Putin's Useful Idiots
A growing myth is emerging to mould a new image for Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. Barack Obama has just wound up a visit to Germany where he went out of his way to say what a stalwart ally Angela was. There is a major effort to somehow build her up as the role model of common values, liberty and the rule of law. However, somewhat typical of the dying Obama administration, he overlooks the inconvenient truth that she was instrumental in preventing Europeans gaining free expression and helped sustain the growing unacceptable European democratic deficit. It was Angela Merkel who encouraged all heads of state in the Union, in an open letter, not to provide the people of Europe with referenda on the introduction of the new European Constitution which had been hacked out in a participatiory vacuum by Giscard d'Estaing. The other heads of state, many recent arrivals from ex-soviet regimes and few democractic inclinations willingly followed Merkel's advice, including Tony Blair. The result was the introduction of the infamous Lisbon Treating which extended the power of the unelected European Commission by introducing a foreign service and majority non-veto voting. Angela Merkel has very weak democratic credentials and cannot be trusted.
A journalist from the TV channel Russia Today (RT) at a US State Department presss briefing in Washington, asked the State Department spokesperson, Admiral Kirby, to provide the names and locations of 5 Syrian hospitals he stated had been bombed by Russian and Syrian airforces. As is usual at such briefings State Department officials seldom can produce evidence for the most of the extreme assertions that they constantly level against Russia. In this case Kirby lost control and ranted on about why the journalist didn't ask such questions of the (her) military authorities in Russia. He then went on to say he does not consider RT journalists to warrant the same treatment as the other assembled journalists. When asked why, he said becasue RT is state owned. This type of snide remark coming from a State Department official is a disgrace. RT is not state owned it receives funding from the Russian state just as does Voice of America, BBC in the UK and Die Velt in Germany.
The State department press briefing have always been run by third rate individuals who think it is smart not to answer the more searching questions that often come from RT journalists and this is a government department that lectures the world about "values" and "transparecy" etc etc.,Russian propaganda?
Although US State Department and even Hillary Clinton have referred to RT as Russian propaganda the range of independent shows that accept no editorial orientation is impressive including world famous Larry King's "Politicking", Afshin Rattansi's "Going Underground", Edward Harrison and Ameera David's "Boom Bust" to name just a few. The reality is that RT is one of the few media that truly supports independent journalism that promote alternative interpretations of events. It is this that the US State Department does not want because it cuts across their desire to not admit alternative points of view or neutral stands. RT has provided the third party US Presidential candidates with air time which was not provided to the people of the USA by mainstream US outlets, many of which seem to be staffed by State Department stenographers.
An American NGO called the Henry Jackson Society, has just published a document by an Andrew Foxall of the so-called Russia Studies Centre. This document is entitled, "Putin's Useful Idiots: Britain's Left, Right and Russia"
, demonstrates a lamentable misunderstanding of Russia's policy with repect to so-called left and right movements worldwide. There is no depth to this document with most references being all very recent, most dated 2016 and one or two 1990s vintage. In fact the analysis is plain wrong and reflects perhaps the writer's age and lack of experience with the fundamentals of Russian motivations going back beyond the initiation of World War II. The writer has simply bought into the recent Clintonesque and John Kerry State Department-driven paranoia about Putin. The personalisation of this document, centred on Putin, is typical of the brand of knee jerk journalism that is the US mainstream media today. This cannot be considered to be a serious researched document reflecting the current motivations of Putin.
Any amateur student of history knows that Russia has a well-established habit, like the USA, of funding sympathetic political movements. In fact the USA dedicates somthing like 500 times more funding to foreign political movements and NGOs than does Russia. Indeed, Russia learned some of these techniques from the USA. It is notable that although there is ample evidence of USA funding of foreign political activity as well as regime change supported by bloody wars, the Clinton campaign and security agencies in the USA could not come up with any evidence for Russian interference in the recent US election. Of course even the FBI was accused of acting on behalf of Russia. There is by contrast excessive amounts of evidence concerning USA interference in foreign elections as well as support of the so-called right in Ukraine as well as terrorist groups in the Middle East and of strong political support for Saudi Arabia in spite of evidence of their involvement
in the murderous events of 9-11 in downtown New York. One cannot equate this behaviour with anything to do with freedom, democracy and the rule of law but the author of this document does not want to be bothered with such details but simply wants to deliver on attacking Putin.
