Brexit - Has It Failed!

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
progressive17 progressive17's picture

Many parties start up with the best of intents, and when they get into power, they get phone calls from the emotionless and monstrous Guardians of the Inexhaustible Treasuries in London and New York. They inform the recently  politically victorious of the Facts of Life. I.E. "If you carry through with that election promise, your interest rates are going up to 30%. Look at the screen of your jurisdiction's bonds. Now watch this!" "Oh. Ok.."

Then the well-meaning and sincere in all respects politicians have to backpedal, and ideological people who know nothing about The Facts of Life call them sellouts and hypocrites etc. Being out of power, like Elizabeth May, they can say anything they want. We have free speech after all. 

However even if Elizabeth May were to become Prime Minister, she would have to say, "The pipeline is going to be built."

The only fault of Syrizia and the Alberta NDP was that they thought they could change anything. Being out of power, and out of contact with the Guardians of the Inexhaustible Treasuries, they had no way of knowing any different. Neither did the people who voted for them. 

People ought to realize it is their economic choices and not their political choices which determine who gets rich and who stays poor. If they can overcome their personal selfishness and greed, and actually change their behaviour (like saving money instead of spending it and buying bonds from the Guardians of the Inexhaustible Treasuries, thus taking away their sword-of-Damocles power), maybe we shall see some change in this world.

Not until.

DISCLAIMER:
If this is too difficult to understand, it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.

Mobo2000

Progressive17:   Very fond of the expression "Guardians of the Inexhaustible Treasuries", thank you.   And I think you are right about the facts of life. 

But serious queston -- explain what you mean by "buying bonds from the Guardians of the Inexhaustible Treasuries, thus taking away their sword-of-Damocles power".    I buy bonds because I'm pathologically risk adverse, but if I'm also sticking it to the Guardians, that's be great.  Tell me more?

Rev Pesky

From progressive17:

If this is too difficult to understand, it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.

Doesn't mean it's right, either.

voice of the damned

josh wrote:

Syriza progressive?  You mean the party that lied and caved, and has introduced all sorts of neo-liberal legislation at the direction of the EU?  Why should anyone on the left take any advice from them.

Your second paragraph is apples and oranges. 

Comparing Brexiteers to 1980s western separatists is apples and oranges? I dunno. I'd say more like tangerines and oranges, but we might just have to disagree on that.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Sure. It would have to be a mass action of democratic socialist capitalist communism. People would start buying bonds instead of crap. They would democratically elect proxies who would have a say, and inform the countries concerned about different Facts of Life, like, "Hey we think that policy platform is great! Knock yourselves out!"

Mobo2000

Makes sense.  Sign me up.   Takes more $ that I can invest to get a proxy though, so people like me will need to team up.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Yeah. definitely united we stand, divided we fall

NDPP

"If we are ruled by people that we didn't elect and cannot remove, then we are no longer living in a democracy.' George Galloway quotes Tony Benn on the day the UK leaves the EU." (and vid)

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1223275465621884928

 

Why Boris Johnson's Brexit is Not the Full Brexit

https://www.thefullbrexit.com/not-the-full-brexit

"Today, Britain will finally leave the European Union - a staggering 1,316 days after the 2016 referendum. Finally exiting the EU is a tremendous achievement for democracy. Nonetheless, Boris Johnson's Brexit is clearly not the 'Full Brexit' for which we have been campaigning. Instead, it seeks to downplay or manage away its radical potential. Truly realizing that potential remains a task for the future..."

NDPP

It's A Trap: Brussels' Barmy Plan For Brexit Britain's EU Trade

https://on.rt.com/aacs

"The European Union's trade demands aren't what you'd expect of a serious negotiating partner, but control-freakery designed to force the UK into submission and subservience to EU laws..."

voice of the damned

RT opined:

The obvious place to start is sovereignty. They’re demanding that the European Court of Justice will have a long-term role in overseeing the future partnership. That’s not how independent, neutral oversight is supposed to work – any more than Manchester United would be allowed to choose the referee for their next football match. They also want the UK to stick to the European Convention on Human Rights, potentially opening the way to forcing (for example) prisoners to be allowed to vote.

I thought the vote for prisoners was something progressives were supposed to support? Certainly, at least, if Harper had threatened to revoke it in Canada, it would've been held up as yet another example of how the man was transforming our country into a fascist hellhole.

 

voice of the damned

^ And yes, my bewilderment is largely rhetorical. I'm well aware that RT is a right-wing tabloid that some leftists, for reasons that remain murky, insist on trying to pass off as progressive.

