British Parliament Continues Its Two-Year Brexit Tantrum

After years of pressure led by nationalistic Tories, the reactionary British tabloids, and the so-called United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the British government of then prime minister David Cameron, a Conservative (Tory) member, felt compelled to finally allow the public to vote in 2016 on a referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of the European Union (EU), or leave, so-called "Brexit," short for British Exit.

Much to the surprise and chagrin of much of the bourgeois establishment in Britain, Europe, and the U.S., Brexit won with 51.9% of the vote. [1]

I won't go into the whys and wherefors here as that's off the topic a bit.

Under EU law, Britain had two years to formally leave the EU. Now the deadline has arrived.

The British Parliament has in the past couple of weeks formally voted to reject remaining in the European Union, has voted to reject leaving the EU without an exit deal, AND has voted to reject the deal that took two years to negotiate and renegotiate.

In other words, the Members of Parliament (MPs) reject everything. They in effect reject BOTH leaving and remaining.

Why do I say the British MPs are having a tantrum over Brexit? Because, like two-year-olds, they are demanding something they obviously can't have, and won't stop demanding it. Namely, that Britain can have a better deal outside of the EU than as a member!

That is completely, totally unrealistic.

But they refuse to accept that.

The British Brexiteers want all the benefits of EU membership with none of the responsibilities or obligations or costs. It would be suicidal for the EU to agree to such a ridiculous demand, as it would create a cascade of other member states demanding the same treatment for themselves.

The Tantrumeers believe that, contrary to the old saw, that they CAN "have your cake and eat it too," as one of the main leaders of the Brexit movement, the Tory buffoon and dodgy former "journalist" Boris "Bojo The Clown" Johnson actually asserted.

Perhaps they imagine they are still a globally dominant power that can force others to accede to their unreasonable demands.

I have an idea. They've beaten the French and the Germans in past wars (with a LOT of help in the case of the Germans)- why not try THAT again?

Maybe that's what former Tory prime minister David Cameron meant when he threatened in the campaign leading up to the referendum on Brexit that voting to leave the EU would lead to "World War III."

Or maybe he was just being demagogic, like the pro-Brexit camp, which was even worse.

The EU leaders, whose exasperation has started to show, granted the British an extension to exit the Union, which by treaty was supposed to occur in two years, in March just ended, so the new deadline is in April. With the demand that since Britain is still in the Union, it must elect members to the toothless show legislature, the so-called "European Parliament." (In the past, the British members elected to that body were dominated by haters of that body, members of UKIP, led by the articulate and clever rascal Nigel Farage, the Trump-loving reactionary head of UKIP , who was their spokesman in the European Parliament in which role he delighted in making speeches on the floor insulting the body and the various EU poohbahs while they sat there taking it.

The current Tory prime minister, Theresa May, has proven to be a rigid and politically inept, indeed tone-deaf, politician. But the problem here isn't her incompetence. It is the total unrealism of Brexiteers, plus the fact that the Parliament is divided within itself in various ways, and both major parties, Labour and Conservative, are divided internally between pro-Brexiteers and Remainers, and within those subgroups in each party, those willing to take the deal on offer and those not, those wanting a "hard" exit with no deal and those who think that Britain can somehow extort a more favorable deal out of the EU at this late date,and among Remainers, those who favor a "do-over" of the referendum, and those who do not.

It's a mess, but those who will pay most of the cost are the British, as major corporations are already announcing plans to pick up and move to the continent. The imposition of border controls adds friction and costs to cross-border commerce, increasing prices.

Being able to keep out workers from the continent, and freedom from EU rules on health, safety, labor rights, pollution, product standards, etc., in the name of "independence," won't really help the main supporters of Brexit, workers left behind by neoliberalism. Interdependence isn't necessarily bad.

Ironically, if Britain had a social welfare state more like some of those in Europe rather than a Thatcherite model, the referendum vote may have come out differently. People who are kicked to the curb sometimes find a way to upset the apple cart, or at least knock some of the apples off.

Theresa May, architect of the Grenfell Tower fire massacre.

Bojo The Clown

Nigel Farage. (Rhymes with "garage.") Happy now, huh asshole?

1] A detailed breakdown of the referendum vote is at the BBC here.

EU Masters Won't Be Able To Rid Themselves of Britain As Fast As They Want To

Looks like Britain may have the European Union bosses over bit of a barrel. They can't actually eject Britain from membership in their dysfunctional club. Britain has to invoke Article 50 of one of the EU treaties to begin the process of withdrawal. British Prime Minister David Cameron announced in the British Parliament that he would leave it to his successor to initiate that process. (Assuming his successor chooses to do so, which he is under no obligation to do. The just-completed referendum does not legally compel the British government to actually withdraw from the EU.)

Cameron announced he is stepping down in October. So that's already 3 months before anything can happen. He also referred to negotiating before Britain invoked Article 50. That gives Britain a good deal of leverage in extracting relatively favorable terms from the EU regarding trade, immigration, and social benefits for immigrants.

Meanwhile, there's been an odd disconnect between the political events and the behavior of stock markets. Every day, the political chatter from and about Britain is that it is "leaderless," since a clear successor of the Tories to replace Cameron hasn't been selected, and the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has a rebellion on his hands in his own party. Labor MPs are overwhelmingly calling for his resignation, and his shadow cabinet has resigned. We're being told that months, or even years, of uncertainty lies ahead.

Stock markets are supposed to hate uncertainty. And yet, after declining for the first two trading days after the Brexit referendum on Thursday June 23, stocks fell on Friday and Monday, in the U.S. about a total of 6% in the broad averages. Then they went up strongly the next 3 days in a row, recouping all the losses. This morning U.S. stocks are up again, for the fourth day in a row, although anything could happen by closing. As so often, the stock market confounds by defying its own putative "logic."

One excuse (aka "reason" or pseudo-explanation) for the rally is that traders expect central bank easing as a result of the Brexit vote. In other words, they assume that central banks (the Fed in the U.S.) exist to facilitate ever-rising stock markets by providing financial sugar for the professional speculator class. Perhaps some thought a measly 6% decline created a "bargain" situation. Given the extremely short-term perspective of "the market" in recent years, that probably is at least part of it.

How to square the continuing hand-wringing and bitter condemnations by financial and political commentators over the Brexit referendum outcome, along with their doom-and-gloom predictions for the economic future of not just Britain but even the entire world, with the giddy reversal of direction by stocks globally? Could it be that the elite chatterers and "economic experts" are dead wrong? Since they fetishize markets, surely they must defer to the "judgment" of those markets.

Following Moody's another "rating" agency, S & P, has downgraded the credit rating of the British government. As I stated in my previous essay, these credit "rating"agencies have shown themselves to be criminal enterprises by their complicity in the packaged mortgage securities fraud, rating junk mortgaged Triple-A. They deserve no credibility whatsoever.

Even the British pound rallied back to $1.35, from $1.32, although right now it's back to just under $1.33. But the gloomsters ignore the positive of that. It means British exports are cheaper, just boosting British exports. That in turn benefits at least some British workers, and certainly the export businesses. It also will boost tourism to Britain, since it means vacationing in Britain becomes cheaper for Americans and Europeans using the Euro. The downside is more expensive imports, and it makes foreign travel more expensive for Britons, who will get less foreign currency in exchange for their pounds when abroad. Net, Britain gains economically from a cheaper currency. And I doubt it will fall anywhere near the low of 1987, when it dropped to $1.04 U.S.

A looming political question is what Scotland will do. Scotland voted strongly for Brexit, and doesn't want to lose the alleged advantages of EU membership. There has been talk of another vote on Scotland independence, (Which requires the permission of the British Parliament, unless Scotland wants to fight a war of succession.) Well, the British empire has been shedding pieces of itself for a century, perhaps it's high time for another piece to molt off.

One worry going forward: now that the Tory former London Mayor Boris Johnson has dropped out of competition to succeed Cameron, the egregious Home Secretary Theresa May very much wants the PM job. She's a repressive authoritarian who has consistently pushed for more powers for the British secret police agencies, including the NSA's little brother, GCHQ (General Communications Headquarters, an electronic spy agency that works hand in glove with the NSA as one of the "Five Eyes," the electronic secret police organizations of the U.S., UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand). She also lobbies hard for more repressive laws. And if Britain leaves the EU, the privacy laws of the EU and the European Court of Justice will no longer exert a restraining influence on the British ruling class' thirst for more repression. At this time she has but a single rival to take Cameron's place, and that is Justice Secretary Michael Gove, an erstwhile ally of Boris Johnson in the pro-Brexit camp.

The Nightmare Scenario: The Remorseless Theresa May as Prime Minister of Britain.

British People Vote To Leave EU: Elites In Shock: Financial Speculators Freak Out

Looks like the financial and political elites of Britain declared victory a tad too soon. After (over) confidently predicting a vote to reject "Brexit" (British exit) in the referendum to leave the European Union by 54% to 46%, the Leave side won instead, 52-48. Turnout was about 72%, quite high. (The latest wrong prediction was based on exit polling by those mega-parasites, hedge funds, leading to giddy rallies in global stock markets and the British currency, the pound sterling. Speculators placed bets presuming their desired outcome in the referendum. Oops!)

Apparently the sky has fallen on the establishment. On the United Kingdom Government's propaganda arm, the BBC, its "World Service" "presenters," as their on-air personnel are called, sounded like attendees as at a funeral, all doleful tones and sad head shakes. There was even talk of the UK breaking up, due to the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU.

"An astonishing victory," declared a BBC anchor. "A political earthquake" declared a co-anchor.

"This is a crushing, crushing day for Britain, and a terrible day for Europe," opined a British politician, saying "it's all over" for the EU and trade. Followed by shocked comments from various European pols. The "consensus," as the BBC presented it, was that the referendum result was a disaster.

Almost all the guests brought on were "Remain" supporters, consisting of politicians and media commentators. So the attendees at the funeral did most of the talking. I monitored the broadcast for about two hours. Almost no supporters of "Leave" were put on-air in that time. In other words, no attempt at balance. This "journalism" consisted of an establishment arm, the British Broadcasting Corporation, crying in its beer over what for that establishment is a "loss."

Some illustrative comments from the BBC "presenters" themselves:

"Whether the United Kingdom exists, five years from now is going to be the big question," (his emphasis).

"All this mayhem you're seeing in the market," exclaimed a female BBC-er.

"It's an absolutely extraordinary act of defiance" by the voters against the political and economic establishment, which all exhorted people on the "right" way to vote, and the disaster that would befall the country if they voted "wrong." That one by the BBC's Rob Watson.

Watson also claimed that the "Leave" side lacked a "plan." "A lot of people are going to say, "Krikey, have you got a plan?'"

Actually, they do. Within the two-year time frame where nothing with the EU changes, negotiate new trade arrangements. You know, trade has gone on for thousands of years.It wasn't necessary for countries to all belong to a superstate to trade. Nor do China and the U.S. belong to the EU, yet they do a lot of trade with it. Funny thing, these facts escape the professional Chicken Littles who are squawking that the sky is falling.

Another Chicken Little on BBC fretted, "This is a recipe for chaos."

Dry your tears, fellows. Even the powerful can't always get their way.

One revealing comment by a BBC co-anchor about the referendum underlined for me the undemocratic nature of the United Kingdom.

"Everyone's vote is equally weighted, and that's unusual in Britain."

Well, it is a KINGDOM, a monarchy, of course no longer an absolute one. Notice that for bourgeois types to truly "arrive" in Britain, one must be granted an aristocratic (feudal) title.

There was talk of "disintegration" of the EU by one Jackie Davis, "commentator on European affairs." "A domino effect," "great consternation" among the political bosses. "How do you show you are listening" to your disgruntled masses while making clear "but leaving is not an option," she says.

How indeed. How to herd the ignorant mass to follow behind their "leaders"? Where are Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays now that you need them? (Lippmann was a theorist of manipulating the masses to obey their masters and keep their ignorant noses out of "decision-making." Among propagandist Bernays' crimes were getting women to smoke, and participating in the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala, that established fascist death squad rule there.)

The BBC gang hauled on a German former EU commissioner, who promoted EU enlargement, and pestered him to say that the EU was going to fall apart, which he declined to do.

Various politicians and opinionators were all aflutter, calling the outcome "a political earthquake, a seismic event" and making similarly overwrought comments.

"A sad day for Europe" was the verdict of a Maltese politician, a member of the European Parliament, or MEP, invoking "our forefathers." (??? Yeah, I know, baffling.)

Hour after hour of worried hand-wringing and moaning.

If they keep this up, they're going to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And a Labour MP (Member of Parliament) (the Labour Party strongly backed staying in the EU, whereas the working classes, that Labour supposedly represents, voted to leave, as expected.) said "we have to listen carefully" (maybe you should have done that before!) because the vote was "a roar of defiance against Westminster elites" (like you!) symptomatic of "anger and fears that are out there." (Hey! She noticed!)  [1]  

As for the speculators who bet on winning the referendum by driving up stock prices and the pound, they immediately went into a tizzy. That global mob of parasitic speculators, aka "the markets," meaning stocks, bonds, currencies, futures, options, all that rot, were caught wrong-footed by the vote outcome. The Japanese futures market at one point tripped a "circuit breaker," meaning trading was halted when a limit to the size of allowable movements was reached.

The British currency, the pound sterling, immediately fell 10%, from a six-month high to a thirty year low. Which is a fine example of the fickleness, and fragility, of the financial markets, which holds the world in their thrall. An obvious, but taboo, thought on that is: the world economy, and the well-being of all of us, shouldn't be captive to the whims of a capricious, arbitrary, and very vulnerable financial superstructure of parasites sitting on top of the real economy. By "real," I mean the actual production of useful goods and services created by work.

It's a bit ironic that one of the leaders of the "Leave" camp, Nigel Farage, got rich as a financial speculator. He's the head of the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP. A fast and smooth talker, on the day of the referendum he predicted defeat for his side- not helpful while voting was going on! Now he's celebrating.

