Brexit

pondering and iyraste

..in all my days as an activist i have never seen anything like where we are at today..globally. we are making it up as we go along. we are in the moment. like what is going on in france..check out the nuit debout thread. then there’s spain and the action there is with the municipalities. like madrid and barcelona. podemos is playing a part at that level but it’s all about alliances and opening up space for community involvement. it in these places where the decisions are being made on what our future will look like. and in the here and now not some time down the road when the right conditions are met. we have our own processes here in canada and here’s a link to scotland and those alliances

 After Brexit: RISE ready to support new drive for independence

eta:

..just wanted to add that catalonia, spain has a wicked agenda. i'll try and dig up the link i posted a while back.

..sorry can't find the post and i don't do well searching babble. not user friendly.

What a farce!

The Brits are quickly becoming the laughing stocks of the planet.

Cameron tells EU leaders they must offer UK more control over immigration

PM warned Brussels summit that free movement was at heart of Britain’s decision to reject European Union

Senior EU diplomats are also perplexed about how the prime minister managed to turn what they saw as a very generous deal – negotiated in February – into a catastrophic defeat that has plunged Britain into crisis. EU insiders thought the UK had got an exceptional offer, and were left bitter and disappointed when Cameron didn’t use it in the referendum campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/28/cameron-eu-leaders-uk-cont...

And soon the question will be: Who cares?

Brexit: Who governs Britain? This is the UK's new 10-party system

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-who-governs-britain...

And the sun slowly, and maybe not quite so slowly, sinks on the British Empire. And the sooner Canada disaffiliates themselves from that xenophobic mess of a society the better.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So we're pretty confident that fewer than 52% of Canadians exhibit any xenophobia?

Phew.

Fuck those jackbooted skinhead Nazi fuckers.

Well, there does seem to be some empirical evidence that Canadians are less xenophobic than others. Excerpt:

Zack Beauchamp wrote:

"The only real outlier [to the nativist trend] is Canada," Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia who studies nativism and far-right politics in Europe, tells me. He continues:

[Trudeau] has handled, so far, the Syrian refugee crisis incredibly well, having taken in 25,000 Syrian refugees against the majority will. Initially, he wasn't supported by the majority — but when they finally arrived, a majority of Canadians did support it. That's one of the few encouraging lessons that we have seen over the last several years: that if you have a positive campaign, which is supported by a large portion of the media, that you can actually swing public opinion in a positive direction.

Why? It's because Canada is genuinely different from other Western countries in terms of its attitude toward immigrants. It's far more welcoming than basically everywhere else.

"Compared to the citizens of other developed immigrant-receiving countries, Canadians are by far the most open to and optimistic about immigration," Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at UC Berkeley and its chair of Canadian studies, wrote in a 2012 study published by the Migration Policy Institute.

"In one comparative poll, only 27 percent of those surveyed in Canada agreed that immigration represented more of a problem than an opportunity. In the country that came closest to Canadian opinion, France, the perception of immigration as a problem was significantly higher, at 42 percent."

Why? According to Bloemraad, the Canadian government has spent decades attempting to foster tolerance and acceptance as core national values, through policies aimed at integrating immigrants and minority groups without stripping them of their group identity.

Corbyn enjoys an approval rating of +17 percent...

one can only hope that the purification of Labour will radicalize the Party, recognizing the power of the antiglobalization BREXIT vote, which people feel with the loss of their jobs, closing of factories, asset hyperinflation depriving them of housing and soon the escalating hyperinflation of food prices....this is the root problem, which a left program must address with a transitionl program to national (regional?) self reliance and deprivatization of the financial sector!

How such movements may develop there or here is of course an intriguing question, and I suggest historically may usually come from a splintering and radicalization process, but perhaps also from a total disintegration and discreditation of those same existing political organizations..

so given the greens and NDP here....splintering and radicalization or discrediting, forcing the minority concerned activists to look elsewhere.

This is a vital question! Where will the genuine antiglobalization movement come from? 