NDPP

Mathew D Rose - EU: The Acute Crisis No One Wants To Talk About

https://twitter.com/BRAVENEWEUROPE/status/1223513675975266305

"Due to Brexit no one is following the crisis unfolding in the EU. Time to connect the dots..."

 

"If you do not think the constitutional architecture of the EU and the political economy of the EU integration project do not place fundamental limits on any project of socialist transformation, then I'm afraid you don't fully grasp the nature of the EU or socialism."

https://twitter.com/pmpoc/status/1223915913264746496

JKR

voice of the damned wrote:

^ And yes, my bewilderment is largely rhetorical. I'm well aware that RT is a right-wing tabloid that some leftists, for reasons that remain murky, insist on trying to pass off as progressive.

It seems to me that Putin's Russia is not at all socialist but pretty much fascist.

kropotkin1951

Russia has a facade of democracy just like the US and its requisite quota of billionaires. Comparing either of them to socialism is ridiculous however if a country whose government is designed to serve the interests of the business elite to the determent of the masses is your definition of fascism then I think they both fit it as does Canada and the UK and China and Singapore and South Korea.

RT does the type of critical analysis of our system that the CBC should do but doesn't. Both are forms of state media that amplify the message of their oligarchs. But that goes for all media outlets. Media literacy means being able to read the same story from the Washington Post and RT and CBC and discern what the consistent facts are and being able to then form an opinion based on those not the biased filters all broadcasters use.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
RT does the type of critical analysis of our system that the CBC should do but doesn't. Both are forms of state media that amplify the message of their oligarchs. But that goes for all media outlets. Media literacy means being able to read the same story from the Washington Post and RT and CBC and discern what the consistent facts are and being able to then form an opinion based on those not the biased filters all broadcasters use.

That's absolutely correct. To that end, it is beneficial for RT to lift up marginalized voices in the US who do not receive much play in the American media.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
RT does the type of critical analysis of our system that the CBC should do but doesn't. Both are forms of state media that amplify the message of their oligarchs. But that goes for all media outlets. Media literacy means being able to read the same story from the Washington Post and RT and CBC and discern what the consistent facts are and being able to then form an opinion based on those not the biased filters all broadcasters use.

That's absolutely correct. To that end, it is beneficial for RT to lift up marginalized voices in the US who do not receive much play in the American media.

Anyone with the resources to publish has interests. It is always good to understand the biases and read from multiple sources. At times you can take a combination of biased sources and understand something accurate. Any source bias is not just the slant of how they tell a story but what stories to tell.

I find multiple sources works well. One of them I would add is Al Jazeera as they also cover stories others are not interested in and while they may have a bias on some things you can usually find an opposite bias to see or read as well. I find them more balanced than most North American sources.

voice of the damned

Aristotleded24 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
RT does the type of critical analysis of our system that the CBC should do but doesn't. Both are forms of state media that amplify the message of their oligarchs. But that goes for all media outlets. Media literacy means being able to read the same story from the Washington Post and RT and CBC and discern what the consistent facts are and being able to then form an opinion based on those not the biased filters all broadcasters use.

That's absolutely correct. To that end, it is beneficial for RT to lift up marginalized voices in the US who do not receive much play in the American media.

 

The article in question was hardly "lifting up marginalized voices in the US". It was arguing that the EU is a threat to British sovereignty, because the EU pushes for the enfranchisement of prisoners, IOW arguing to keep a marginalized group marginalized.

And that's actually fairly typical of RT's coverage on social issues, at least in western countries. It took me about two minutes of random surfing to find this...

https://tinyurl.com/rq84tc4

Classic "OMG feminists are abolishing the wonderful western canon!!" stuff that cultural conservatives have been pushing in the west since the late 80s.  

 

 

voice of the damned

For the record, I'm not denying you can find useful and interesting stuff on RT. There's also useful and interesting stuff in the National Post. (Though I personally would not quote favourably an article from NP that trashed prisoners' rights.)

Mobo2000

KROP:  "RT does the type of critical analysis of our system that the CBC should do but doesn't. Both are forms of state media that amplify the message of their oligarchs. But that goes for all media outlets. Media literacy means being able to read the same story from the Washington Post and RT and CBC and discern what the consistent facts are and being able to then form an opinion based on those not the biased filters all broadcasters use."