One bizarre recommendation by this individual is a that politicians should be required to register the fact that they will participate in coverage by such media organizations as RT. This is a MacCarthyism excess. RT receives funding from the Russian government in the same way as Voice of America in the USA or BBC in the UK. Most US mainstream media are essentially stenographers for
US government output, especially in the case of foreign affairs and State Department output so that on these stations it is difficult to get alternative point of view across. A self-imposed or funded censorship creates enormous bias in news coverage, indeed, the experience of Bernie Sanders during the primaries, provides ample evidence of this. RT has a range of programmes that are managed by people who would not accept any editorial orientation from RT. For example Larry King and his program "Politicking", Ameera David's "Boom Bust" and Afshin Rattansi's "Going Underground"". These are all programs that provide a rational and alternative view of opinions and all off them grill interviewees from any side.
Finally, to highlight where this document goes wrong, like the USA, Russia provides "support" to people whose ideas are potentially against the interests of the country. Such people, mainly on the right, are seduced into misunderstading of provision of platforms, and even funding, signifies support for their basic philosophies; it doesn't and never has done. It is largely designed to raise their profile and expose them so as to line up domestic opinion against them. This succeeded in the case of the National Front and most other ultra right wing UK parties to the benefit of the UK population.
In disagreement with Stalin, Leon Trotsky pointed out the danger of the right (Fascists) and Stalin made him pay the ultimate price. However, the lesson arising from the Nazi fiasco caused Russia to finally understand Trotsky's analysis at a great human cost. The recent Ukraine events saw the US State Department support of neofascist paramilitary units. There were calls for NATO expansion into Ukraine. NATO, however, had demonstrated its willingness to alter its etablished defensive role willy nilly to pursue a proactive regime change in Libya, under the guise of an innocent "no flight zone". This created a significant change in the perception of the stablity of NATO as a reliable adversary alliance both within the UK as well as in Russia. The evidence is there for all to see that NATO's intervention resulted in chaos and the spread of ISIS and a major European immigration crisis which Muammar Gaddafi had predicted and had prevented. This led, naturally, to the Crimean outcome in light of the important Russian naval base and ethnic make-up of Crimeans, mainly Russian speakers. Ukrainan events at the time was showing TV coverage of Ukrainan neo-fascists clubbing members of Russian ethnic groups to death. This is not to argue that what has occurred is right it is simply to point out that there were good reasons for this move in strategic terms as well as in terms of the security of the population in Crimea. When the West acts in a way that does not demonstrate a consistent strategy there is a problem of predictability resulting in instability. The only way to stop this growing global chaos is to take decisive actions.
In such a world there is a need for balanced rational analyses to identify options for possible soltions. The shallow nature of this journalistic publication devoid of objective analysis with rights reserved by a UK registered charity calls into question why this organization has a charitable status when it is wasting money on such polemic that contributes nothing to the debate.
British government isn't following a logical pathway to Brexit
The recent exchanges in Parliament have pointed to the failure of the British government to publish information on scenarios and options including on the need for more transparency on the potential impact of any policy changes on segments of the community. Theresa May keep insisting that showing one's hand weakens the Brexit negotiations. Philip Hammond's recent replies to the Treasury Select Committee followed a similar vein bordering on sophistry. On the question on whether or not EU nationals can remain in the UK the government's position is a disgrace, they clearly intend to make such individuals pawns or bargaining chips. The government should demonstrate leadership, common sense and humanity by declaring such people can remain. On the status of UK citizens in Europe it is unlikely that the EU would then treat them in another way and in any case there are other bases for bargaining, if negotiations descend to such depths, using other means.
In the 2007 publication, "The Briton's Quest for Freedom - out unfinished journey...
", one of the recommendations was to introduce a requirement for governments to prepare Decision Analysis Briefs (DABs) to accompany any new policy proposal or changes in existing policies. DABs are exactly what are required now as transparent statements of the distributive costs and benefits of any government decision; a basic requirement of the provision of objective information in a democracy designed to support constituency comprehension and to be in a position to engage in dialogue in support of decision-making.
