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.

Same People Who Lecture Us That "Change Is Good" Suddenly Don't Like Change With Brexit

I notice an irony that those creating it are sure to be unconscious of. The same ruling elites that patronizingly purr at the masses under their feet that "change is good," to pacify those masses and disarm them psychologically when the majority, who increasingly have to struggle to keep their heads above water economically, are under attack economically, those elites suddenly don't like change at all when it's a change they don't want. If "change is goaod," why isn't a change in the European Union good? Why isn't political change in Britain good?

"Change is good" is the narcotic propaganda fed to Americans when "free trade" treaties directly assaulted their economic interests. Told they had to compete against dirt cheap third world labor, "change is good" was one of the propaganda lines spewed by establishment media. Whenever the government of the rich launch a new salvo in the unending class warfare against the rest of us, we are instructed to take it lying down because "change is good."

Well okay then! If "change is good," then stop your WHINING about BREXIT, bourgeoisie! Shut up and suck it up!

"Hit The Road, (Union) Jack!" Sneer EU Big Shots

In the immediate wake of the vote by the majority of the British electorate June 23rd to withdraw Britain from membership in the European Union superstate, the foreign ministers of the 6 founding members of the EU have publicly demanded that negotiations on Britain's exit must be concluded swiftly.

This sort of pulls the rug out from under what the British expected. They were operating on the assumption of a 2 year window during which the status quo would continue and negotiations could be conducted, as per EU treaty.

To be sure, there is some logic to the EU giving Britain the bum's rush. For one thing, it will greatly shorten the period of uncertainty if Britain's exit is expeditiously. effected. For another thing, the EU bosses are worried about their entire project falling to pieces. The sooner to get Britain out, they figure, the better in terms of shoring up the cohesion of the EU with the remaining 27 member nations.

Meanwhile, the "ratings agency" Moody's wasted no time downgrading Britain's sovereign credit rating to "negative outlook." That will result in the British government having to pay higher interest rates to borrow money from the private market. That in turn will create a ripple effect of higher interest rates throughout the British economy, which will slow economic activity. Thus the "experts" predictions of economic damage from Brexit will be effectuated by the same financial elites that made the prediction!

Moody's is treated as a credible, respectable organization, when in fact it is a criminal organization. It is one of the "rating" agencies that made possible the massive mortgage securities fraud that helped precipitate the global financial crisis beginning in 2008. Banks and a crime gang called Countrywide Financial headed by Angelo Mozilo gave mortgages to people they knew wouldn't be able to repay them, packaged the loans into things called Collateralized Debt Obligations, paid "rating" agencies like Moody's to rate them AAA (i.e. the safest investment grade) when in fact they were high-risk, and billions of dollars of this fraudulent garbage was then sold off to suckers. Moody's and its ilk are not just utterly lacking in ethics and integrity, they are racketeering organizations under U.S. criminal law, the RICO law (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations). They should have no credibility whatsoever, but instead the establishment power structure, including "the" media, feign amnesia and report their "ratings" today as if they are coming from trustworthy, neutral, objective outfits. (The U.S. government radio propaganda network NPR, for example, has been informing its listeners hourly of Moody's downgrade of Britain, without mentioning any of this.)

The corrupt financial oligarchy that arrogantly rules the planet is now setting out to punish the British for voting "wrong" on Brexit. What is absent is a political party to oppose the coming assault. The Conservatives obviously are the party of the rich. Meanwhile Labour is no longer interested in actually fighting for the interests of the "lower" classes. A third party, the "Liberal Democrats," is completely opportunistic and unprincipled. Finally there is the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, headed by former commodities trader Nigel Farage. Farage has stated his aims- double the prison population, increase military spending, cut social spending, and of course reduce immigration.

Given that London is an important base of global finance capital, there is no chance of a real defense against the punishment to be meted out for the "wrong" result in the referendum.

U.S. Emperor Obama had to pipe up again, repeating his threat that Britain will be at the "back of the line" for cutting a trade deal with the U.S, while also saying how much he values Britain. He's very skillful at talking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. And he reassuringly purred that the oh-so-special relationship with Britain is intact. (Translation: the U.S. will still be using Britain as its Bitch, much as Israel uses the U.S. as its.)

Are you enjoying the interesting times we're living in?

France Kicks the Leg Out From Under One Obama "Reason" For British Voters to Reject EU Exit

French President François Hollande* announced yesterday "As things stand in the international trade negotiations, the French position is 'no'," Hollande proclaimed in a speech in Paris. (That's non in French.) Hollande dressed the move up in the garb of high principle, namely the need to defend French culture. Other "principles" enumerated were protection of the environment and of French agricultural interests. (French farming probably wouldn't exist without protectionism. Notice how in the context of current U.S.-capitalist ideology, "protectionism" is a dirty word? Since when is protecting something bad? "Protecting American interests" on the other hand, is a GOOD thing. What's unsaid is that "American interests" consist of U.S. state power, and big corporate business interests, NOT the interests of most Americans. Maybe someday they will realize that.)