But let's put this in perspective. Financial markets are chronically subject to wild gyrations. They swing far in one direction, then back the other way when the stampeding herd of speculators reverses direction on a dime, and on a whim. It's classic manic-depressive behavior.

The pound, having risen to a 6-month high around $1.50 U.S. on premature euphoria by the speculator class, fell about 10% in an instant, to around $1.32. That may be a 30 year low, but it is well above the $1.04 it hit in 1986. And guess where it was in 1991? $2.00, practically double in value against the U.S. dollar. Since then it's zoomed up and down between around $1.38 and $2.10. (You can see a chart, here.) As for the Euro, the currency of the Eurozone, there was moaning on the BBC of it going near parity to the dollar, i.e. worth $1.00. To which I say, get some prspective. The Euro was launched n January 1999 at $1.20, and it promptly went into decline, bottoming out finally at 79 U.S. cents. ($0.79.) Then it began ascending, eventually topping out at $1.60. From there it went into a long decline, until seeming to find a floor just above one buck.

All of which is to say, when you let currency speculators determine exchange rates, there is no way to tell what the actual value of a currency is by its market price. [2]

Well, all those bets on stocks and the pound that went the wrong way are now being reversed in a panic. How far they go down, having gone up on a presumptuous false assumption of another bourgeois victory, will partly depend on the degree of "uncertainty." For as those who make excuses for the behavior of the financial markets whenever the speculators are having a tantrum are fond of saying, "Markets hate uncertainty."

But just who is exaggerating the degree of uncertainty here? The elites themselves. Getting themselves all frazzled. Will Scotland leave the UK now, since Scots voted to remain in the EU? Maybe. What if they do? They came close to voting to become independent (as they used to be) a few years back. You'll deal with it.

And by the way, that referendum isn't legally binding on the British government. So there may be some dirty double-cross in the future. (See Guardian, UK, "Is the EU referendum legally binding?," 23 June.)

A letter carrying the signatures of 84 Tory MPs (Members of Parliament of Cameron's own Conservative Party) who supported Brexit, or leaving the EU, stated that Cameron should stay on as PM regardless of the outcome of the referendum. This letter was made public just before the vote. Apparently it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, as Cameron has announced his resignation.

Let me offer a bit of farm wisdom for the elites: next time, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

There's the sky. See? It isn't falling.

1]  The BBC wasn't alone in wallowing in gloom over its dashed hopes. Take the organ of the "respectable" leftish edge of the British establishment, the Guardian newspaper. On the day of the vote it "helpfully" explained that only pathetic people who cling to the past would vote to leave the EU. Then when defeat dawned later the same day, one of its columnists informed that "Brexit earthquake has happened, and the rubble will take years to clear."

Sounds like a great business opportunity for entrepreneurs with bulldozers to rent!

"Last-minute EU referendum polls put remain support ahead," Guardian, 23 June 2016.

The propaganda line was the same on this side of the Atlantic. U.S. government radio propaganda network NPR started the morning with a gloomy take on the referendum outcome. Their Moscow correspondent reported how great it was for Russia, as Britain was the most vociferous voice for economic sanctions against Russia within the EU. (The UK acting as guard dog for U.S. "interests." An example of what Obama meant when he said the UK was more valuable to the U.S. within the EU than outside.) And NPR put on David Rennie, from the reactionary, overtly ideological British rag The Economist, to proclaim a "disaster" for the U.S., and attack the dishonesty of the Leave camp, asserting that they invented facts completely. (There were more than a few invented facts on Rennie's side.) The rest of the commanding peaks of U.S. corporate media see things the same way.

2]  Interesting short article on how George Soros made a billion dollars attacking the British pound back in 1992, at the expense of the public treasury,  "No Mr. Soros, Brexit Will Not be a Black Friday for the British Pound," 22 June 2016.

Financial Elites Celebrating Victory in Brexit Referendum Before the Votes Are Even Counted

It was still morning on the east coast of the United States- over an hour before noon, in fact- when word came over the radio today that stock markets and the British currency, the pound sterling, were rallying on expectations that the British public was voting for Britain to remain in the European Union in today's referendum. This giddy arrogance apparently was fueled in part by a private exit poll, asking voters how they voted.

Since the polls leading up the actual referendum were about even for quitting the EU (Brexit, British exit) or staying, I figured the vote would break for staying in, because people are innately conservative, by that I mean resistant to change. Change almost always feels riskier than the status quo, since one is exchanging the known for the unknown. Of course that's an illusion, since the future is unknown no matter what.

