Tag Archives: Brexit

The new British Foreign Policy, by Thierry Meyssan

Source: Voltairenet

The Western Press keeps repeating the same message – by leaving the European Union, the British have isolated themselves from the rest of the world, and will have to deal with terrible economic consequences. And yet, the fall in the Pound could be an advantage within the Commonwealth, which is a far greater family than the Union, and present on all six continents. Famous for its pragmatism, the City could quickly become the international centre for the yuan and implant the Chinese currency in the very heart of the Union.

Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, the Solomon Islands, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, and Tuvalu.
Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, the Solomon Islands, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, and Tuvalu.

The United States remain uncertain of their capacity to convince the European Union to participate actively in NATO, and the will of the United Kingdom to pursue the military alliance that they have been building together since 1941 for the purpose of dominating the world. Because despite the allegations of the European leaders, the Brexit does not isolate the United Kingdom, but enables it to turn to the Commonwealth and to create links with China and Russia.

Press-ganging the Europeans into NATO

The United States and the United Kingdom had planned to push the members of the Union to announce the increase of their military budget to 2% of their GDP during the Alliance summit in Warsaw (8 and 9 July). Besides this, there were plans for the adoption of a strategy for deploying forces at the Russian border, including the creation of a joint NATO–EU logistical unit which would enable the collective use of helicopters, ships, drones and satellites.

Until now, the United Kingdom was the most important contributor of the Union in matters of Defence, providing close to 15% of the EU defence budget. Apart from this, it was in charge of Operation Atalanta for the protection of maritime transports off the coast of the Horn of Africa, and had made its ships available in the Mediterranean. And finally, it was planned that the UK would furnish troops for the constitution of EU combat groups. With the Brexit, all these engagements are now null and void.

For Washington, the question is now whether London will or will not accept to increase its direct investment in NATO, of which it is already the second most important contributor, to compensate for the part it played in the EU – but without gaining any particular advantage by doing so. Although Michael Fallon, the current British Minister of Defence, has promised not to weaken the common efforts of NATO and the EU, no-one can see why London would agree to place new troops under foreign command.

As a result, and above all, Washington is questioning the will of London to pursue the military alliance that it has been building with the Crown since 1941. Of course, we should not rule out the possibility that the Brexit may be a British trick enabling them to renegotiate their «special relation» with «the Americans» to their advantage. However, it is much more probable that London hopes to extend its relations to Beijing and Moscow without necessarily forgoing the advantages of its entente with Washington.

The Anglo-Saxon secret agencies

During the Second World War, and even before they joined the war, the United States concluded a pact with the United Kingdom which was clearly laid out in the specifics of the Atlantic Charter [1]. It called for the two countries to unite in order to guarantee freedom of maritime circulation and the extension of free trade.

This alliance was implemented by the «Five Eyes» agreement, which currently serves as the basis for the cooperation between 17 Intelligence agencies from 5 different states (the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as three other members of the Commonwealth – Australia, Canada and New Zealand).

The documents revealed by Edward Snowden attest that the Echelon network in its current form constitutes «a supranational Intelligence agency which is independent of the laws of its own member states». So the «Five Eyes» have been able to spy on personalities like the Secretary General of the UNO and the German Chancellor, and at the same time, carry out mass surveillance on their own citizens.

Continue reading The new British Foreign Policy, by Thierry Meyssan

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

John Pilger: Why the British Said No to Europe, by John Pilger

Source: telesur

John Pilger strikes a blow to the hypocrisy of a wider political culture that apologizes for the crimes of the EU while denigrating the nation’s poor.

The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy. Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media.

This was, in great part, a vote by those angered and demoralized by the sheer arrogance of the apologists for the “remain” campaign and the dismemberment of a socially just civil life in Britain. The last bastion of the historic reforms of 1945, the National Health Service, has been so subverted by Tory and Labour-supported privateers it is fighting for its life.

A forewarning came when the treasurer, George Osborne, the embodiment of both Britain’s ancient regime and the banking mafia in Europe, threatened to cut 30 billion pounds from public services if people voted the wrong way; it was blackmail on a shocking scale.

Immigration was exploited in the campaign with consummate cynicism, not only by populist politicians from the lunar right, but by Labour politicians drawing on their own venerable tradition of promoting and nurturing racism, a symptom of corruption not at the bottom but at the top. The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East—first Iraq, now Syria—are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the willful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel.

The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried. A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centerpiece of modern “globalization,” with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labor; its perfidious politicians and politicized civil servants.