Earlier in the day, French Trade Minister Matthias Fekl signaled what was coming, saying a halt in the trade talks was likely. France has been complaining about the stubbornness and inflexibility of the U.S. position.

The move followed on the heels of the environmental activist group Greenpeace releasing 248 pages of the latest secret negotiating text of a trade deal the U.S. is trying to shove down the throat of the European Union. The proposed treaty is grandly titled the " Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership," or TTIP to political sophisticates. The documents show the U.S. predictably pressuring European countries to rip holes in their environmental and consumer protections, and to give giant corporations even more power during trade talks. They also expose yet another double-cross by Obama, who in public always claims he's interested in protecting workers, consumers, and the environment. [1]

The French public, already deeply dubious of a "free trade" treaty in the mold of the notorious predecessors NAFTA**, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and others of that ilk, were aroused  by the Greenpeace expose. Hollande doubtless behaved as a political weather vane, blowing with the prevailing winds of public opinion, rather than a stalwart defender of principle. Oh, did I mention there's a French election next year, and Hollande is very unpopular already? Not that it's relevant, oh no. [2]

So what has that to do with the upcoming June UK public referendum on exiting the European Union, so-called Brexit, or British exit? Obama, a few weeks ago when he was in Britain (according to him, he flew all the way there just to wish the "Queen" Happy Birthday- I suppose after he leaves the White House he'll be selling the Brooklyn Bridge to some suckers) writing a column (in the reactionary rag The Telegraph) and making public pronouncements and giving interviews urging the British public to stay in the EU, he make a bit of a threat, saying Britain would have to cool its heels at the back of the trade treaty line, after a deal was cut with the EU. [3]

Well, the EU just left the line.

That means that the country that apparently can't chew gum and walk at the same time can impose a bad trade deal to Britain. Unless the trade deal window is closed for lunch.

* Hollande's full name is actually François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande. I guess that's so in case he loses a few names, he'll have spares on hand.

** NAFTA stands for North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal between the U.S., Mexico, an Canada, crafted to put big corporations in the economic driver's seat, that has devastated workers in the U.S. and farmers in Mexico, and helped lead to the forced migration of millions of Mexicans to the U.S. to seek employment, driving down wages in America.

1] There's some irony in Greenpeace being the bearer of information to the French public that forced Hollande's hand, as in 1985 a previous French president with too many names, the horrid François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand, ordered French frogmen to blow up the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, which was interfering with French nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific, spreading radiation and thus vandalizing the human genome. The terrorist bombing murdered a young photographer and father of two young children, inflicting a lifelong psychic wound on them and their mother. See "Russia Outdoes U.S. Five-Fold In Bombing Hospitals," paragraph 3, and footnote 3.

2] The reactionary Wall Street Journal saw shades of the Munich sellout of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in Hollande's move: "Hollande: France Won’t Compromise Principles in Trans-Atlantic Trade Talks- A year ahead of presidential elections, Hollande is looking to appease many on the left suspicious of a trade deal," May 3, 2016. The word "appease" has a negative connotation in U.S. political discourse as the word appeasement is habitually used to make invidious comparisons to the infamous 1938 sellout of Britain and France to Hitler. 

3] See "Obama Threatens Britons Over Leaving the European Union," and "Obama Gives Another Reason For Britons to Stay In the EU: The Better To Spy On Europeans."

 "Surely you Americains do not take us for fools!"

 

Hey, do yourself (and, er, me) a favor. Sign up for alerts of new posts. Just use one of the features on the sidebar....Aww, come on, do it! I'll be your best friend.... 

 

 

 

Obama Gives Another Reason For Britons to Stay In the EU: The Better To Spy On Europeans

U.S. president Barack "DroneMan" Obama saw fit to stick his snout into domestic British politics by lobbying the British public on How To Vote in the upcoming referendum on continuing membership in the European Union (EU). British exit, referred to as "Brexit" for British exit, would be a big mistake, so Obama has been schooling the British public in media interviews, public statements, and guess columns in at least one British newspaper. [1]

Most of Obama's arguments were economic, along with a trade threat- namely that Britain would be at the back of the line in negotiating a trade deal with the U.S. (You see, the U.S. government, despite the trillions of dollars and millions of personnel at its disposal, cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. Negotiate TWO trade deals at once? Clearly impossible! This is a sleepy bureaucracy. One at a time please.)

Then, in a BBC interview a few days ago, Obama gave another reason  why Britain must stay in the EU to make itself useful to the U.S.: to influence EU policy on surveillance and privacy.

