[Nonsense]

I may be wrong, but as I see it, the 'gravy train' has been derailed, no more 'Kinnock's' heading in the direction of Brussels, no more 'British' money heading back this way into 'farmers' pockets, sorry Bonny Prince Charlie but I am a 'veggie'.

As for prices, they only matter when you buy anything, 'watch the pennies & the Pounds look after themselves'.
Buy less & prices will adjust back downwards.

In a free market, prices are like water, they always find their own level, unlike 'tarrif'(cartel) agreements that keep prices up.
Follow the money, you will see why Scotland, Ireland & parts of Cornwall wanted to 'remain'.

There never was such a thing as a 'free' lunch, that's why Sturgeon is going to look like a fish out of the water in the not too distant future.

[Nonsense]

Labour deserves to self destruct. It speaks for no one, despises its own voters, and its MPs are bland careerists with nothing interesting to say about anything at all. It's truly embarrassing that a party that once produced people like Hugh Gaitskell, Aneurin Bevan and Tony Benn is now represented by such nonentities as Angela Eagle, Chris Bryant and Chuka Umunna.

Good riddance to boring rubbish.

I agree mostly, the last three are **** wipes on the backside of humanity, apart from Tony Benn, all 'Labour' leaders are traitors to the cause of social justice & progress.

[Atlantis]

Britain’s Democratic Failure

The referendum was a farce and marks a new low watermark in British politics. It was clear from the beginning that it was a mistake, but I didn't imagine that it would turn into such a catastrophe. By calling the referendum for party-political reasons, Cameron played Russian roulette with the future of the country and split what has always been a very polarized country.

But the problem goes deeper than that. The current election system was designed to produce stable government with a solid majority, so as to give the empire the resolve to fight wars wherever and whenever it deemed necessary. Yet in today's UK, it has left the people with a feeling of being disenfranchised. Ultimately a change to proportional voting may be necessary, but'll take generations to heal the divide, which isn't only due to the election system.

But the ultimate insult to GB democracy is that an unelected political clown, Boris Johnson, might rise to power through backroom deals involving Murdoch and other shady characters, to decide the future of the country for generations to come.

And that is the people that have blasted the EU commissioner, elected by European election, and kept in check by 27 elected governments and parlaments, as undemocratic. If the UK had complied with the Good Practices for Referendums issued by the EU this would never have happened.

The referendum hat nothing to do with the EU, since the UK's problems are 100% homegrown.

Labour deserves to self destruct.

I just watched the Guardian debate on Brexit. It was a bit like a time-journey. There were actually old lefties talking about spending full blast on debt and then make the debt go away with the printing presses. They ought to move to Venezuela.

As for prices, they only matter when you buy anything, 'watch the pennies & the Pounds look after themselves'.
Buy less & prices will adjust back downwards.

Don't worry, you'll get a recession anyways, you don't have to go for the mother of all recessions.

[Albert]

Potemkin already explained it with an economic 101 why it is a fundamental pillar or the common economic market. Thats why it is not going to happen.

Pote explained that EU is run by libertards, hence their fundamentalist dogma that freedom of movement has to go hand in hand with 'free trade'. He did not argue that in the end it has to be this way.

Killim so the burden of proof is still on you to explain yourself, please.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The new (?) understanding of democracy in Europe is to call something undemocratic if you don't like the results.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

My own view of NATO is rather mixed. After 9/11, the US was loath to declare this a NATO event because it would have restricted their operational freedom - or something like that, I forgot the precise wording.
The US can certainly do without NATO, so why are the US still supporting NATO, even tho many Americans are constantly whining that they have to burden too much of it and that other countries should do more ?
I think it is because NATO is regarded as a tool for supporting their hegemonic interest. That is what NATO today is, first and foremost. The common interest we had during the Cold War between 1950 and 1980 is no longer present.

Today, the interest of the Europeans might be completely different than those of the US. See Russia. Part of the mess we have today is because NATO was expanded in violation of the treaties and guarantees we had with Russia. The US reverted right back to the "encircle and contain" strategy it employed against the Soviet Union. Why ? Because Putin committed the ultimate sin (long before the Ukraine crisis) : He brought the sell-out that took place in post-war Russia under some kind of control and stopped foreign attempts to get the filet pieces for a song. It hurt American business interest. And that is why we are right back in another Cold War although there are no more "communists" to fear.
And if it wouldn't have been for Merkel's intervention, we might have such pearls of democracy like Georgia as NATO members.
So NATO is a tool for the US to keep the Europeans in line, but the US never acts if it isn't within their own interest, which is why a purely European defense concept might be a thing of both convenience and necessity.