Yes, very well said.   It's curious now that with the polarization of the media here and in the US, we have outlets that amplify the message of their respective political parties, rather then the oligarchy as a whole, with increasingly unethical and clumsy propaganda.   This may be (counterintuitively?) increasing media literacy overall.   Certainly spotting media bias is something of a pastime now for politican partisans and internet shit-disturbers.   

voice of the damned

Yes, very well said.   It's curious now that with the polarization of the media here and in the US, we have outlets that amplify the message of their respective political parties, rather then the oligarchy as a whole, with increasingly unethical and clumsy propaganda. 

It's always been that way. I know on the left, there's some idea that media just promotes the interests of the oligarchy, and doesn't care who wins. But that's not really the case. Historically, newspapers, at least, have ALWAYS tended to favour one party over the others, even in cases where there was no huge ideological difference between the major parties.

Even setting aside cases where the bias was blatantly obvious(eg. the Tallahassee Democrat and the Kingstond Whig-Standard), you have rarely ever seen, for example, the Sun papers in Canada endorse anyone besides the Conservatives or one of their successor parties in a federal or provincial election. And I'm taken to understand that the Toronto Star almost always backs the Liberals, though has occassionally swung both left and right, depending on particular issues that emerge. Across the pond, I'm pretty sure the Manchester Guardian in the UK has never endorsed the Conservatives for Westminister, going back at least to the days of Thatcher, and quite likely earlier.

And yeah, a lot of the propaganda over the years has been unethical and clumsy.

Mobo2000

Yeah, VOTD, point taken, but I think there is a difference in degree since the Trump era, as well as a corresponding decrease, by MSM, in the desire to be seen as objective.   Indeed, the whole concept of objectivity in news media feels hopelessly degraded to me (not that I ever had faith in it, but that seems to be more of  the default position).

voice of the damned

Mobo2000 wrote:

Yeah, VOTD, point taken, but I think there is a difference in degree since the Trump era, as well as a corresponding decrease, by MSM, in the desire to be seen as objective.   Indeed, the whole concept of objectivity in news media feels hopelessly degraded to me (not that I ever had faith in it, but that seems to be more of  the default position).

You might be correct about the concept of degree. Across the broad section of the political specturm spanning from far right to about left-liberal(stopping at about, let's say, Counterpunch), Trump is basically a love 'im or hate 'im kinda guy. It's not like in the Reagan years, when you could tell that liberals and even centrists in the media didn't really like the guy, but they knew he was pretty popular, so seemed to be holding their fire somewhat. With Trump, the gloves really seem to have come off.

kropotkin1951

VOTD I think it is more a difference in era. Regan before going into politics was a B film actor from Hollywood famous for playing in silly comedies and leading the charge to purge America of communists. Trump was a reality TV star known for his demeaning behaviour towards aspiring entrepreneurs and his shady business deals. I remember the Regan years and I think it was a far more polarized time than reading the sanitized histories on the internet would lead one to think.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I have alwasy said there is value in reading biased news when you can figure out the bias and take something on the other side.

It is also true that you will get interesting stories from foreign media. Foreign media may have less interest -- or an interest in the human or even disruptive angle when a domestic media has both the local cultural bias as well as the pressure to not tick off local business and politics that could start to withdraw advertising or news media access.

Generally I find that people from out of a context provide really good perspectives becuase they ask questions that we are not asking becuase we take the asnwers for granted.

I once took a Canadian history class conducted by a professor from Pakistan. she was by far the best Canadian history professor or teacher I had ever had. Her depth of understanding of international colonialism was missing from every other Canadian history course I had taken. This is just one example. An international point of view on a local subject may be required in order to understand the local subject.

Fact is, we do not have to trust RT on Russian news any more than we trust anything in Canad aon Canadina news but on international subjects it is a source worth considering. This does not mean it does not have bias but you can understand that and read accordingly.

The mistake is the assumption that you can find an unbiased source anywhere. A bigger mistake is the assumption that you can always read the local biases that you have been brought up in. Some people can get in the habit of questioning local geographic bias but local is not always geographic. We can spot right wing bias fairly effectively. But what about the biases that come from our own political stances? Those are harder to see as anyone who has read about confirmation bias has heard of. Pairing up biased sources is valuable.

BTW: I still once in a while read texts of Trump speeches (I no longer want to subject myself to that man's voice where avoidable). I really dilike Trump but I do see instances where the left press take things he says in one way and twists them to a different meaning. Frmo my perspective I am mystified by this as there are enough outragious things he says that this tactic is not needed but I think that people cannot help themselves.

So sure -- read the RT. Do it with the same caution you should bring to every media source -- know who is speaking and understand as much as you can their interests. And read alternative points of view. 

Pages