The EU is slightly interested in protecting at least some privacy for its citizens, and has some weak, poorly enforced rules to that effect. Britain, on the other hand, is a privacy Holocaust-land, like the U.S. (London, like New York and other U.S. cities, is honeycombed with many thousands of surveillance cameras in a simulacrum of the nightmarish world of George Orwell's 1984.) And the UK is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," the five English-language Anglo-Saxon dominated nations that have electronic spying agencies tightly tied to the NSA, the so-called "National Security Agency," a military body. (The five are the U.S. Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.) Their targets include their own populations, and continental Europe's, as well as anyone and everyone on earth they can eavesdrop on.

Obama piously opined that he just wanted to make sure the EU struck the proper "balance" between "security" and "privacy." This is an act he has put on ever since Edward Snowden exposed Obama as one of the worst violators of privacy and the Bill of Rights "guarantees" in U.S. history. As so often with Obama, his actions are the exact opposite of his mendacious words. To him, the proper "balance" is 100% for state spying and zero for citizen privacy. That is his actual practice.

It is very obvious that American politicians, with only a small minority as exceptions, only care about increasing the power of the state, at the expense of the citizens, who are made ever more vulnerable and exposed to malevolent targeting by government apparatchiks. (I have over 40 years of personal experience in this regard, unfortunately.) The U.S. power system has done a good job of keeping its ubiquitous surveillance, and its victims, invisible. As long as the number of people who feel themselves directly impacted is a small proportion of the total population, those in power figure they can continue to get away with it. On the other hand, large U.S. tech companies are faced with a loss of overseas business, hence the public displays of pushback by the likes of Apple and other tech companies.

It's a sad day when the most consequential resistance to the repressive U.S. state comes from large corporations! The interests of the corporate sector and the U.S. state are usually in sync, or when not, the government defers to the corporations. The Supreme Court commonly sides with large corporations in cases versus the U.S. government. Right now, the secret police sector, led by the FBI and their nominal master, the Department of "Justice" (the FBI-DO"J" relationship is often one of the tail wagging the dog), is pushing to make tech companies subservient to the secret police. The recent trumped-up case over an Apple iPhone 5, used by one of the San Bernardino mass murderers, was a salvo in that campaign. (The FBI pretended it needed Apple to create an encryption-breaking tool, which was false. Politicians and media stooges of the secret police sector all attacked Apple. Even the "progressive" mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, piled on Apple.)

Some other Big Lies of Obama and the U.S. political and media classes are worth mentioning in this context, in the interest of promoting mental hygiene.

-Snowden could and should have worked within proper channels:

Numerous whistleblowers who did just that have been crucified during the Obama regime, including NSA veterans William Binney, who for his troubles got an FBI raid on his home complete with an FBI agent sticking a gun in his face while in the shower, and Thomas Drake, indicted with the use of government-forged documents.

-Spying is overseen by Congress and the courts, as well as by the executive branch:

This was one of Obama's lines. Well of course Obama conspired to keep it secret, and approved the expansion of the massive police state. The "judicial oversight" consists of the rubber-stamp "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA) "court," which are hand-picked reactionary judges whose sole function is to rubber-stamp warrants. (They've granted over 40,000, and rejected about a dozen that had paperwork errors. Even that "court" grumbled that the NSA went far beyond what the court's warrants granted.)

The Congressional "oversight" consists of just those Congresspeople on the "Intelligence" committees of the House and Senate, who are legally prohibited from informing the rest of Congress about what's going on, as it's all "classified." Furthermore, they are in the dark and even blatantly lied to, as Obama's "Director of National Security" James Clapper notoriously did (you can view him lying to the committee on youtube.com) and NSA bosses Keith Alexander and Michael Hayden. Furthermore, the various secret police agencies spy on the committees, such as whe the CIA broke into the computers of committee staffers reviewing the CIA's torture program. So who is overseeing whom?

-Only metadata is collected by the NSA:

This lie is assiduously and relentlessly repeated not only by all the awful politicians of both parties, from Obama on down, but by the mendacious U.S. corporate media. The 30-year NSA veteran William Binney has said numerous times in public forums that the NSA is collecting the content of phone calls, emails, etc., not just metadata. Not that we need him to tell us. The fact that the NSA just built a gigantic storage center in Utah, that can store data equivalent to 100,000 Libraries of Congress, and is now building another storage center, makes it obvious that they aren't just storing metadata, which take up no more room than a small text file per message.

-It's all "legal:"

Well, if the criminals are the ones "interpreting" the law.

The U.S. Constitution is the basic law of the land, the foundation of all other laws. At least that's what they claim. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is quite specific:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 Clearly, sweeping up every single communication of millions of people at once, not to mention rummaging through the bank, medical, library, and every other kind of record, ( the FBI alone has seized hundreds of thousands of those types of records using the "PATRIOT" Act as an excuse- are there really so many "terrorists" here?) turns the Fourth Amendment "guarantee" into confetti.

 "The Free World" should surely be recognized by now as the cynical Orwellian slogan that it is.

1] See "Obama Threatens Britons Over Leaving European Union," April 22.