The reason for me is that I simply no longer to trust the US to come and help us in the event of a war against "Redland" (as it was called back when I served my time in Bundeswehr). After the Boxer incident I started to have severe doubts if today's America would really be willing to go that far - to risk nuclear destruction in the event of a war against an opponent that has nuclear capabilities, such as Russia.

With Russian politics being what they are today, that has become a possibility again. Other than back in the 80's, Russia has no longer the huge numerical conventional advantage over NATO - in convential terms Russia is definately weaker. Because of that the current Russian military doctrine regards nukes as an integrated part of their military, not longer an ultima ratio.
Now we don't know how much of that is bark and no bite but I'm not eager to find out.
With the Americans out of the picture as trustworthy allies, where does that leave us ?

So that is why I strongly support the idea of a more integrated European military, now that the Brits can no longer veto it.

We can obviously agree that we don't want to find out whether Russia is only barking or not. But by the same logic, even if one has doubts about the US' commitment, which opponent would really want to find out? But regardless, to replace NATO you would, for instance, need to be prepared to put in place the same or a similar deterrence mechanism in Eastern Europe. I realise that you are not talking about an immediate replacement though, but this is where it will need to lead eventually (assuming the geopolitical situation will then be similar with respect to Russia).

This a slightly different subject now, since I have only brought up NATO as an example for cooperation that does not require a supranational organisation like the EU, i.e. if the EU didn't exist Europeans would still be able to cooperate on military matters. You obviously don't need an economic union to find common interests on security and defence.

And you still have a lot of fundamental differences in foreign policy in Europe. In other words, while there are common interests in Europe, there aren't European interests in the same sense of US interests, and each member state will try to make their interests European interests.

[Atlantis]

In 1870, Karl Marx wrote in a letter:

Every industrial and commercial centre in England possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life … This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes.

If you replace "Irish" with "Polish", this quote applies exactly to the situation today, nearly 150 years later (with the exception of the "pulpit" bit, but that doesn't really improve the situation).

Contrary to today's phony leftists, the old geezer had deep insight in the political and economic realities of his days. More astonishing than his prophetic powers in predicting today's UK with a high degree of accuracy, is the fact that the UK has got stuck in the 19th century. 19th century GB without it's empire.

[Potemkin]

Contrary to today's phony leftists, the old geezer had deep insight in the political and economic realities of his days. More astonishing than his prophetic powers in predicting today's UK with a high degree of accuracy, is the fact that the UK has got stuck in the 19th century. 19th century GB without it's empire.

Precisely right, Atlantis. Britain did not suffer defeat in a major war, occupation by an enemy power, or a revolution in the 20th century (unlike Germany, for example). This means that the system we had in the 19th century just continued, with the same ruling elite in charge who have the same attitudes and values they had back in the glory days of the British Empire. I once described David Cameron as a well-meaning Victorian gentleman, and that's basically what he is - traditionalist, well-meaning, but totally out of touch and socially alienated from the vast majority of the population of Britain, whose values and attitudes he does not share. This, ultimately, is why he misjudged the likely result of the referendum so badly.

And yes, Marx had our number and no mistake - he lived in England for decades (Marx was, in fact, a political refugee) and Engels was a factory manager in Manchester. They both understood us to the bone. They knew what makes the British tick. Unlike most 'leftists' in Britain, I actually took the time and trouble to read Marx and Engels for myself. This is why I am an orthodox Marxist rather than a 'social democrat' or a left-liberal, and is why the criticism which has sometimes been levelled at me in PoFo for adhering to a "nineteenth-century ideology" in the early 21st century is misplaced - Britain is a 19th century society, still. Marx's analysis of Britain's economic and social system is therefore still valid. We still live in the 19th century; it just happens to be a very long 19th century, that's all. Lol.

[Atlantis]

Precisely right, Atlantis. Britain did not suffer defeat in a major war, occupation by an enemy power, or a revolution in the 20th century (unlike Germany, for example).

Yes, the traditional elite in Germany lost all credibility in 1918, when the Kaiser fled. That led to a power vacuum and to the terrible catastrophe we can still feel the aftershocks of even today. The first shock propelled us into modernity, the second vaccinated us against fascism. I have been out of the country for a long time, but I cannot stop marveling at how solid and thoroughly modern Germany has become. To be able to absorb more than a million refugees in addition to EU migration in a single year just shows how solid the country is both economically and socially. It is ironic that I, who has opposed nationalism all his life, should come to be proud of his country.

I actually took the time and trouble to read Marx and Engels for myself.

I do admire you for that. I added Marx and Hegel to my collection of books many years ago, but I can never stop my eyelids from drooping after a few pages.

This is why I am an orthodox Marxist rather than a 'social democrat' or a left-liberal,

I'm not the authority to speak on this, but I doubt that Marx predicted globalisation with its international division of labor. We are so integrated today, that nobody, not even the biggest country can go it on its own. And the working classes are in China today, so how are you going to start a revolution in the UK?

No, we need the EU and the social market economy to face the challenges of globalization.

We still live in the 19th century; it just happens to be a very long 19th century, that's all. Lol.

Funny you say that, when Cameron went on a state visit to China not so long ago, one of their official publications called Britain "a historical relic." I thought it was a pretty mean thing to say, but perhaps they are not that wrong.

[Potemkin]

Yes, the traditional elite in Germany lost all credibility in 1918, when the Kaiser fled. That led to a power vacuum and to the terrible catastrophe we can still feel the aftershocks of even today. The first shock propelled us into modernity, the second vaccinated us against fascism. I have been out of the country for a long time, but I cannot stop marveling at how solid and thoroughly modern Germany has become. To be able to absorb more than a million refugees in addition to EU migration in a single year just shows how solid the country is both economically and socially. It is ironic that I, who has opposed nationalism all his life, should come to be proud of his country.

It is one of the ironies of history that it was Britain which created the modern world and then used its empire to force the rest of the world to enter modernity, but then failed to successfully make the transition itself.

I do admire you for that. I added Marx and Hegel to my collection of books many years ago, but I can never stop my eyelids from drooping after a few pages.

You just lack sufficient motivation, Atlantis. I hate the ruling class, and Das Kapital is the handbook on how to overthrow them.

I'm not the authority to speak on this, but I doubt that Marx predicted globalisation with its international division of labor. We are so integrated today, that nobody, not even the biggest country can go it on its own.

Marx predicted globalisation - in fact, it was happening before his eyes in the mid- to late-19th century, and he described some of its effects in vivid detail in the Communist Manifesto. He did not predict the exact historical conformation of European imperialism, however, due to the fact that it was only just getting started in his day, and due to the contingencies of the historical process. It was Lenin who extended Marxist analysis to study capitalist-imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

And the working classes are in China today, so how are you going to start a revolution in the UK?

You should have a word with Rei Murasame about that, Atlantis. Did you know she's a Maoist-Third-Worldist now?

No, we need the EU and the social market economy to face the challenges of globalization.

That option works for Germany, due to its peculiar history and its position at the centre of the EU and of continental Europe. It cannot work for Britain, however.

Funny you say that, when Cameron went on a state visit to China not so long ago, one of their official publications called Britain "a historical relic." I thought it was a pretty mean thing to say, but perhaps they are not that wrong.

Just like Marx, the Chinese have got our number too and no mistake. Hardly surprising, considering that they are Marxists themselves.

[Atlantis]

It is one of the ironies of history that it was Britain which created the modern world and then used its empire to force the rest of the world to enter modernity, but then failed to successfully make the transition itself.

You did make the transition in economic terms. Well perhaps you went a step too far by getting rid of labor altogether.

You just lack sufficient motivation, Atlantis. I hate the ruling class, and Das Kapital is the handbook on how to overthrow them.

I won't say love is better than hate, so as not to upset Rei Murasame in case she is listening. Maybe hate gives you determination, but it's always self-destructive in the end.

Perhaps I would hate the ruling classes if I were British, but I oppose the current trend towards the denigration of the elite. Many of the prominent people in business and politics are very good people. True, power corrupts, there's no way around that, but there are safeguards. I would hate to see some of the so-called ordinary people in power. They get drawn into the abyss of corruption very fast and very deep. It takes moral rectitude to assume responsibility. But perhaps you Brits don't believe in moral rectitude. Perhaps that is the problem.

We have to reestablish trust in the leaders, or society will go down the drain. The unrelenting ranting and conspiracy theories our leaders are subjected to will result in bad leaders getting into power. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are what you think. And if you think: EU = evil, you'll get Brexit sooner or later, without fail.

Marx predicted globalisation -

You mean he predicted that Europe would first exploit the world and then destroy its own industrial base? Anyways, I don't understand how Marxism can be relevant if you have lost your industries and are dependent for most things on foreign countries.

I think technology is forming our future more than ideology.

You should have a word with Rei Murasame about that, Atlantis. Did you know she's a Maoist-Third-Worldist now?

That Pot, that is quite impossible. You are pulling my leg.

That option works for Germany, due to its peculiar history and its position at the centre of the EU and of continental Europe. It cannot work for Britain, however.

No Pot, the social market economy has been adopted in almost all countries to a greater or lesser extend. It's been the most successful system. Both communism and capitalism have failed. The center will win.

Just like Marx, the Chinese have got our number too and no mistake. Hardly surprising, considering that they are Marxists themselves.

The Chinese are Marxists? How can capitalists be Marxists?

[Potemkin]

I won't say love is better than hate, so as not to upset Rei Murasame in case she is listening. Maybe hate gives you determination, but it's always self-destructive in the end.

No, in fact it's usually destructive of one's enemies.

Perhaps I would hate the ruling classes if I were British, but I oppose the current trend towards the denigration of the elite. Many of the prominent people in business and politics are very good people. True, power corrupts, there's no way around that, but there are safeguards. I would hate to see some of the so-called ordinary people in power. They get drawn into the abyss of corruption very fast and very deep. It takes moral rectitude to assume responsibility. But perhaps you Brits don't believe in moral rectitude. Perhaps that is the problem.

Must be something in our blood, eh Atlantis?

We have to reestablish trust in the leaders, or society will go down the drain.

Or, alternatively, we could get rid of our current leaders.

The unrelenting ranting and conspiracy theories our leaders are subjected to will result in bad leaders getting into power. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are what you think. And if you think: EU = evil, you'll get Brexit sooner or later, without fail.

By that logic, if we think: ruling class = evil, we'll get a revolution sooner or later, without fail. Hmm.... I'm not seeing a downside to this.

You mean he predicted that Europe would first exploit the world and then destroy its own industrial base?

Actually, he did. Which is pretty much what has actually happened.

Anyways, I don't understand how Marxism can be relevant if you have lost your industries and are dependent for most things on foreign countries.

Marxism is now globally relevant. See Rei Murasame for further details.

I think technology is forming our future more than ideology.

Technology in and of itself cannot change the fundamental mode of production and therefore the social power relations.

You should have a word with Rei Murasame about that, Atlantis. Did you know she's a Maoist-Third-Worldist now?

That Pot, that is quite impossible. You are pulling my leg.

I assure you, it is true. It took me a while, but I finally persuaded her to see the truth: that she was always-already a Maoist-Third-Worldist without realising it.

No Pot, the social market economy has been adopted in almost all countries to a greater or lesser extend.

Really? Including Mexico, the Philippines and Iraq, to name but a few...?

It's been the most successful system. Both communism and capitalism have failed. The center will win.

We must agree to differ on this point, I think.

The Chinese are Marxists? How can capitalists be Marxists?

As I've always said, Commies make the best capitalists. Unlike most capitalists, they actually understand how capitalism works, what it's good for, and what its limitations are.

[AFAIK]

Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.

This is an interesting criticism to open with when the article goes on to make this point;

In the Spartan assemblies of ancient Greece, votes were cast by acclamation. People could modulate their voice to reflect the intensity of their preferences, with a presiding officer carefully listening and then declaring the outcome. It was imperfect, but maybe better than what just happened in the UK.

So you want everyone to vote all the time rather than allow the indifferent and apathetic to sit out the vote when it is raining but you also want them to 'vote less' somehow. What level of attendance does the author imagine parliamentary debates and votes to have on average anyway? We can't even get full attendance when it's your full time job to be there.