The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind  -  by Jonathan Cook

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/28/the-neoliberal-prison-brexit-hyst...

"...Liberal pundits sensitively agonise over, but increasingly end up backing, policies designed to benefit the banks and arms manufacturers, and ones that wreak havoc domestically and abroad. They are the 'useful idiots' of modern western societies.

Guardian columnist Zoe Williams, I think, isolates this liberal pathology in all its sordid glory..."

The  End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order  -   by Omar Kassem

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/28/the-end-of-the-atlantic-project-s...

"Britain isn't leaving the EU any time soon as confusion grips parliament. Obama is bound to be on the phone for this and other reasons. Britain is formally the US fifth column in Europe..."

NDPP wrote:

The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind  -  by Jonathan Cook

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/28/the-neoliberal-prison-brexit-hyst...

"...Liberal pundits sensitively agonise over, but increasingly end up backing, policies designed to benefit the banks and arms manufacturers, and ones that wreak havoc domestically and abroad. They are the 'useful idiots' of modern western societies.

Guardian columnist Zoe Williams, I think, isolates this liberal pathology in all its sordid glory..."

not even useful

Some MPs speculated that after the EU referendum, enthusiasm amongst the party grassroots had similarly soured.There's some evidence that this hope is wishful thinking. Newsnight has spoken to more than 50 Constituency Labour Party chairs and secretaries who endorsed Corbyn last year. Of those, 45 continue to offer their support and believe that their constituencies will again nominate the leader in the now inevitable leadership contest.

 

Many we spoke to were nothing short of incensed at the antics of the party's MPs.

Patrick Smith, chair of Hull North said: "If they don't listen to the membership then they should just leave."

The chairman of Hartlepool CLP echoed that, saying: "The MPs seem more interested in the interests of the PLP rather than the membership."

Another went further still: "It's an absolute outrage. You'd think these characters were sleeper agents for the Tories. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they were working for Lynton Crosby." 

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120 

CETA On Track For Ratification Before UK Leaves EU, Minister Says (and vid)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ceta-europe-trade-deal-1.3654857

"In the aftermath of last week's Brexit vote, the European Union is even more determined to sign a free trade agreement with Canada, international Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland says, and there is not the slightest 'whisper' of doubt over the massive deal."

The opposite is more likely the case. In fact all of the big trade deals such as TTIP etc are looking very shaky as a result of this critical political event.

Washington Fears Brexit Will Unravel Its Anti-Russia Policy  -  by Finian Cunningham

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/348600-washington-fears-brexit-unravel/

"Britain's stunning referendum vote to leave the European Union has thrown a cat among the pigeons, not least in Washington, where it is feared that the 'Brexit' could scupper its anti-Russia policy.

In particular the loss of British influence inside the EU will impact on Washington's carefully constructed policy of trying to isolate Russia. As the New York Times headlined: 'With Brexit, Washington's direct line to the continent suddenly frays'...

NDPP wrote:

Washington Fears Brexit Will Unravel Its Anti-Russia Policy  -  by Finian Cunningham

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/348600-washington-fears-brexit-unravel/

Britain would thus bring a strong NATO perspective to the emerging EU. The US-led military alliance’s unofficial objective from its postwar inception in 1949 was, according to British Lord Ismay, the first secretary-general, to “keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out”. And Britain’s presence within the EU – as the second biggest economy after Germany – ensured that this anti-Russian ideology always remained a potent force, even 25 years after the Cold War supposedly ended.

But Britain didn't join the EC until the 1970s.

..good news about the ttip

The global order is dying. But it’s an illusion to think Britain can survive without the EU

quote:

The impact has been immediate. Almost unnoticed amid the post-Brexit hysteria, French president François Hollande announced his intention to veto TTIP, the free-trade treaty between the EU and the US. For clarity, that means it is dead.

NorthReport, at least for English-speaking Canada, that would mean closer ties to the oh-so progressive US.

The worst thing to happen here is for Corbyn to cave in to the Blairites Seriously what are the policy differences between Blair and Cameron?
But the left are experts in self-destruction as opposed to the right who realize the importance of winning, because if you don't win you don't change much, but if you do win you can at least change a few things
The big mistake the left makes is they don't realize that politics is first and foremost about who gets the next government contract

El-Gingihy has a good article in the Independent today

Which can be found here....  

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-labour-leadersh...

The major flaw in El-Gingihy's argument being (IMHO) equating Corbyn's political analysis and positions (which may well be "correct" on some abstract scale of progressive politics) with his leadership abilities - which are clearly close to non-existent.

The simple fact is the "correctness" of one's policy positions means nothing to anyone but debating clubs (and Babblers!) unless you can advance those positions through political processes. And Corbyn has proven himself to be wholly incapable of Job #1 for a Parliamentary Leader - holding his own parliamentary caucus together.  As such he is soooo dead in the water as a credible party leader and prospective Prime Minister.

But fight on, he might ....   after 30 years on the back benches he will make the most of his moment in the sun.  

The amount of mud-slinging, name calling and hype used by the 'remainers' really makes me wonder if they do have any substance behind them besides a sense of entitlement.  Particularly when they try to call down Corbyn for not winning the election for them in Middle England.  What, seventy percent Labour-for isn't high enough, he should have appealed the little Englanders and football yobs as well?  So Donald Trump and other rightwingers now use some of the same anti-globalization rhetoric as the left.  I believe it was the left that first argued the dangers of letting transnationals write the rules, at one time with the help of social democrats, but guys like Pat Buchanan stole some of them and repackaged them under the banner of ethnic nationalism and mindless patriotism.  I don't recall anyoine arguing on the left that the nation state was a perfect instrument, only that it could regulate the flow of capital more fairly and democratically.   But now apparently to question it now is tantamount to hating foreigners and immigrants.  And any attempt to use any anti-elitist ground swell towards more positive ends must necessarily imply getting into bed with them.  As if all the protesters in France, Greece and elsewhere are really just the same coin as the LePens and Farage's of the world.  As if the EU didn't have plenty of LePens already.  As if the elites are so concerned about the plight of the low wage labourers they prefer to emply.  As if racism doesn't exist in any existing block of voters and any class, muted or no.  As if voting on the same side of a single issue referendum is the same as agreeing or working with the bigots on ANYTHING else, before, during and after.   Hey, we vote with them all the time.  We might even buy stuff from them.  And we wonder why the centre-left is fracturing and the leftwing may not be so enthusiastic either about the the strategy or tactics of the Clintons and Blairs we keep getting inflicted with.  History, legal legitimacy and the real authority to legislate and alter social structures apparently don't matter as much as rhetoric and manouevering WITHIN them.  TINA, I know.  Not anymore.

sherpa-finn wrote:

The major flaw in El-Gingihy's argument being (IMHO) equating Corbyn's political analysis and positions (which may well be "correct" on some abstract scale of progressive politics) with his leadership abilities - which are clearly close to non-existent.

The simple fact is the "correctness" of one's policy positions means nothing to anyone but debating clubs (and Babblers!) unless you can advance those positions through political processes. And Corbyn has proven himself to be wholly incapable of Job #1 for a Parliamentary Leader - holding his own parliamentary caucus together.  As such he is soooo dead in the water as a credible party leader and prospective Prime Minister.

But fight on, he might ....   after 30 years on the back benches he will make the most of his moment in the sun.  

Labour’s No Confidence Vote is a Perfect Example of How Not to Do A Coup

Quote:

But their problems go deeper than that. Thus far, the critique of Corbyn is strikingly vapid. It is a meaningless and self-cancelling complaint to say that Corbyn can't unite the parliamentary party around him. All these MPs have to do is accept the mandate of the party membership, work with the elected leadership, and the complaint disappears. But that complaint is the entire substance of most of the resignation letters.  

If Corbyn is such an incompetent leader then the dissenting Labour MPs must be worse than useless.

And if there's any doubt where the Guardian-Observer-Independent loyalties really are.  Check out this bit of puffery, courtesy of NorthReport:

Theresa May – what lies beyond the public image?S

he's widely tipped as the next leader of the Tory party, yet little is known about the home secretary. Here, friends and colleagues tell the truth about the inscrutable MP

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/theresa-may-profile-beyo...

If only Corbyn could get such good press.  May apparently had a rather unsavoury record of deporting Muslims using questionable methods.  But she did vote against Brexit.  

Enough from me.   

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Can someone please explain to me what Corbyn could have done differently that might have caused Brittan to vote for Remain?

Nothing. But if he had kissed Tony Blair's ass in the middle of Piccadilly Circus, he would not be facing a challenge.

 If only Corbyn could get such good press...

Actually, Corbyn has gotten tons of good press. And he is widely characterised as honest, committed, consistent, moral, progressive, full of integrity, etc., etc. 

The one thing no one has accused him of is being able to lead a big tent political party. And for better or for worse, that was the job he applied for and won.

But when the people who work directly for you vote over 75% in favour of a motion of non-confidence, you are done.  Think of it as a kind of worker's revolt against an incompetent boss, if it helps. Sure, the shareholders put him there (and may yet re-confirm him there) but on the parliamentary shop floor, the overwhelming majority consider him incompetent.

It just so happens that this time the incompetent boss is really progressive on questions of Palestine, globalisation, etc. Still an incompetent boss.  

sherpa-finn wrote:

 If only Corbyn could get such good press...

Actually, Corbyn has gotten tons of good press. And he is widely characterised as honest, committed, consistent, moral, progressive, full of integrity, etc., etc. 

The one thing no one has accused him of is being able to lead a big tent political party. And for better or for worse, that was the job he applied for and won.

But when the people who work directly for you vote over 75% in favour of a motion of non-confidence, you are done.  Think of it as a kind of worker's revolt against an incompetent boss, if it helps. Sure, the shareholders put him there (and may yet re-confirm him there) but on the parliamentary shop floor, the overwhelming majority consider him incompetent.

It just so happens that this time the incompetent boss is really progressive on questions of Palestine, globalisation, etc. Still an incompetent boss.  

The concept of these prima-donna, self-interested, careerist, and largely incompetent MPs as "workers" is just ludicrous. As has already been pointed out several times, most of them have never accepted the membership's choice of Corbyn, and have plotted to unseat him since before he was even elected. His failure to convert them is not incompetence on his part, it is bad faith on their part.

sherpa-finn wrote:

 If only Corbyn could get such good press...

Actually, Corbyn has gotten tons of good press. And he is widely characterised as honest, committed, consistent, moral, progressive, full of integrity, etc., etc. 

The one thing no one has accused him of is being able to lead a big tent political party. And for better or for worse, that was the job he applied for and won.

But when the people who work directly for you vote over 75% in favour of a motion of non-confidence, you are done.  Think of it as a kind of worker's revolt against an incompetent boss, if it helps. Sure, the shareholders put him there (and may yet re-confirm him there) but on the parliamentary shop floor, the overwhelming majority consider him incompetent.

It just so happens that this time the incompetent boss is really progressive on questions of Palestine, globalisation, etc. Still an incompetent boss.  

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.' 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. 

It's especially rich since it's so obvious that the parliamentary Labour party never wanted him in the first place, to claim that their rejection of his leadership in any way undermines his project. In fact, it may even reinforce the importance of what Corbyn, Momentum, etc. are trying to do - make the party into a movement. I suspect these people, who never backed Corbyn, have simply seen the moment to turn on him and prevent him leading newer Labour into an election that it might well win. 

Here is a disturbing article about post-Brexit celebratory racism:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/frenzy-hatred-brexit-rac...

Some of the Blairite commenters at the Guardian are claiming that a large percentage of Corbyn supporters are SWP members, wilfully "forgetting" the implosion of that group a couple of years ago over a rape cover-up and many revalations of deeply undemocratic internal functioning...