

Second, the idea of a 50-per-cent-plus-one referendum deciding such colossal issues in the life of a nation is increasingly being discredited.

I agree that referendums are not the best way to decide policy.  But if one chooses to have a referendum, then a majority of 50%+1 should suffice.  Manipulating the result via setting a higher number for one side or the other would not be right.  Should Remain or Exit have to achieve a 2/3 majority?  Why one side having to achieve this but not the other?  Best to keep it fair and equal from the get-go if you're going to do it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What if the UK had chosen a supermajority of 60%, which would apply to both sides?

Neither side would have prevailed in this referendum.

So, have another one in two weeks, and whoops!  Same result.

Do you hold referendums forever until a million or so voters choose what they don't actually want just to put an end to it?  Or does "the status quo" naturally win when a mandate for change doesn't?

NorthReport

It should be the best out of five, or maybe even best out of 7, just like the Stanley Cup finals.

So far leave is leading 1 zip, but their next referendum should erase that lead. 

Pages

Topic locked