AuthorTopic: Collapse Cafe 6/26/2016-BREXIT!  (Read 2940 times)

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 28386
    • View Profile
I wonder if Theresa will send BoJo to Brussels for negotiating the Brexit?  ???  :icon_scratch:

RE

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-johnson-idUSKCN0ZT2FV

World | Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:06pm EDT
Related: World
Known for jokes and insults, Boris Johnson takes helm of British diplomacy
LONDON | By Estelle Shirbon


Vote Leave campaign leader, Boris Johnson, reacts as he delivers a speech in London, Britain June 30, 2016.
Reuters/Toby Melville

Boris Johnson, Britain's most colorful politician with a long record of gaffes and scandals, was appointed as foreign secretary on Wednesday in a surprise move by new Prime Minister Theresa May that could shake up world diplomacy.

The former London mayor, who has never previously held a cabinet post and is known for his undiplomatic language, was the most prominent figure in the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union that culminated in a vote for 'Brexit' on June 23.

The appointment of a man who in the run-up to the referendum compared the goals of the EU with those of Adolf Hitler and Napoleon is likely to cause consternation in European capitals.

Johnson also drew accusations of racism during the campaign by suggesting in a newspaper article that U.S. President Barack Obama, whom he described as "part-Kenyan", was biased against Britain because of an "ancestral dislike of the British empire".

The U.S. State Department was quick to say it looked forward to working with Johnson. But he may face awkward moments in Washington over the Obama comments, as well as a 2007 article in which he likened Hillary Clinton to "a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital" and a more recent quip that he feared going to New York because of "the real risk of meeting Donald Trump".

The rise to one of the four great offices of state was the latest twist in an eventful career for the man invariably referred to simply as "Boris", known in Britain and beyond for his clownish persona and disheveled mop of platinum hair.

Johnson originally made his name as an EU-bashing journalist in Brussels, then entered politics in the Conservative Party while also raising his profile through a series of appearances on a hit comedy TV show.

DOWNING STREET AMBITION THWARTED

His ability to charm people with his quick wit and eccentric style helped him shrug off a series of scandals, including getting sacked from the party's policy team while in opposition for lying about an extra-marital affair.

That and other episodes earned him the tabloid nickname "Bonking Boris". But where others would have floundered, Johnson became increasingly popular, culminating in his two victories in usually left-leaning London's mayoral contests in 2008 and 2012.

His decision to defy then-Prime Minister David Cameron, who was campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union, by leading the push for Brexit, was widely seen as a bold gamble to replace Cameron should the "Leave" side win the referendum.

After that came to pass, he was seen as the favorite for the top job, but in his hour of triumph his ambition was thwarted in dramatic fashion when his close ally Michael Gove abruptly deserted him and announced his own candidacy.

The betrayal by Gove, whose parting shot was to say that "Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead", stopped Johnson's march on Downing Street before it had even started.

His prospects appeared bleak as he was widely ridiculed for playing a major role in pushing Britain towards Brexit, only to duck out of the daunting task of actually steering that process. A joke that circulated widely on social media was "Cometh the hour, run awayeth the man".

His appointment as foreign secretary was unexpected. In her previous role as interior minister, May had humiliated Johnson by refusing to allow the use of water cannons in England after, as mayor of London, he had bought three of the devices second-hand from Germany.

In a speech launching her own leadership bid on June 30, May made fun of Johnson by contrasting her own experience of negotiating with European counterparts with his.

"Last time he did a deal with the Germans he came back with three nearly-new water cannon," she said to laughter.

With May having also appointed David Davis to the newly created post of secretary of state for exiting the European Union, Johnson's role in detailed negotiations over the terms of Brexit is likely to be limited.

"OFFENSIVE POETRY COMPETITION"

However, he will have to handle some of the most complex and explosive diplomatic crises around the world, from Syria to Ukraine.

"At this incredibly important time ... it is extraordinary that the new prime minister has chosen someone whose career is built on making jokes," said Tim Farron, leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats.

Despite recent efforts to project a more serious image, Johnson may well find that old and not-so-old jokes come back to haunt him in his new job.

It could be hard for him to work his charm in Turkey, a NATO member and key player in the Middle East as well as in the refugee crisis on Europe's borders, after he was declared the winner of The Spectator magazine's "President Erdogan Offensive Poetry Competition" in May.

The magazine ran the contest to protest against what it described as Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan's abuse of blasphemy laws to block criticism of himself.

Johnson's winning entry was as follows: "There was a young fellow from Ankara, Who was a terrific wankerer, Till he sowed his wild oats with the help of a goat, But he didn’t even stop to thankera".