In a recent media briefing session in Portsmouth, provided by Navatec.com and part of the Decision Analysis Initiative 2015-2020, sponsored by the George Boole Foundation (GBF), the role of decision analysis and decision analysis briefs was explained. One of the main impacts of good DABs is that they change priors. Priors are the up front assumptions that people hold before a negotiation starts. They have the immediate effects is dispelling false impressions simply because all "realistic" options or scenarios are spelt out. If negotiators' hands are hidden there is often the paradoxical outcome of failure to get the best "deal". The May government had taken up a combative stance with respect to the forthcoming EU Brexit negotiation seeing it as a potentially negative process. Again this shows a lack of leadership. The UK needs to show leadership and statecraft of the highest level by demonstrating conviction of the case supporting our demands by showing from where such conviction emanates. By demonstrating, in particular, the advantages of leaving the EU in a transparent manner the UK would secure a stronger position. This is exactly what the EU Member States don't want to see since this will only encourage the Euro-skeptics and political oppositions in Member States. On the other hand if the EU negotiators act to attack any advantages to be gained from leaving then this will also reduce the support for the EU experiment on the part of those in Europe who are tired of the massive democratic deficit. At the moment the advantage lies on the UK side but the
prevarication of the government shows a lack of understanding of this fact or maybe lack of capability to undertake the analyses required across the full range of government portfolios and economic sectors.
The required skills to carry out such analysis probably do not reside within the government nor ministries. However, part of the briefing provided by the GBF event included reviews of the many very powerful techniques that exist to carry out decision analysis including the building of realistic determinant models (cause and effect models), how to determine required data and data quality and how to embed estimates of probabilities of critical events. These models can then simulate complex scenarios and generate revealing outcomes in terms of distributive costs and benefits. A factor of importance in these advanced techniques is that there needs to be a participatory development in order to secure the best options and this, in the case of the UK, requires measured and objective contributions to the process by the Labour party as well as the Scottish National Party and others. Since the May government does not appear to understand the potential of Brexit we have a state of affairs where the government demonstrates an amateurism that arises from its narrow partisan focus. One of the take-aways from the GBF media briefing was the significance of logic in decision analysis procedures. Indeed, this is why the GBF sponsors such events to demonstrate the outstanding advanatges of applying the logical procedures developed by George Boole the English logician whose logic is used to design complex digital chips, program computers and manage the internet. Let us hope this state of affairs will change and that the government might follow a more logical pathway to Brexit.
The deplorables win and the trailer park celebration
Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election of the USA was inevitable but the "powers that were" who have existed in an orgy of mutual status promotion and cronyism within the Beltway and sold as democracy in action by most US media, were the last people to see this coming. This very reality is why Donald Trump won.
He won because people had become increasingly tired of putting up with an in-your-face arrogant corruption of the so-called establishment politicians, their supporters in the corporate world and media and the continued scandals involving the financial world. It is assumed by that "the people" don't "understand" the world's complexities and, in any case, don't have enough power to stop the endless wars promoted by the State Department, the countless number of innocents murdered by the US Coalition's quest to fight terrorism and promote regime change in the Middle East. While politicians looked the other way, people continue to believe that black lives matter, that financial crimes have justified Occupy. Bernie Sanders gave these feelings a focus but people watched as the Democratic machine marginalized Sanders. Wikileaks helped add a perspective on this corruption. A considerable amount of the anger related to the treatment of Sanders, fed into Donald Trump's support.
On the economic side, the disastrous macroeconomic policies followed by the USA, globalization and financialization which resulted in the many in manufacturing and industry seeing their jobs exported to South East Asia and the desperate situation of those referred to by Clinton as "deplorables" or the so-called white trash, crackers, hillbillies, Okies or rednecks has become far worse. An historic fact is that the status of poor whites were held in contempt by even black slaves. During the plantation phase poor whites had to struggle for subsistence.
This long standing prejudice against these people has its origins in the fact that many came from Ireland and Scotland during the period England had been fighting and colonizing these countries. For several reasons poverty and the need to emigrate was imposed on these communities. From that time these people were held in contempt by all of society. Some of the background to this tragic characteristic of the divided society that is the USA can be found in the book by Thomas Sowell entitled, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" (2005). In this book, Sowell, an African American intellectual puts forward a pretty biased analysis of how those from the Celtic fringe of Britain set a bad example for African Americans who emulated them. Sowell uses this biased analysis to explain the bad behaviour of African Americans. This is an example where a basic sociological circumstance can pit on person who is marginalized against someone else who is also marginalized. Politicians can use this type of circumstance to use the blame game to divide society as well as pick up votes from those who are championed by the politician. The mainstream media approach and, indeed, the thinking of many Americans is to brand people by their ethnicity or group such as Latino, African American, Indigenous, Caucasian and others. This is a somewhat demented view of society and allegiances since it leads to strong subjective associations. So some policemen end up with a tendency to murder African Americans in cold blood in minor confrontations, even when the subject is unarmed.
