Brexit

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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-...

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

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 [i]EastEnders[/i].

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

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

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'.

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.

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.

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

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

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..."

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

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

http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36683083

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

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'..."

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..."

When is George Osborne going to resign?

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?