(Additional reporting by Michael Holden, Kate Holton, Kylie MacLellan, William James)
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 28386
    • View Profile
Amazing Brexit: Identity and Class Politics
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2016, 10:36:00 PM »
She doesn't come right out and say the EU is a Nazi Organization, but it's obvious in the subtext.  Moonbat Righties strike again.

The article also demonstrates how the so-called "left" is not left at all, merely a neo-lliberal pawn of right wing corporate fascists.

Righties have not only destroyed liberty in the FSoA, they have successfully destroyed it globally as well.

RE

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2016/07/13/amazing-brexit-identity-and-class-politics/


Amazing Brexit: Identity and Class Politics
Author TGP STAFF Date July 13, 2016

by LUCIANA BOHNE

From its inception in 1951 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), through its phase as the European Economic Community (EEC) formed in 1958, to the treaty known as the Single European [Market] Act of 1986, setting the birth of the European Union (EU) for 1992, the planners of the free-trade area in Europe knew that the consequences would be unemployment and migration—the result of curbing the power of unions, depressing wages, and removing the social safety net. If there is a culprit in the Brexit vote it’s the “free trade” orthodoxy of the EU and its assault on the welfare state and workers’ rights.

But this has not been the perspective from which officialdom and the pundocrats pronounced their hysterical verdicts. In a classic move of reversing cause and effect, they blamed the victims. Even more cynically, they divided the victims for public consumption into good guys (immigrants) and bad guys (the British working class), thus setting the liberal humanitarians howling at those crude, illiberal, and anti-immigrant workers. Brilliant societal mind fuck.

To wit.

In “an act of raw democracy,” as John Pilger has characterized it, fifty-two percent of British voters opted for leaving the European Union. A resounding majority of the Labour Party and trade unions voted for remaining. The disparity between the people’s vote for leaving and the vote of the party and institutions, which supposedly represent them, for remaining prompted even left observers to conclude that the people, like sheep, had gone astray and handed racist xenophobes a shameful victory. That is how the liberal commentariat transformed into a scandal the significant first step toward halting the momentum of the EU’s expansion and its enslavement of labor. As a good friend, fellow-CounterPuncher Carl Estabrook, put it, “The class politics of the Brexit vote are being denied with an identity politics wash. In response to the neoliberal assault of the 1970s, US liberals cravenly retreated from class politics to identity politics. The move has become traditional.”
TV diva and billionaire Oprah Winfrey, like most affluent liberals, has been a natural backer of identity politics.

TV diva and billionaire Oprah Winfrey, like most affluent liberals, has been a natural backer of identity politics.
   
Bourgeois feminists like Gloria Steinem kept the movement within "safe" non-class parameters.

Bourgeois feminists like Gloria Steinem kept the movement within “safe” non-class parameters.

Metaphorically speaking, in the genetically racist United States, “race” operates a strange alchemy on portions of the liberaliat and the compatible left. When it comes to bombing people in the darker corners of the earth, they are silent or compliant; when, however, it comes to sporting the anti-racist colors in a comfortably conformist context, they sing like parrots. This is liberal imperialism. None other than the by now politically compromised George Orwell confessed the hypocrisy behind the imperialist liberal mindset. In his psychologically penetrating essay, “Shooting an Elephant” (1936), using himself as a representative of the liberal anti-imperialist class, he concedes that theoretically he was all for the “natives” freeing themselves from the yoke of British imperialism. At the same time, he admits that nothing would have given him a greater pleasure than “to stick a bayonet in a [troublesome] Buddhist priest’s guts.” These conflicted feelings, he wrote, were the by-product of imperialism.

In our times, especially in Europe, this anxiety of the liberal conscience is chronic. It expresses itself most dramatically among the scattered tribes of the post-Marxist left, subsisting mainly on academic and other intellectual reservations, set aside for them by the dominant culture for gradual extinction. In this captivity, the intellectual left has gradually become a crutch for the establishment’s tottering status quo. It is ashamed of its past. It has lost its belief in the historical battles necessary to advance the progress of humanity. It has junked the class struggle. It has replaced it with a sterile identitarian ideology of rights, which has no power to alter the economic nature of the capitalist system. The current left is the sarcophagus of a once vigorous idealism and a solid identity. Without a sense of itself, its past, its heroic victories and tragic defeats, it champions the identity of Others. It has become selectively protectionist and herein lies its subtle arrogance and its sense of moral superiority, blissfully unconscious of its own subordination and co-option.

This shell of a once fighting left embraces the culture of identity but excludes the entity of class. As a result poverty has become the P-word, and the poor the pariahs of neoliberal dystopic utopia. When we talk about class in a Marxist, materialist, scientific sense, we are talking about a relation of power, specifically about who does and who doesn’t have power to shape society. Identity politics makes this conflict of interests in society invisible. Neoliberal economics, however, is class war. It has advanced in part because identity politics depoliticized the public. Does it not strike you as strangely coincidental that post-marxism, identity politics, and neoliberal economics saw the light in the same post-sixties decades? Together, they form the heart of the reaction, which is the take-back by the economic elite in the last four decades of every gain the fighting left loosed from the fist of capital before and since World War II. The rapacity of contemporary capitalism is enabled by the weakness, dishonesty, and cowardice of the flaccid and collaborationist left.

We should look at the Brexit referendum as an effect with many more causes than a single conclusion requires. The richness of its multiple causes—its overdetermination—is reduced, for example, by selecting racism as its single motive force. Having been put in motion by Tory PM David Cameron to distract the public from his savage attacks on the NHS and benefits for the disabled, the Brexit referendum took on a life of its own. The right-wing, anti-immigrant party of UKIP, led by Nigel Farage, slid into the breach left open by an absent radical left. Ninety-two percent of UKIP members voted for leaving the EU. This allowed the liberal identiterians to interpret the result as a virtual “hate crime” and to dismiss the class-based reaction by the people to an economic order they can no longer tolerate. Pilger wrote that charging the “leave” voters with racism was “barbarous.” In the sense that “barbarians” to the Greeks, who invented the word, meant people who babbled an unintelligible language, he was right.

But see for yourself. Identity hate crime in England and Wales is three percent of overall crimes, according to the British government’s Office of National Statistics (ONS). The offenders tend to break down into categories of thrill seekers, territorial defenders, mission offenders, and retaliatory offenders. The majority of hate crime offenders in the UK are white, male, and under 25. Hate crimes tend to occur in demographic “hot spots” in which the offender’s profile reflects the demographic distribution of that area. The majority of hate crimes are not committed by strangers, as classic portrayals would have it, but by a person known to the victim. Research studies, including ONS’s, give us little insight into why offenders commit hate crimes. Disciplinary questionnaires and interrogations are so constructed as to exclude collection of data that might expand the general attribution of hate crimes beyond personal and sexual insecurity. They are geared at extracting psychological rather than socio-economic motivations.

White, male, under twenty five, occurring in “hot spots,” targeting victims they know, acting out of sexual and personal insecurity—does this profile, even missing the narrative of organized extremist groups, apply to the eleven million who voted for leaving? Even if we dismiss the limitations of statistic-speak, why should we assume that the working class is any more racist than the gentrified upper, middle, lower middle class or the insufferably superior British aristo-capitalist ruling elite? As Stathis Kouvelakis notes in a comprehensive analysis of the Brexit event, racism among the working class should be understood as “a displaced form of class struggle”:

    As the French philosopher Etienne Balibar formulated it inRace, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities — a canonical text of Marxist literature devoted to this topic — racism should be understood as “a displaced form of class struggle” that can become prevalent when the class consciousness of subaltern groups is at its weakest. Instead of turning outward, against the class adversary, the violence of class antagonism — and the anxieties and moral panic it generates — turn inward and accentuate preexisting differentiation within the subaltern groups. The result radically undermines their collective agency. That is, the Brexit vote’s class dimension and the hegemony of the Leave campaign’s reactionary discourse arenot mutually incompatible.

It should be noted that the EU is alone among economic unions to insist on the completion of the single market into a final or unifiedmarket, the unrestricted flow of people and goods among member states, the elimination of tariffs, and the integration of the political and legal structures of each state into a supra-nation state run by financial elites. This means that the eventual goal of the EU is the replacement of national sovereignty of the twenty-eight members states by the financial sector’s dogmatic, undemocratic, and authoritarian rule. The EU’s final goal is rule by oligarchy, the worse of the tyrannies. This goal was evident in the case of the Greek crisis of 2015. Was the troika interested in getting its money back by helping the Greek economy to stand on its feet and repay the debt? No, what it demanded was further indebtedness and subordination of political life through economics to the unelected institutions than run the EU.
In our times, especially in Europe, this anxiety of the liberal conscience is chronic. It expresses itself most dramatically among the scattered tribes of the post-Marxist left, subsisting mainly on academic and other intellectual reservations, set aside for them by the dominant culture for gradual extinction.

If we turn to what Marx called “reality”—the thing one knows is real because it hurts —and examine the path of Britain’s accession to the EU, we get a sense of how the working class came to be disempowered. The primary cause was the decision, culminating in Margaret Thatcher’s policies, to de-industrialize Britain, shifting to a service-based economy and exactly mirroring the American choice prescribed by Reaganomics. By contrast, Germany kept to its industrial base and is today the industrial powerhouse of Europe.
From the beginning, a market-based, free-trade European Union was a Tory-supported project. In 1973, the Tory government of Prime Minister Edward Heath signed the Rome Treaty, joining the European Economic Community (EEC). Fatally for working Britain, its ruling class made the decision to ditch the nation-state, which had been based on manufacturing to generate wealth. Throughout the process of gradually surrendering self-determination and national independence, every popular referendum returned a negative vote. Relentlessly, the process for adhesion to the union rolled on. In 1974, the Labour government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson, though his cabinet was split on the issue, supported the EEC. In 1986, Thatcher’s Conservative Government ratified the Single European Act, which set the date for a single market by 31 December, 1992—the birth of the EU. Ireland held up ratification for one year, protesting that it violated its constitution. Ireland was prescient. In Britain, a similar resistance could have materialized if the labor movement had been encouraged to take conscience of the dangers, as Labour Party dissenters in the Wilson cabinet had warned.

Until 1988, the British trade union and labor movement opposed membership in the Common Market, or EEC. In 1988, however, Jacques Delors, member of the French Socialist Party, Finance Minister for the Socialist Party of Francois Mitterand, and in 1988, president of the European Commission, appealed to the Irish, British, and Danish trade unions to consider a compromise. In exchange for membership in the eventual EU, he offered the trade unions a Social Charter, promising to advance legislation, protecting workers’ rights. The Charter was a toothless, vacuous document, but it provided the fig leaf for the social democrats to stop opposing the free-marketeers and present the EU as a guardian of workers’ rights.

So there it is, folks—the answer to the question of why “socialists” such as François Hollande today are waging war on workers’ rights: it’s tradition. Since the 1980s socialists, liberals, social democrats, and leftish groups have got on board the neoliberal ship of deluded and dishonest fools, who have reduced the working class to beggary, loss of dignity, and burning anger. Both Tories and Labourites have put the working class in a tightening vise, squeezed by both sides. The Leave vote in Britain marks the dawn of the fight back to come by a class the free marketeers, of the left and the right, have reduced to a pool of cheap and precarious labor in competition with economic migrants fleeing the even cheaper and more precarious labor markets of their own neoliberal hells, the newly liberated masses from Eastern Europe, freed from the supposed oppression of communism to the realities of actually existing capitalism.

Questions for the Western left: whose side are we on—the workers’ or the market free-loaders’? Identity or class-conscious politics?“
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline monsta666

  • Administrator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
    • View Profile
Re: Amazing Brexit: Identity and Class Politics
« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2016, 07:15:58 AM »
She doesn't come right out and say the EU is a Nazi Organization, but it's obvious in the subtext.  Moonbat Righties strike again.

The article also demonstrates how the so-called "left" is not left at all, merely a neo-lliberal pawn of right wing corporate fascists.

Righties have not only destroyed liberty in the FSoA, they have successfully destroyed it globally as well.

While the initial idea of the "EU" may have been cooked up by some Nazi architects for the 1000 year Reich I think that thought needs to be tempered. While I can accept one of the early goals of creating a more integrated Europe could well be to capture the political, economical and social systems of European nations through means of stealth, much of the Nazi philosophy on race superiority and human rights in general is completely removed in the EU policy from what the Nazi's believed in. This was true even in the earliest days.

I think the economists/technocrats in this sense are similar to the Nazi scientists of the past; while these people could be part of the general group of the Nazi party they were not of the same ethos and mindset. It seems there thoughts were more aligned to the west ideas of social values. Also similar to the Nazi scientists is they were taken by various people in the west and east to further their own goals (in the case of Nazi scientists this often came with the development of rockets and other scientific ventures). For the Nazi economist they just pushed the goals of whichever party supported their economic theories and integrated into society via those means.

Ignoring that point however the issue of the world moving slowly to the right in terms of economic policy is a real one. Often you hear the term lefty but in this day and age there is hardly a true left-winger in sight. If one happens to exist they are seen as not credible politicians and living in a dream land recent examples would be Sanders or Corbyn. What I would say as a counterargument, and something not addressed in the article in question is much of the debate about the flaws of globalisation, free markets and capitalism in general have come out recently only because of declining rates of growth. If society was still growing at the same rates as before the 1970's then people would not be debating the flaws of the EU, in fact there is a good chance it would have almost universal support and the dream of an integrated European state would likely be realised.

In the end as much as people talk about left and right politics what most average Joes cares about the most is their own personal prosperity. If people are getting richer and have more opportunities to succeed in increasing their own material standard of living then they will not care if they live in a democratic, autocratic, technocratic, socialist or capitalist setting. It is only when growth splutters and opportunities diminish do the perceived flaws get put under the spotlight. The move to the right was a concious action taken when growth in the global economy in the late 1970s/early 1980s was no longer sufficient to increase the wealth of both the rich and poor/middle-class so the powerful people (the rich) ensured the system continued to provide for them even if it came at the expense of the poor. This trend towards fascism is a product of the world hitting the limits to growth. That is the greatest problem and all other issues are symptoms of this fundamental issue.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 28386
    • View Profile
Re: Amazing Brexit: Identity and Class Politics
« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2016, 07:46:23 AM »
She doesn't come right out and say the EU is a Nazi Organization, but it's obvious in the subtext.  Moonbat Righties strike again.

The article also demonstrates how the so-called "left" is not left at all, merely a neo-lliberal pawn of right wing corporate fascists.

Righties have not only destroyed liberty in the FSoA, they have successfully destroyed it globally as well.

While the initial idea of the "EU" may have been cooked up by some Nazi architects for the 1000 year Reich I think that thought needs to be tempered. While I can accept one of the early goals of creating a more integrated Europe could well be to capture the political, economical and social systems of European nations through means of stealth, much of the Nazi philosophy on race superiority and human rights in general is completely removed in the EU policy from what the Nazi's believed in. This was true even in the earliest days.

I think the economists/technocrats in this sense are similar to the Nazi scientists of the past; while these people could be part of the general group of the Nazi party they were not of the same ethos and mindset. It seems there thoughts were more aligned to the west ideas of social values. Also similar to the Nazi scientists is they were taken by various people in the west and east to further their own goals (in the case of Nazi scientists this often came with the development of rockets and other scientific ventures). For the Nazi economist they just pushed the goals of whichever party supported their economic theories and integrated into society via those means.

Ignoring that point however the issue of the world moving slowly to the right in terms of economic policy is a real one. Often you hear the term lefty but in this day and age there is hardly a true left-winger in sight. If one happens to exist they are seen as not credible politicians and living in a dream land recent examples would be Sanders or Corbyn. What I would say as a counterargument, and something not addressed in the article in question is much of the debate about the flaws of globalisation, free markets and capitalism in general have come out recently only because of declining rates of growth. If society was still growing at the same rates as before the 1970's then people would not be debating the flaws of the EU, in fact there is a good chance it would have almost universal support and the dream of an integrated European state would likely be realised.

In the end as much as people talk about left and right politics what most average Joes cares about the most is their own personal prosperity. If people are getting richer and have more opportunities to succeed in increasing their own material standard of living then they will not care if they live in a democratic, autocratic, technocratic, socialist or capitalist setting. It is only when growth splutters and opportunities diminish do the perceived flaws get put under the spotlight. The move to the right was a concious action taken when growth in the global economy in the late 1970s/early 1980s was no longer sufficient to increase the wealth of both the rich and poor/middle-class so the powerful people (the rich) ensured the system continued to provide for them even if it came at the expense of the poor. This trend towards fascism is a product of the world hitting the limits to growth. That is the greatest problem and all other issues are symptoms of this fundamental issue.

Yes, the overt racism, eugenics and Aryan Superiority was scrubbed from the mainstream Nazi agenda post-WWII.  This is why people believe Nazism was defeated, because that is what they associate Nazism with.  It's really an economic system though to rob from the poor and give to the rich.  Reverse Robin Hood.  This is universal amongst Righties and on a fundamental level is the difference between the Left & Right political ideologies.  The racism retuns now in order to provide scapegoats.  See AfD, Geert Wilders, Marine LePen, The Donald etc.

I do agree if there had been ever increasing energy availability and prosperity for all, nobody would be complaining and there wouldn't be a problem with Terrorism, either of the ISIS kind or the homegrown kind.  However, I believe Nazis have been aware of the Limits to Growth from the beginning, and so set up their political and economic structures to insure that the rich stay rich and the poor get poorer.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
545 Views
Last post January 27, 2016, 11:54:06 AM
by RE
0 Replies
286 Views
Last post February 14, 2016, 03:38:22 PM
by RE
1 Replies
469 Views
Last post May 11, 2016, 06:39:43 AM
by RE