Some people consider Moslems as a problem. Irrespective of this unfortunate decisiveness of depreciating the image of other members of American society, the main point is that Donald Trump's message found resonance with the unemployed and these "white trailer park inhabitants" who, in some cases, have had to endure a multi-generational abuse from government and society. Trump tapped into a rich seam. The thought that the Latino vote or the African American vote would surge and counter Trump's advance was never going to work. Many Latino families and African American families have lost family members in the continuing pointless wars, a legacy of Clinton & Obama. As a result this surge did not happen.
Although it is easy to blame people's economic status on the movement of immigrants to the economic space there is a danger that this becomes a racist issue when in fact it is an issue of poor management of the economy. The Brexit vote in the UK is mired in this sort of nonsense spouted by the media. The issue is that macroeconomic policies have served the rich at the expense of the poor, investment is falling and productivity declining and real unemployment rising. People at the sharp end have simply said, "enough!".
So in a step towards a more open society, the deplorables have won and there will be many trailer park celebrations. This is in fact something to be admired, it is a potential triumph for American democracy that a billionaire businessman has been able to generate such sparks of hope. Let us hope Donald Trump remains uncontaminated by the Beltway madness and is able to deliver on his promises.
The world is tired and fed up with a bullying and interfering US State Department that has created failed states under Clinton and John Kerry
America and the world should be grateful that the paranoid warmongers and scaremongers lost the election
The conjouring up and the full exposure of a ridiculous paranoid scare mongering based on no evidence at all, other than assertion, exposed a pathological tendency of Clinton to base her campaign on misrepresentation. Her absurd claims that Russia was somehow implicated in trying to influence the outcome of the election was,of course, totally bizarre. However her ambition was so intense that she became insensitive and blinded to the fact that this line simply became increasingly absurd and people began to see through it. She did of course have pliant surrogates in some "security" institutions to state that hacks (if there were any) were of the sort that Russia might apply. On the other hand CNN and other mainstream media sold this story hook, line and sinker again on the basis of no evidence. The hacks according to Ibn Nr were in likely to be home grown leaks or hacks and this is why the security agencies were trying to deflect their inability to protect US cyberspace from its own hackers by blaming Russia.
However, all of these smoke screens by the Clinton campaign were unable to deflect attention from her track record of a willingness to advocate aggression. Her shameful and tasteless reference to the murder of Kaddafi as, “We Came, We Saw, He Died, Ha! Ha! Ha!” (CBSNews) exposed her shamelessly sadistic side. But even worse, her admission in an email that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS while later accepting money for the Clinton Foundation from these same countries while ISIS continues to target US military personnel and European citizens, to murder Christians, to rape their wives or sell them into sex slavery and to lop off the heads of people who don't "behave" while continuing to spread to more countries. She is completely unsuitable to be president of the country where New York suffered from 9-11 which, it turns out, was conjured up and supported by elements of the Saudi government. It isn't necessary to say much more here but it is very clear that we should all be very grateful that she did not win for the sake of the lives of those innocent people with a right to life who would have perished in far off lands in the name of America if she had become president.
The absence of world leadership requires better national options
After an intense 15 years of aggression and killing, the so-called "war on terror" has only turned into a source of terror and displacement for the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria leading to the immigrant crisis in Europe. The USA has promoted a foreign policy more focused on arbitrary "regime change" and leading to the murder of over a million people and approaching 7,000 US personnel have been killed and over 40,000 injured in the name of fantasies dreamt up in the Washington Belt way by clearly irresponsible individuals with decision-making power in a disoriented administration. The people of the United States gain no benefit from this insanity but they are sold the narrative through a media that their "freedom" rests on the success of a foreign policy bent on marginalizing anyone deemed to be in opposition to USA policies and to use assassination if such opposition persists.
All of this talk about "democracy" palls at what is being done in its name. It is increasingly evident that USA's foreign policy motivation is not primarily to safeguard the interests of the people of America. It serves the specific interests of those who gain from supporting the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of whom seek chaos in Syria. The USA foreign policy is a proxy operation acting on behalf of these countries. A vivid characterization of this foreign policy can be seen in the Saudi's wholesale murderous aggression in Yemen deploying US and UK supplied plane systems, armaments and UK provision of pilot training. They have provided this support in spite of the allegations of Saudi Arabia's support of the terrorists who carried out the 9-11 atrocity resulting in deaths of 2,996 people and the injuries of more than 6,000 others in downtown New York. Over a longer period the Saudi financing of the establishment of mosques and promotion of Wahhabism worldwide has provided the foundation for a spread of an intolerant and fundamentalist approach to Islam amongst Moslems in Europe and the USA and elsewhere. This intolerance of other religions and social customs is what has merged into the strains that appear in the outlook of most Islamic terrorists, either "home-grown" or imported. Naturally the US led wars of aggression, that kill more Moslems than any other group, sustain a motivation for people to switch to join those fighting the USA to be branded as terrorists. This explanation for the growth in home-grown "terrorists" was confirmed in an FBI report that did not gain much media coverage.
The sheer extent of the decadence of US foreign policy is reflected in the preference of President Obama to not allow Americans to sue Saudi Arabia and in their continued protection and support of head-lopping, raping sex-slavery operator extremists, also favoured and funded by Saudi Arabia, and whom they call "the moderate opposition" in Syria. Independent national options are frowned upon by the US State Department in complete contradiction of any normal acceptance by a democratic society of alternative positions and policies.
The question is, why does the United Kingdom government, under Theresa May willingly participate in this quagmire of immoral and unethical conduct? The United Kingdom has and continues to pay a heavy price in its meek following of US policies, largely for fear of being ostracized and being upstaged by some EU Member or losing some armaments contract. Its recent orchestrated show in United Nations, alongside France in supporting the scripted US State department hysteria, concerning Aleppo in Syria, only confirmed weak levels of independence.
It needs to be noted that the UK came up with most of the Human Rights legislative foundation in European Human Rights and England produced the first constitutional drafts that after around 140 years were taken up as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights by the "founding fathers". The UK's penchant for logic combined with legal principles largely couched in the Common Law is a sound logical, moral and ethical mix and this still has much to contribute to the world. Discounting the current irresponsible cow towing of the UK to an aggressive foreign policy, the UK can contribute far more by opting for placing humanity at the front of foreign policy and to draw upon moral principles and ethical procedures, to propose peaceful options that safeguard the harmonious development of human communities worldwide. The USA, on the other hand, has done too much damage and viewed with too much cynicism for it to attempt such as move.
The UK recent decision giving arise to BREXIT provides an opportunity for an ex-post analysis of the benefits of leaving as opposed to staying. In 1987, UK Commissioner Arthur Cockburn, Vice-President of the Delors' Commission and Commissioner for the Internal Market, Tax Law and Customs, arranged, through his cabinet, for a study to be conducted on the benefits of the European Common Market and referred to as "No Europe". The first report turned up nothing so the study was recommissioned making use of a management consultancy company to do a more "thorough" job. The outcome was essentially a repeat failure to come up with any significant benefits from Europe.
Berlaymont the law mill
In Berlaymont, the Commission HQ on Rue de la Loi, it was nowhere to be found and very soon it was no longer recognized by its name.
The situation has not really changed since then. It has got worse with the overall makeup of the Member State political systems having veered away from the former English and UK approach to democracy to rule-based legal provisions with little adaptability. Indeed the unfortunate lessons of countries that have joined is that laws written, top down, by government advisers in the same mode as the Commission, is the name of the game. Participatory democracy has become a buzz word. The extension of this approach to EU accession support in the Balkans is not contributing to democratic values but rather the reverse where getting hold of EU funds is obtained by putting in place requested but token administrative structures. Getting out of the EU is well overdue with other member states in the EU Council having increasing veto power while their policies are increasingly top down elitist concoctions. BREXIT had to happen sooner or later. So the option open to the UK is to predict the future after BREXIT, that is to define where is wants to go, the best solution is to create this future, following Peter Druker's advice. This is where the "No Europe" report fell down, it did not explore the alternative options open to the UK beyond "business as usual". The most important option is to demonstrate an independent foreign policy that flexes its muscles, not in selling armaments to murderers, droning and killing the guests at tribal wedding ceremonies or slavishly following the USA into failed ventures. Rather it is to establish alternatives based on moral principles and ethics, removing threats from diplomatic language and embracing simple recognizable peaceful human motivations as the driving force of policy logic.
On the European side the threats of retaliation from EU members is to be expected given the evolving anti-democratic mind sets in the leadership, and the increasing dependency of some on EU hand-outs. If they persist this will damage the weak EU economy and not the UK economy, which has far more options.
Internal struggle in EU over conflicting interests of USA and Member States
It is clear that Donald Tusk failed to deliver on pressure from the US to get a unified EU position to impose further sanctions on Russia at the last Council meeting. He read out a typical US State Department buzz wordy narrative to claim, unconvincingly, that Russia is trying to destabilize the EU. Tusk is becoming somewhat like the other proxy US policy spokesperson, Jens Stoltenberg of NATO who pursues an EU destabilizing policy of aggressive Middle Eastern foreign policy led by the USA that has created the migrant crisis as the major destabilizing issue in the EU. As usual the USA pressures for policies where the EU pays the main price and proxy representatives such as Tusk and Stoltenburg promote European instability.
CIA "covert" operation becomes a very public joke ;-)
In an intentional constituent-aimed media interview on NBC's "Meet the Press", the Vice President of the USA, Joe Biden, hinted that the CIA is preparing a "covert" Cyber attack on Russia. How silly can you get by broadcasting a covert operation in advance? According to Ibn Nr this sort of nonsense is to try and communicate that things are so bad that the US is "going to have to react". This is to add credibility to the assertions of Russian hacking. This fuzzy hint by the Veep is to try and convince the US electorate that Russia really is attacking the Democratic party's range of databases many of which are not operational and the records are offline on paper in dusty filing cabinets. Concerning the Podesta emails and the damming confidential statements made by Clinton to her support groups, the most logical explanation is that these were leaked by Democratic party operatives or IT personnel reacting to the unconstitutional treatment of Bernie Sanders by the party in support of Hillary Clinton. The Russian dimension is a convenient diversionary tactic by the Democrats which has no evidential base, designed to fill the media with the imaginary Russian bogey man "fear factor" rather than the content of these damming documents. The well known endemic political bias in the majority of US mainstream media can be left to do the rest by hiding what is in fact going on from the US public thereby undermining transparency, in contradiction to the fundamental aims of a free press.APE - Apeurope authorizes detailed study on the costs & benefits of Brexit
During the Apeurope Annual General Meeting held on 10th October, Group correspondents registered their extreme frustration at the absence of evidence-based positions, on all sides, during the recent European referendum. With the decision to leave the European Union, this lack of clarity continues. The vacillation and delays by all British political parties in defining any coherent position is alarming and the posturing of the European Commission officials and some heads of state of Member States is unacceptable. Therefore, in the continued absence of any positive government or Commission action the Apeurope Board has authorized a study on the "Costs & Benefits of the UK leaving the European Union". This study will analyse the sector and foreign trade partner potential opportunities, gaps and impacts arising from the new options that now exist with BREXIT. This has the objective of providing a basis for identifying mutual benefits to the remaining European Union's members and to the UK.
|The Whale in the coming BREXIT talks|In some of the preparatory exchanges concerning the Apeurope Study "Costs & Benefits of the UK leaving the European Union" one delegate pointed out that one of the most shocking give-aways by the Heath Conservative government, when the UK entered the European Union in 1972, was the UK's fishing grounds, amongst the most productive on the planet. This had a significant negative social and economic impact on the British fishing industry. BREXIT provides the damaged UK fishing industry and the UK fishermen the opportunity to regain their former prominent contribution to Britain's Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry sector by supplying the UK with home-caught fish.
The current catch value, official and unofficial, is around £500 million. Much fish coming to the UK market goes through large EU-based factory ships who simply sell fish caught within these waters to UK fishermen or land the fish for port-side markets. With BREXIT the national fishing communities' income could double to around £1 billion.
The re-establishment of British sovereignty over the former UK fishing grounds would be a major tangible benefit of BREXIT. In preparation to this major benefit it would make sense, in terms of managing the total manageable catch (TAC) to come to agreement with Iceland on management and to only permit EU vessels to fish under license paid to the UK treasury. License income would be used to monitor fish stocks and prevent abuse arising from unacceptable catching practices such as avoiding catching and killing very young fish needed to grow stocks for the sustainability of the industry.
This could become the Whale in the BREXIT negotiation fish tank when discussions get going. Several countries, France and Spain and indirectly The Netherlands, have much to lose with this aspect of BREXIT. The solution, of course, is not to try and punish Britain for BREXIT but to come to a satisfactory settlement of things like this; there are many more to come and Real News will be setting these out here.
US foreign policy is a ridiculous "Show Time" for gullible media; little credibility remains
The sheer hypocrisy of the histrionics of the USA UN ambassador and the lack of logical argument of the US State Secretary and the absurd off stage statements by leading US military figures is ridiculous. We witness a bunch of mavericks playing a high stakes poker game while the Commander in Chief, so-called, seems to be ignored. No one believes that the US attack on the Syrian army was a "mistake" as John Kerry claimed. This attack could be "called off" because it was already "mission accomplished". The terrorist attack on the humanitarian mission was immediately blamed on Syrian and Russian air attacks while the US ignored the drone evidence provided by Russia on the local terrorist vehicle pulling a howitzer. The biggest problem that runs through the US narratives and bluster is a complete lack of evidence to back up accusations relating to Russian actions in Syria, cyber attacks on some disparate Democratic Party servers and events in the Ukraine. However, the evidence that does exist supports the emerging truth that the US foreign policy is barbaric, currently protecting rapists and beheading terrorists who run a sex trade based on innocent women, selling them through online sites by having their so-called "moderates" inter-mingle with these terrorists in civilian areas to protect them from attack.
The latest show by these hypocrites has been in the Security Council of the UN to demand "investigations" into war crimes. The burning alive of innocents by US repeated attacks on the hospital in Kunduz in Afghanistan and the recent attack by Saudi Arabia killing 150 individuals in the Yemen are war crimes.
Brexit, better late than never
BREXIT was unexpected but at least it got some people thinking about if something can be done with BREXIT that might benefit the UK population.
First of all, all of the dire chaos that those who wished to remain in Europe warned about, has not occurred. The economy isn't doing well but nothing much has changed. Secondly people are beginning to review the real options without Europe and some of these are appearing to be increasingly attractive. As many are now asking why the UK should limit our market scope to Europe when there is a whole world out there.
The rot began with the European constituents were marginalized by the exclusive way in which the European Convention on the Constitution chaired by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in 2001. Then in 2003 democracy took a bad turn with the large enlargement under Commissioner Verheugen which brought in many central European countries, none of which had stable democratic credentials and countries like Hungary were pulled in with many EU requirements not having been satisfied and lot of legislation not even having been transcribed. Democracy was dealt a further blow when Angela Merkel in mid-2007, in a leaked letter to Member State leaders, suggested they revive almost all the controversial elements of the flopped European Constitution whereby leaders were trying to smuggle in a massive new extension of Brussels power by the back door. This was all being done in secret behind the back of the British people and the Parliament by Tony Blair. The constitution was controversial because it proposed scrapping national vetoes in dozens of areas, including policing and justice; the creation of a permanent elected president and foreign minister, and a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights that would increase trade union influence. The aim was to revive the constitution in all but name, but this time without voters getting a choice. The key trick suggested by Merkel and reaffirmed by Tony Blair at the time led to the infamous Lisbon Treaty in December 2007 as an amending treaty.<Why Americans have no basic right to bear arms
The right to bear arms, buried in the American Constitution is related to the old English basis for organizing state military forces through local militia. Thus in the American Constitution it states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
". The misrepresentation of the content of the American Constitution is promoted proactively by such organizations as the National Rifle Association (NRA) who basically circulate disinformation that this is a general right when even in the US Constitution the eligibility of being able to bear arms is related to membership of a militia.
As a result of this tendentious interpretation of the constitution, each year, has led to the insane result of more than 30,000 Americans killed by gun violence – homicides, suicides and incidental shootings. That number is ten times more than the number of Americans killed by terrorists on 9/11. Yet Congress has failed to act. Felons, terrorists, domestic abusers and the seriously violent mentally ill, and now home-made terrorists who support ISIS have easy access to firearms and ammunition because of weak and irresponsible American gun laws.
|Salt & Vinegar option under BREXIT|
Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, assertion that no BREXIT is better than hard BREXIT and that leaving will only leave salt and vinegar. This exposes a behind-the-scenes effort on the part of a wide range of interest groups to try and reverse the UK's decision to leave the European Union.
What is not being accepted is that no one has quantified the benefits of remaining. In the 1980s UK European Commissioner Cockburn commissioned a study called "No Europe". This was supposed to calculate the benefits of being in Europe. The initial study came up with no benefits so the study was repeated, again coming up with no significant benefits. This report was a source of embarrassment and was therefore binned by the Commission. However, the fundamental message of the report was not lost on those who had read the report, especially some members of the UK Conservative party. It should be remembered that Cockburn was a UK Commissioner proposed by the Thatcher government. The bottom line here is that many in Britain know that the European Commission has no bargaining position if a country wishes to leave the EU because it is not possible to quantify the benefits of remaining. Any "hard exit" will prejudice European exporters to the UK. This means trying to punish, or threatening to punish the UK, bordering on economic sanctions, will only hurt Europe. This is why there is a panic in the European Commission.