There was much demagogy by partisans on both sides, but mostly on the "stay in EU" side. British Prime Minister David "Big Toff" Cameron actually raised the specter of a third World War breaking out in Europe if Britain left the EU, a preposterous suggestion. (If anything forced the European nations to get along, it was being gripped in a U.S. headlock, economically and militarily, with the U.S.-controlled NATO military alliance putting them on the same side against the Soviet bloc, and now against Russia and as auxiliaries to U.S. military campaigns in the Middle East.) The most outré bit of fatuousness on the "leave" side came from former Tory mayor of London Boris "BoJo" Johnson, who compared EU unity to "unity" under Hitler and Napoleon, speciously equating military conquest and subjugation with a voluntary association.

The economic arguments were mostly overstated, on both sides, and avowed with far too much confidence. No one can really know with certainty what the economic future holds either way.

Nor was it a surprise that the "experts," who are virtually all in the pay of the financial or political elites, wouldn't sabotage their own careers by arguing for a vote to leave. I'm reminded of the saying, figures don't lie, but liars figure. I'm sure the calculations the gang of economic soothsayers came up with "proved" exactly what they determined in advance they were going to prove. Not worth the paper it's printed on.

Of course the Boss of the World, the current U.S. Emperor, Barack Obama, had to weigh in, with threats ("you won't get a trade deal with the U.S. for ten years if you drop out of the EU") and cajolings. He was followed by various U.S. imperialist poohbahs and financial elitists,uniform in their very self-serving opinion. (Opinion stated as objective fact, however.) I wrote previously on this topic,  [1]

Naturally the parasitic financial class, and large corporations, favor staying in the EU, because that is in their perceived economic interest. The Big Lie they always tell, whenever promoting their own self-interest (that is, always) is that what they want is good for everyone. Not only is this absurd on its face, but it has been disproved repeatedly by empirical evidence. Examples abound, such as the so-called "free trade agreements," which are actually corporate hegemony deals.

The populations of the "advanced" countries, as in the rest of the world, are divided into "winners" and "losers." The "winners" are people whose labor and skills (and sometimes connections) have significant value to capitalist employers. The rest of us are a dime a dozen, and can be had for a song.

In Britain, EU rules have obligated the country to allow hundreds of thousands of migrants from Eastern Europe to settle annually in Britain, driving down the "cost" of labor (wages) by increasing its supply. Working class objections to this are branded "racist," or at best xenophobic. The "lower" classes are not allowed to have their own economic interests, in bourgeois ideology, a totalitarian ideology that excludes all others from serious consideration. (The U.S. Government propaganda radio network NPR has gotten into the act, pushing the line that pro-Brexit supporters are "racist.") That somebody might want to limit immigrant without racism being the motive is excluded from consideration by the establishment media in both the U.S. and UK.

As for the economic arguments of the Brexit camp, these were dismissed by bludgeoning them with the deluge of propaganda issued by institutions of the financial oligarchy- all the usual suspects, such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (those two notorious enemies of the world's poor and indeed nascent middle classes to boot, collection agencies for foreign debt holders), various "consultancies" and crooked major accounting firms that were essential in bringing us the mortgage crisis in the U.S. by certifying that billions of dollars worth of garbage mortgage securities were solid gold. {Rated AAA when in fact they were junk, a massive fraud they got away with scot-free. Yet these organized gangs of liars are treated as if their credibility is solid. The past never happened!)

The fact is, the EU is an anti-democratic project of Euro-elites, slid down the throats of the peoples of Europe. Loss of national sovereignty means even less control over their own countries- and lives- than before for the people. And making a supra-nation out of dozens of disparate nationalities with distinct cultures, languages, traditions, and histories, seems like a fool's errand. But maybe the European bourgeoisies are fools. They are enough alike one another that they can unite just fine. Dragging those they rule along with them has proven a bit of a chore.

One more note on the economics. With the EU long in the doldrums, the systematic destruction of Greece, and Spain still in a depression, with a quarter of the workforce unemployed, it takes a damn lot of gall to claim that leaving the EU spells economic disaster, and staying in guarantees prosperity!

Well, as to the referendum...

It would have been a nice rebuke to the self-designated Masters of the Universe if they'd gotten their comeuppance just this one time. Maybe they will, if the vote doesn't turn out to go their way as they've already assumed.

1]  "Obama Threatens Britons Over Leaving the European Union," April 22; "Obama Gives Another Reason For Britons to Stay In the EU: The Better To Spy On Europeans," May 2; "France Kicks the Leg Out From Under One Obama 'Reason' For British Voters to Reject EU Exit," May 4.

AND THE WINNER OF THE BREXIT REFERENDUM IS.....

THE USUAL.

[Boss Tweed, as illustrated by Thomas Nast. Then as now, political and economic power were cozy bedfellows.]

Obama Threatens Britons Over Leaving the European Union

U.S. emperor Obama has weighed in yet again on the upcoming British referendum two months hence, on leaving or remaining in the European Union (EU). Butting into other people's business is an old habit with the imperialist U.S., so no surprise there.

In typical fashion, Obama spoke out of both sides of his mouth, saying it was up to Britons to decide, while telling them how they should vote if they knew what was good for them. He told them brusquely that they'd be at the back of the line if they wanted to make a trade treaty with the U.S. if they voted to exit the EU, the so-called "Brexit" (short for British exit). Pretty rude.

Obama said, in coded language, that Britain will have the most pull if it continues to be the U.S.' stooge within the EU. Speaking as a "friend," Obama hinted that Britain's usefulness to the U.S. would be significantly diminished if it were to drop out of the EU, where it can act as a agent of U.S. interests inside that would-be superstate.

British prime minister David "Big Toff" Cameron chimed in, saying people should listen to their "friends," a reference to the U.S. nation-state. Cameron was forced against his will, after years of stalling and broken promises, to finally allow some democracy in Britain and let the people vote on continuing to be absorbed into the EU.

British elites are themselves divided on the issue- hence the referendum. Cameron's own party, the Conservatives, is split. And the self-promoting, showboating mayor of London, Boris Johnson, like Cameron a Tory, has come out for Brexit. Miffed at Obama's interference British internal affairs, he penned an irate piece in response, carping that Obama removed a bust of the glorious British imperialist Winston Churchill from the Oval Office, or somewhere in the White House. Obama replied that he passed by another Churchill head every day. So there.

It seems to me that there will neither be catastrophe nor great advantage to Britain if it exits the EU. There will be additional hoops to jump through for Brits wishing to work in Europe. Britain will have increased sovereignty in terms of domestic law. It will be free to deny social benefits to foreign workers, as well as limit their numbers. Trade might become a bit more cumbersome. As Britain never jettisoned its own currency, the pound, for the euro, nothing changes monetarily. The need to exchange currencies for trade and travel that already existed will be the same. The idea that Britain somehow swings greater weight on the global stage within the EU is based on the fallacy that the EU is something more than a U.S. appendage in international affairs, or else a passive body that cannot agree among its constituent nations on any decisive action. In the Ukraine matter, the U.S. has put Europe in the position of making sacrifices to punish Russia. The U.S. made the policy ("and fuck the EU," in the immortal words of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in her infamous, unguarded phone call to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt) and the EU suffered the economic consequences by imposing trade sanctions on Russia as per U.S. diktat. (The ever-dutiful and obedient German chancellor Angela "The Iron Mouse" Merkel, the actual boss of the EU, carried out her Master Obama's instructions.)

The End.

U.S. Media Focus Mainly on Putin In Panama Papers Theft, Though He Isn't Named In Them, Lets Western Stooges Off Easy

The massive document theft from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca doesn't name Putin. But it names an alleged friend of his, a cellist. That fact has been enough for the U.S. media to take the ball and run with it. Putin is Culprit Number One in the U.S. media's coverage of the stolen documents. [1]

Meriting mostly mere mentions, or no mention at all, are two other "world leaders" (country bosses) who actually have hidden accounts themselves as revealed in the documents: Petro Poroshenko, the president-by-violent-street-riots of Ukraine, and Mauricio Macri of Argentina, who just ripped off his own country for billions of dollars handed over to U.S. hedge fund extortionists. Poroshenko is the U.S.-EU-approved successor to the ousted Yanukovych, said to deserve being violently ousted because he was "corrupt." (But the referendum by which the people in Crimea voted by over 90% to reunite with Russia was dismissed by Western imperialists as "illegitimate," "illegal," "invalid," even "fake"- by Joseph Nye, a career U.S. imperialist apparatchik. What a luxury it is to write your own rules and the rules for everyone else also!) The "King" of Saudi Arabia has also been discreetly unmentioned prominently (or at all) in the U.S. media.

British prime minister David Cameron also got a pass in U.S. media. The most said about him was when he finally stopped stonewalling on Day 6 of the furor and announced that all taxes had been paid on the account in question, which he inherited from his father and which was closed prior to Cameron attaining the premiership. His family successfully avoided a lot of taxes that way. That didn't stop the BBC (the UK government's propaganda network) from putting on a reactionary propagandist from the rightwing British rag the Telegraph to insist that Cameron did nothing wrong and it would all blow over. (In fact it hasn't blown over, even though the BBC has been doing its best to effect that outcome.)

For the first few days, the insignificant nation of Iceland also was useful as a way to virtually ignore the U.S. collaborators Poroshenko and Macri. The Icelandic president was forced out of office as a result of trying to hide his money. You'd think Iceland was a major nation from the play it got, again especially on the BBC. (Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation. Or is it Bombastic Blather Corruption? I forget.)

It probably escaped most people's attention, even though there have been pro forma acknowlegments in passing in the deluge of media shaming, is the fact that "hidden" and "secret" doesn't equal illegal, and that it is unknown how many of those whose financial privacy has been stripped away evaded taxes. In the public mind, offshore has been equated with tax evasion. (As we know from the example of Mitt Romney, and the U.S. corporations that have $2 trillion socked outside the U.S. to avoid paying taxes- legally.)

1] And not just U.S. media. Here's who the leftish Guardian (UK) shines the spotlight on in its central story on the Panama Papers:

Even the left-leaning Guardian (UK) put Putin front-and-center in its coverage of the Panama Papers. Note implication: It's all Putin's money. That's unlikely.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
https://panamapapers.icij.org/

Murdoch Brings Back Into the Fold The Woman He Wishes Was His Daughter

Rupert Murdoch, the ruthless, ethics-free, arch-reactionary global media baron and political kingmaker (and breaker), has apparently hired back his political hitwoman Rebekah Brooks. 

Brooks used to run Murdoch's United Kingdom print propaganda operations as chief executive of "News International," a role she was forced to step down from after being criminally indicted in the massive phone-hacking and police bribery scandal of Murdoch's Minions in "Great" Britain.

Now, according to the UK's Financial Times (cited by Reuters), Brooks will be back in her old executive chair, as boss of all of Murdoch's British “news”papers. There she will resume her former duties of overseeing the poisoning of the British public mind with neo-fascist agitprop, political slander and vituperation directed at opponents of Murdoch and at any public figure with the slightest evidence of a progressive tendency; tawdry sexual titillation and innuendo (often with hypocritical puritanical denunciation included); and celebrity and “royals” tittle-tattle and trivia to distract the moronic masses, plus combinations of the above. [1]

No doubt Brooks will be handsomely remunerated. Murdoch previously gave her a going-away present of 16.1 million British pounds when she resigned her post in Murdoch's empire. (At the exchange rate on the date she resigned, July 15, 2011, of around $1.615 per pound, that's about $26 million. Of course she didn't get the money on that exact date. On top of that, Murdoch paid her lawyers fees, probably over a million pounds. Not bad for doing your boss' dirty work.)

It's been widely reported that Murdoch has a paternal affection for Brooks. He has stood staunchly behind her through the years-long scandal as she twisted and turned like a greased eel and ultimately succeeded in lying her way out of a jam. (Lower-ranked minions of Murdoch weren't so fortunate, some going to prison for short stints.) [2]

Murdoch's actual biological daughter, Elisabeth, apparently has some ethical standards (thus indicating that morality is not genetic) and has even offered some veiled criticism of her father's media practices in public. She has kept a greater distance from the Great Man than has his sons. Murdoch's mother is also named Elisabeth, so presumably he named his daughter after his Mum. 

But with Brooks, the years of closeness, the fact that they have matching personalities (completely ruthless, and free of the burden of a pesky conscience) and amoral-reactionary politics, and the great trust Murdoch places in her, plus the tremendous support he has provided her rather than treating her as expendable as he did his other underlings caught in scandal, whom he unsentimentally threw overboard, and adding the descriptions of people in a position to observe the relationship, leads one reasonably to the conclusion that Rebekah is The Daughter Rupert wishes he had had.

Rebekah and Rupert, Together Again at Last.

Another person who privately stood foursquare behind Brooks during her period of tribulation (and apparently has a soft-spot for her) is the current Prime Minister of Britain, the Tory toff David Cameron, a social friend of Brooks. The two met at least several dozen times over a period of several years, and apparently exchanged numerous emails and texts- most of them kept hidden by Cameron and his accomplices. Obviously both share reactionary politics also. [3] 

 

“I don't want them to see what I'm hiding behind my back.” British

ruling class toff and prime minister David Cameron.

Brooks is a woman who had wormed her way into the British elite, socially and politically. Her precise social standing currently is opaque to his outsider and not-close observer of British society. I will leave that to others to analyze.

Murdoch waited a decent interval, about one year, after Brooks' unjust acquittal in her trial to openly bring her back on board his pirate vessel. (The evidence of her guilt is overwhelming. Andy Coulson, one of her former underlings and a co-defendant at trial, who was formerly the top Murdoch editor at News [sic] of the World, and later chief propagandist for Tory Prime Minister David Cameron- yes, him again- was not so lucky.) [Footnote 2.]

 Coppers can't lay a hand on her.

Speaking of Crime and No Punishment, throughout his career as a global propaganda czar, Murdoch has personally been above the law, as his enterprises mostly have been.

In the UK scandal, Murdoch's U.S. parent corporation was in blatant violation of U.S. law against bribing foreign officials. Also his minions hacked some victims' phones on U.S. soil.
Yet, with utter predictability, the Obama regime refused to prosecute “News” Corp. for the very blatant violation of the Federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which criminalizes US companies from even attempting to bribe foreign officials, let alone succeeding. (British police officials were regular recipients of Murdoch bribes.)