[Nonsense]

This is how souvereingty looks like …

UK rating cut by S&P and Fitch

I may be wrong, but I recall that the American 'credit rating agencies' seemed rather 'forgetful' when it came to reassessing countries ratings following the 2008 financial crash.
In particular, they 'forgot' this country, whilst lowering other countries ratings, why would they do this when just 18 months later, one, Liam Byrne left a note at the treasury for his successor which read, "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck!"

I am somewhat 'puzzled' as to why, when we were 'stony broke' they 'ignored' our 'credit worthiness' in 2010 , yet now, when the economy is in reality, 'up to it's eyeballs in debt', they suddenly have second thoughts about this country?

[AFAIK]

They're punishing us for violating the word and will of their president. Credit ratings are political statements with little regard for actual economics.

[Atlantis]

No, in fact it's usually destructive of one's enemies.

You mean the hate of the Islamists is about to destroy the Western world?

How many bombs hit your neighborhood this morning? Are there still buildings left standing? Can you still get basic food supplies? Electricity and water are gone, I take it?

You ought to have a look around Fallujah.

Or, alternatively, we could get rid of our current leaders.

The trouble is the new leaders are always more hungry than the old ones. And they have been conditioned in the same socio-economic environment.

Marxism is now globally relevant.

A proto-industrial ideology for a post-industrial society. Not a good match.

See Rei Murasame for further details.

Alright, I'll surrender. No beating that reference.

Technology in and of itself cannot change the fundamental mode of production and therefore the social power relations.

Technology drives everything. Even Marx is only the product of the industrial revolution. Marxists are the puppets of an outdated technology who can't make the transition. As we agreed before, stuck in the 19th century.

[Atlantis]

I may be wrong, but I recall that the American 'credit rating agencies' seemed rather 'forgetful' when it came to reassessing countries ratings following the 2008 financial crash.
In particular, they 'forgot' this country, whilst lowering other countries ratings, ...

The US is in a class of its own. It indirectly owns (or benefits from) the resources of the empire. It can even transfer liabilities to vassal states while attracting assets to the homeland. As long as the system does not collapse, the homeland will be safe.

[Glen]

Cameron committed political suicide

PM Cameron will almost certainly become Lord Cameron following Dissolution of Honours. His political career is likely to continue behind the scenes.

Now Germany gets to hold the bag all alone.

For how long?

I suggest AfD (2012-) and UKIP (1991-) are directly comparable because they each champion an EU referendum. It took UKIP four elections (3.1% of the vote) to bring the referendum debate into mainstream party politics. There is not enough data to estimate AfD growth trends, but stats show AfD has 4.7% of the vote at the national level. All statistics Wikipedia.

European Union
AfD (1) at EU : 7.1%
UKIP (1) at EU: 1.0%, UKIP (4) at EU: 16.6%, UKIP (5) at EU : 27.5%

National Government
AfD (1) in DE : 4.7%
UKIP (1) in UK: 0.3%, UKIP(4) in the UK: 3.1%, UKIP (5) in UK : 12.6 %

The next German general election is circa. September 2017. Could Dexit begin before Brexit concludes?

[Glen]

Oh dear! That will make our exports cheaper. What a pity!
...
We will be importing at the world market prices, which are far lower than your inflated, protectionist EU prices.

Is it really that simple?

Your aerospace and defence was £27bn in 2015, and that is likely to increase as Middle Eastern and North American buyers now seek to lock-in purchases while GBP is weak. The more pressing matter is how will the weak GBP impact UK's main export? I think that is processed/packaged foods and beverages. Most of this industry's input follows the shortest and coldest supply chain, which means material imports from France and Spain.

[ArtAllm]

Well it’s done, I love England and do business with them but now we orient ourselves to other countries in Europe.
With BREXIT you have dug your own tomb.

Wrong!

GB now gets the chance to get out of the EU-Tomb!



This EU-Monster looks more and more like the ex-USSR, they press for soviet-style censorship, they imprison dissidents.

All this contradicts the mentality of the Brits.

The freedom loving Brits do not accept the sovietization of their homeland, and they have proven that they are really a great nation.

The self-elected EU-Commissars should not forget what happened to the soviet apparatchicks.