On the question of foreign investment in the UK drying up with BREXIT, some recent confidential corporate executive conclaves are concluding that the UK's prospects are better outside the EU because the economy will grow faster than the EU as a result of the incremental growth in UK trade with non-EU countries. The organization of negotiating teams, with many members coming from British Commonwealth countries, is impressive and there is a large build-up of trading profiles being prepared, not with the EU, but with a long list of global partners. Whereas the UK started BREXIT with weak negotiation resources the current capabilities have already surpassed the somewhat sclerotic approach associated with the EU Commission typified by secrecy and a very poor public image such as their poorly handled TTIP negotiations.
There is a poorly appreciated fact surrounding the UK regulatory environment for financial services and a long established flexibility in the way the UK-based financial sector handle just about any challenge, sets London apart from any other world financial centre. This has its drawbacks but remains a well known, but seldom admitted, reality. The European Commission dreams that BREXIT will result the global financial centre migrating to Frankfurt, or anywhere else in mainland Europe, but according to traders this is unlikely to come true for the foreseeable future. At the moment European centres do not have the right combination of capabilities, experience and regulatory environments or, frankly, any track record to contemplate substituting London as the global financial centre.
Donald Tusk does not appear to understand that the British have a preference for eating fish and chips with salt and vinegar and this tradition will continue after BREXIT.
|Meet the leader of the biggest political party in Europe|
In spite of the media attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and the out of touch MPs who tried to unseat him by imposing yet another leadership election, he has succeeded, in the meantime, to turn Labour into the largest political party in Europe. There is a certain disorientation on the part of those who look for charisma and image in their leaders as opposed to consistency and substance. Winning elections is not always about the fear factor or false promises it can be about careful fashioning of policy on a more participatory, modest but more effective basis.
it is so important
The media poured over Corbyn's final address to his party at the end of it's conference. Most criticisms were not particularly relevant, not even fair. But when one listens to the address and compares it with 12 months ago when Corbyn first became leader, there is a more coherent package, not exactly inspiring but more logical and clear. This is what the electorate wants to hear. Step by step Corbyn is beginning to make more sense. In terms of communicating with the electorate the style is clear and comprehensible, it is just plain English.
There is a very British eccentricity to all of this. Unlike European trends this silent revolution is taking place within a traditional political party which has decided to return to its formative roots because the conventional politics has forced the constituents to re-evaluate their evolving status. In many countries the trend has been the rejection of existing political parties with their close association with interest groups who pressure to maintain the macroeconomic policies that have eliminated investment and reduced real incomes on a persistent basis while bubbles appear in real estate and the grey derivatives markets. This is why increasing numbers are joining the Labour party. The Labour party membership already exceeds the total membership of all other British political parties put together.
White Helmets in Syria alleged to be phony NGO
Involved in staged propaganda
Funded by UK government,
with HQ in Turkey
Journalists who have recently visited Syria report that the White Helmets who feature in many media in the West saving children following "attacks by the Syrian government or Russians" are closely embedded in the terrorist groups and only work in the areas occupied by the same. It is alleged that they have a budget of something like $100 million and employ about 3,000 individuals who are involved in staged, heavily edited, videos designed to accuse either the Syrian government or Russians of atrocities. It is further alleged that the White Helmets and heavily armed off camera, have been involved in killing Syrian Civil Defence personnel and raiding and stealing their equipment and mopping up after beheadings and executions by the terrorist organizations. These allegations are so serious that the British Government needs to be asked to explain why they waste public funds on such an organization closely involved with ISIS and Al Quaeda and others and organized to mislead the British public with distorted propaganda.
The declining image of the USA
The showdown at the United Nations saw the USA, the UK and France engaged in duplicity and proving a clear factual financial and military support of the very terrorists who threaten these same countries. We witnessed a decadent John Kerry and histrionic side show by Samatha Power who, to boot, affronted Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin, the Russian Permanent representative to the United Nations. But in the long term the person who has demonstrated restraint, patience and a measured and balanced approach throughout this saga has been Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Russia does not need any propaganda machine when the USA's very public foreign policy is run by a rabble.
The image of the USA is declining rapidly with no apparent leadership on the Syrian question leading to the same disasters that the USA has initiated in Afghanistan and Iraq. When talking to the USA on foreign policy we face the issue raised by Henry Kissinger when referring to Europe, "who do you to talk to?". The Pentagon and the CIA supporting rival terrorist groups and the State Department's you are with us or against us, it is clear that the co-called Commander in Chief has absolutely no control over these mutinous agencies.
This presents a very obvious failure in the operation of the constitution of the USA, an inability to bring to heel the tendency for aggression and extra-constitutional behaviour that has caused the deaths of excessive numbers of innocent men, women and children. The frank operational support of terrorists who threaten the USA itself is a shocking state of affairs and an example of a failing state.