In typical smarmy fashion, the Obama regime kept the news as quiet as possible (it came out in a corporate filing by Murdoch's “News” Corp. in the U.S.), reneging on a promise to keep his stateside victims apprised of the progress of the “investigation.” [4]

Contrast that with Obama's and Holder's (Loretta Lynch going forward) targeting of journalists and persecution of whistleblowers. There's the secret indictment of Julian Assange, the lawless attacks on the finances of Wikileaks, the mass tapping of the Associated Press's telephones, the targeting of a Fox News (irony there) reporter in a criminal “investigation,” the persecution of government whistleblowers, and most recently, the adoption of a new Pentagon policy of assassinating journalists they don't like, labeling them “unprivileged belligerents” in official military doctrine. [5] 

 

And then there was the assassination of Michael Hastings.

Other examples of Murdochian lawbreaking with impunity was his illegal ownership of TV stations when his corporation was still Australian, before he incorporated in the U.S.; his illegal ownership of newspapers and television stations in the same cities; one of his companies hacking into the computers of a rival company, a much more serious crime than what the U.S. wanted to send Aaron Swartz away for 30 years over; his companies "non-profit" and thus non-taxable status in New York State; and probably a lot lot more.

But the Federal government has more important things to do- like locking up marijuana sellers. (And under Obama, locking up medical marijuana clinic owners too. Thanks, President Choom Gang! Great to see you on the job!) 

Reason to be Cheerful: Look Ma, I'm Above the Law!

But Hold the presses! Murdoch's criminal legal troubles in Britain may have another chapter or few to run. See “Phone hacking: CPS may bring corporate charges against Murdoch publisher- Metropolitan police hands over file of evidence on Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper arm to Crown Prosecution Service,” Guardian, 28 August, 2015.

Let's hope.

“That's right, reactionary plutocrats like me should rightly rule the world! What of it!”

1] “UPDATE 3-Rebekah Brooks returning to News Corp as UK chief – FT,” Reuters, August 28, 2015. In March it was reported that Brooks was being set up in a U.S. position by Murdoch. Possibly that was a trial balloon surreptitiously floated by Murdoch himself, either by him making a “casual” comment to someone through whom he knew it would get into the media, or by his minions “leaking.” See "Rebekah Brooks about to be rehired by Rupert Murdoch for US operation, "Guardian (UK), 1 March, 2015.

2] Andy Coulson, who admitted to listening to stolen voicemails of David Blunkett to his mistress, only has to serve less than 9 months in jail. The former top editor of the Murdoch Sunday rag News [sic] of the World, where thousands of private messages of other people were surreptitiously stolen, was sentenced to 18 months, less than the 2 year maximum, and since he's a “non-violent” offender, he automatically only has to serve half, with additional reductions. Blunkett was a cabinet minister, the “Home Secretary,” similar to an Interior Minister or the U.S. Attorney General, that is, a guy in charge of internal security/domestic repression. The voicemails were publicized and used by Murdoch's minions to force Blunkett from office. Numerous subordinate editors and reporters were also mildly sentenced. Most pled guilty. For the various sentences, see e.g. “Andy Coulson jailed for 18 months for conspiracy to hack phones,” Guardian, 4 July, 2014, an inaccurate title since the article reports he'll only have to serve under 9 momths; “Andy Coulson sentenced for 18 months in phone hacking trial,” UK Telegraph, 4 July, 2014; “Jules Stenson admits phone hacking at News of the World,” Telegraph, 12 December, 2014.

3] See e.g. "David Cameron put on the spot by cosy texts to Rebekah Brooks: Messages about horse riding and conference speech from cache of texts and emails handed over to Leveson inquiry," Guardian, 3 November, 2012.

This was only a fraction of Cameron's texts exchanged with Brooks, as he kept the rest hidden on the Leveson inquiry commission set up to ostensibly get to the bottom of the Murdoch empire scandal, which involved deep and numerous ties with the top echelons of British power and with the police at various levels, including bribery and police coverups of the crimes of Murdoch's minions. See “David Cameron acknowledges there may be more Rebekah Brooks texts,” Guardian, 4 November, 2012.

4] “News Corp won't be prosecuted in US in relation to phone hacking,” Guardian, 2 February, 2015.

5] For an overview of some of the Obama regime's depredations against actual journalists, see “Leak investigations and surveillance in post-9/11 America,” Committee to Protect Journalists, October 10, 2013. 
 
For the Pentagon's new “kill reporters who don't toe our line” policy, see “Bush Created 'Enemy Combatants.' Now Obama Has Invented 'Unprivileged Belligerents, Formerly Known as Journalists,” August 11, 2015, and “From The Horse's Mouth: Pentagon Lawyer Confirms Targeting of Journalists,” August 16, 2015