All this has now come home to Europe, enriching the likes of Tony Blair and impoverishing and disempowering millions. On 23 June, the British said no more.

The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool.” What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, The Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as “neoliberalism.”

Continue reading John Pilger: Why the British Said No to Europe, by John Pilger

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

BREXIT – LET THE UK SCREW ITSELF!, by Andre Vltchek

ONCE AGAIN, EUROPEAN BIGOTRY EXPOSED!

By: Andre Vltchek

Oh that poor old United Kingdom! Armies of political commentators based on all continents are now feverishly trying to define to what extent the Brits got fooled, or how severely they will soon get punished for their ‘bold move’.

All over Europe, the neo-Nazis and other right-wingers are celebrating, while most of ‘liberals’ are panic-stricken, running around like a herd of headless chickens, or howling at the moon at night in despair. The Euro-left (as pathetic and bogus as “Euro business class” on domestic European flights) is trying to put the recent referendum into some sort of philosophical perspective, blabbering something about a working class rebellion against the ruling elites.

Some Europeans are even blaming Mr. Putin for the outcome of the referendum, while others see behind the outcome of the vote the specter of an “American conspiracy” or even a “Zionist lobby”.

Things are much more simple. A few million bigoted British voters, many of them old retirees and traditionally conservative, even racist bunch, got scared that their country was soon about to be invaded by unkempt hordes of refugees, or more precisely – by ‘un-people’ (to borrow from George Orwell’s lexicon). While for others, the referendum became a way to express their frustration with the fact that the British working class has lately been getting an increasingly awful deal (read: an increasingly smaller cut from that enormous global loot plundered by both Europe and North America).

Don’t search for any flickers of internationalism or traditional Left-wing ideals in the hearts of those who voted for “Exit”. A great majority of the anti-EU warriors was simply demanding better benefits for itself (the “British people”), as well as “Britain for the Brits” (whatever that really means in this increasingly multi-racial nation).

Of course, the same can be said about the opposite camp! Those who were voting for remaining in the Union were doing so for strictly practical reasons.

Almost no commentator bothered to notice what was truly shocking about the entire referendum process: an absolute lack of progressive ideology, of internationalism and concern for the world as a whole. Both sides (and were there really two sides there) presented a fireworks of shallow selfishness and of pettiness. The profound moral corruption of the West was clearly exposed.

Continue reading BREXIT – LET THE UK SCREW ITSELF!, by Andre Vltchek

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

Who’s Really The Fascist?, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

Source: The Automatic Earth

Like most of you, I too see an increase in the use of the term ‘fascism’ in the media, and it is -almost- always linked to the rise of Donald Trump in the US and various politicians and parties in Europe, Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland, Erdogan in Turkey, plus a pretty bewildering and motley crew of ‘groups’ in Eastern Europe (Hungary’s Orban) and Scandinavia. I guess you could throw in Nigel Farage and UKIP in Britain as well.

And while I -sort of- understand why the term is used the way it is, and it’s not possible to say it’s used wrong simply because ‘fascism’ knows so many different interpretations and definitions, very few of which can be classified as definitely wrong, that doesn’t mean that just because you’re not definitely wrong, you’re therefore right, and certainly not comprehensive or complete. And there’s a story in there that deserves to be told. Who is really the fascist? From Wikipedia:

George Orwell wrote in 1944 that “the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless … almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’”. Richard Griffiths said in 2005 that “fascism” is the “most misused, and over-used word, of our times”. “Fascist” is sometimes applied to post-war organizations and ways of thinking that academics more commonly term “neo-fascist”.

I’m inclined to venture that ‘terrorism’ is a good second for most misused word, but something tells me that once you get into economics and the way terms like ‘stimulus’, ‘unemployment’ and ‘inflation’ are used, this is an argument that would never end. Let’s stick with ‘fascism’ for now.

The prevalent definition -and public notion- of fascism today is connected first and foremost to Adolf Hitler, to the Holocaust, the SS and other German WWII ‘phenomena’. And it’s quite something to link Trump or Le Pen to that, even if they say things at times that may make you shudder. It seems at least a tad hyperbolic, no matter how much you may not like these people. Neither is responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

What’s more interesting, because it can provide perspective, is to look at what fascism is (or was) prior to, and beyond, Hitler and Germany. One man stands out in this: Benito Mussolini, Italian prime minister slash wannabe dictator from 1922 till 1943, who’s even often labeled the founder of fascism (though its roots go back much further). But for Mussolini, fascism was not what Hitler has made us define it as.

Continue reading Who’s Really The Fascist?, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn