Connect with us

Europe

Brexit Second Referendum: Will Britain Have a Sudden Change of Heart?

Lisdey Espinoza Pedraza

Published

on

The Brexit referendum results provoked an unprecedented upheaval and political meltdown in the United Kingdom; as a result, in March 2017, the United Kingdom became the first country in history to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union and in setting the exit of this organisation in motion. It was only last week, though, that Nigel Farage, of the drivers and strong supporters behind the country’s decision to leave the EU, spoke in favour of holding a second referendum. This is now an entirely new idea, as it is something was first proposed by the Liberal Democrats just days after the results of the June 2016 referendum became public. The difference lies in the motivation to hold this second referendum, while for the Liberal Democrats is to give citizens another chance to stay in the EU, for people like Nigel Farage and the millionaire Aaron Banks the second chance would confirm the support for a clean break with the European organisation.

Is a second referendum even likely to happen? This is a very hard question to answer as it is only the Parliament who can authorise it after a proposal has been put forward by the government itself or by a coalition of opposition parties. This is a highly politicised decision with too much at stake and judging by the political conditions prevalent in the United Kingdom at present, I do not see any politician willing to play this game.

Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have ruled out such a possibility as this would mean a breach of trust with the citizens, and the United Kingdom might see itself engulfed in a “neverendum”, first coined by Quebec, where ever since the province has had two referendums to break away from Canada, the campaign for independence has not stopped. Allowing a second referendum in Britain may well reinforce the idea that the establishment will just keep holding referendums until they get the result they want. Therefore, it is highly unlikely Britain political establishment will agree to hold another referendum.

Regardless of what the people feelings on the result are, this was the vote of most of the population in Britain and as such, it deserved to be respected. Attempting to reverse the exit process by calling to a second referendum would further wound the state of democracy in Britain. Democracy is, by definition, the rule of the people, even if the Leave Campaign had been won with just one vote, the results still stand. The victory, however, was carried out with over a million votes, in one of the largest voting turnouts in contemporary British history, and it would be a travesty to disregard such a difference as unimportant. Holding a second referendum would be making a mockery of the democratic exercise and the mandate the people gave their rulers on that day. It would further split the country and weaken Britain’s negotiating stance with the EU as if the result does not change, this would shatter all their hopes for a Soft Brexit deal.

It is also important to remember that there is no evidence whatsoever that supports the notion that if a second referendum is held this year or early next year at the latest, the outcome would be any different. Citizens are becoming more and more sceptical of Brexit talks and of the ability of the establishment to deal successfully with the exit deal, this does not mean, however, that Brexiteers have in any way changed their mind.  There was also a very clear age division in the results of the referendum, 75% of the elderly voted to leave, while 75% of the young adults voted to remain. There is no evidence as well that either of these age groups have changed their minds. Therefore, should a second reference even take place, the result may stay the same. Such a division also poses an important dilemma: democracy is the greatest social equaliser in contemporary societies. Placing a weight on someone’s vote that accounts for their age, income level, education, social status, geographical location, etc. will eventually destroy this sense of equality and with it, democracy itself.

The reality is that there is very little support for a second referendum to even be considered seriously by the Parliament. The only ones who has publicly voiced their support for it are the Liberal Democrats, who have nothing to lose since they are only a minor factor in the House of Commons with 12 seats. It is also unclear if such a process could even be reversed. There are two likely scenarios: All EU members would have to agree to Britain’s revocation of the Article 50, although one vote would be enough to veto this process; and secondly, Britain could unilaterally withdraw the Article 50 notification and take its case to the European Court of Justice, both scenarios would take the country and the whole continent into completely unchartered territories.

Overall the one that has been hurt the less has been the EU, while it is true that Brexit has weakened the EU, the panic and shock have been greater than the actual damage. Many predicted several countries following suit and triggering Article 50. However, it had become evident that the lack of planning and complete disarray shown by the British government has served as a crude example to those that in the past were considering leaving the organisation.  The disintegration of a political system does not necessarily start with the desire of leaders to do so, but rather with their own mediocrity and inability to pull themselves out from the swamps of their own political waste and mess.

Lisdey Espinoza Pedraza is an IR lecturer and PhD candidate at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. She gained her Bachelor's in International Relations at Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City and her MA in International Relations and World Order at the University of Leicester, England. She has spoken at numerous international conferences and has written on topics such as democracy, migration, European politics, Contemporary Mexican Politics and the Middle East.

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

Internally weak EU cannot be strong international player

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

Commenting on the EU capabilities to protect its interests against the US unilateralism, Italian political science professor, Dr. Pastori Gianluca believes that an internally weak EU cannot be a strong international player.

The US president’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the US key European allies’ opposition has raised so many questions about the global weight of the EU.

Despite many promises from EU key states to keep the JCPOA alive without the US, many believe even if the EU decides to do so the block won’t be able to challenge the US President’s decision due to its internal disunity and limitations. The issue was discussed with political science associated professor of Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Dr. Pastori Gianluca.

How can the EU protect the right of its companies working and investing in Iran? Is it feasible?

European companies have always had good economic relations with Iran and these relations have grown even stronger in the last few years. I do not think that this attitude will really change in the coming months. In the past, the US already adopted secondary sanctions against countries investing in Iran (e.g. with the ‘Iran and Libya Sanctions Act’ in 1996), but their impact on the behaviour of foreign investors was quite limited. At that time, even some US companies managed to bypass the sanctions operating through foreign branches. Moreover, US-EU relations are currently quite tense, also due to the US will to introduce tariffs on European export. For this reasons, I think that, while the European governments will take a low profile in face of new US sanctions, on the political level they will keep on supporting their national presence in Iran.

Despite being an economic superpower, the EU is not able to protect its interest against the US unilateralism in recent year. Why?

The main problem is that the EU still faces difficulties in transforming its economic power into political power. Traditionally, the EU has been quite effective in promoting and protecting the economic interests of its members but has been far less effective in the political filed. There are many reasons to explain this state of things. As an economic community, the EU exists since 1957, when the European Economic Community was established, while the political union is far more recent. Moreover, the different member states have different visions of the international system and different interests to pursue. Finally, many of them are very jealous of their own sovereignty in international matters and are not ready to submit this kind of matters to a meaningful coordination or – even more — to subordinate them to a common foreign and defence policy.

The EU officials have talked about independent EU over the recent years. Considering the existing facts and EU potentialities, how feasible is it? What are the obstacles to this end?

The EU is currently facing one of the most difficult phases in its history. Anti-European parties are gaining strength in several member states, while the results of the referendum held in 2016 on the exit of the UK from the Union (‘Brexit’) have shown that integration is a reversible process. In the long term, this is the main problem that the EU has to face to affirm its international role. An internally weak EU cannot be a strong international player. At the same time, the development of a strong international profile can help to re-launch the European project, showing to the member states that the EU can be helpful even in the political field. Worth noting, since 2017, several countries are striving to implement a more effective common security and defence policy, largely due to Donald Trump’s proclaimed will to reduce the US engagement in Europe.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Europe

Europe: National Sovereignty versus International Conquest, at Stake over Iran

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Europe now faces its ultimate ideological fork-in-the-road, which it has thus far ignored but can no longer ignore: They need to decide whether they seek a world of nations that each is sovereign over its own territory but over no other (and this would not be a world at war); or whether they seek instead a world in which they are part of the American empire, a world based on conquests — NATO, IMF, World Bank, and the other U.S.-controlled international institutions — and in which their own nation’s citizens are subject to the dictatorship by America’s aristocracy: the same super-rich individuals who effectively control the U.S. Government itself (see this and this — and that’s dictatorship by the richest, in the United States).

Iran has become this fateful fork-in-the-road, and the immediate issue here is America’s cancellation of the Iran nuclear deal that America had signed along with 6 other countries, and America’s consequent restoration of economic sanctions against Iran — sanctions against companies anywhere that continue trading with Iran. First, however, some essential historical background on that entire issue:

The U.S. aristocracy overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Government in 1953 and imposed there a barbaric dictatorship which did the bidding of the U.S. and allied aristocracies, by installing the Pahlavi Shah there, just as they had earlier, in 1932, installed the Saud King in Saudi Arabia — which land never ever had known democracy. As Wikipedia says of Ibn Saud, who became King in 1932, “After World War I, he received further support from the British, including a glut of surplus munitions. He launched his campaign against the Al Rashidi in 1920; by 1922 they had been all but destroyed,” with Britain’s help. Similarly, the U.S. and its British Imperial partner installed Pahlavi as Iran’s Shah in 1953. This was done by U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower. After the death of the anti-imperialistic U.S. President FDR, in 1945, the U.S. Government quickly became pro-imperialistic under President Harry S. Truman (whom imperial England’s Winston Churchill wrapped around his little finger), and then even more so under Eisenhower, so that during the brief presidency of Ike’s successor President JFK, the anti-imperialistic ghost of FDR was coming to haunt the White House and thus again threaten the conjoined U.S.-UK’s aristocracies’ surging global control. Kennedy was quickly souring on, and coming to oppose, imperialism (just as FDR had done) — he was opposing conquest and dominion for its own sake. So, he became assassinated and the evidence was covered-up, so that the CIA, which Truman had installed and which Eisenhower placed firmly under the control of America’s aristocratically controlled military-industrial complex, became increasingly America’s own Deep State, designed for global conquest (though using an ‘anti-communist’ excuse and cover for their real and ruling motive of global conquest and dominion).

When the U.S.-imposed Shah was overthrown by an authentic revolution in 1979, America’s continued alliance with the UK-U.S.-installed Saud family turned into a U.S.-UK alliance against Iran, which nation has ever since been demonized by the U.S. and UK aristocracies as being a ‘terrorist regime’, even though Saudi Arabia actually dominates global Islamic terrorism, and Iran is opposed to terrorism (except to terrorism that’s aimed against Israel). And everybody who knows anything on sound basis is aware of these established historical facts. But, actually, the U.S.-Saudi alliance is even worse than that: global Islamic terrorism was invented and organized by the U.S. aristocracy in conjunction with the Saud family starting in 1979 when Iran freed itself from the U.S.-UK dictatorship and restored Iranian sovereignty (even though in a highly compromised Shiite theocratic way, nothing at all like the secular Iranian democracy that had been overthrown by the U.S. and UK aristocracies in 1953). The U.S. and Sauds created Islamic terrorism in 1979 in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan and ultimately used these terrorist proxy “boots on the ground” so as to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan — thereby draining the Soviet economy in the hope of ultimately conquering the U.S.S.R. and then conquering Russia itself, which the U.S. President GHW Bush on the night of 24 February 1990 made clear that the U.S. and its allies must do — he gave the European vassal-nations their marching-order on that date, and they have reliably followed that order, until now.

Russia, which the U.S. aristocracy craves to conquer, is an ally of Iran (which they hope to re-conquer). The basic principle of America’s aristocracy is repudiation of national sovereignty. That’s what the U.S. Government globally stands for today. Russian Television headlined on May 11th, “‘Are we America’s vassals?’ France vows to trade with Iran in defiance of US ‘economic policeman’” and reported that U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-imposition of U.S. economic sanctions against any companies that do business with Iran, is being resisted by all the other nations that had signed the Obama-Kerry nuclear accord with Iran, the “JCPOA” treaty: UK, France, China, Russia, U.S., and EU (which is led by Germany). The U.S. regime knows that if even America’s allies — UK, France, and Germany — hold together with Iran, to defy the Imperial actions punishing them for continuing with Iran even after the U.S. pull-out from the treaty, then the Western Alliance will be jeopardized, if not terminated altogether, and finally the Cold War, which GHW Bush had ordered the allies to continue even after the end of the U.S.S.R., and of its communism, and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance mirroring America’s NATO alliance, will finally end also on America’s side, just as it had ended in 1991 on the Soviet Union’s side. Such an end to the Cold War would possibly cause America’s military-industrial complex — and the stock values of mega-corporations such as Lockheed Martin — to collapse.

Thus, the U.S. aristocracy is afraid of peace replacing their existing permanent-war economy. All those trillions of dollars that have been invested in machines of mass-murder abroad, could plunge in value, if UK, France, and Germany, terminate the Western Alliance, and become individual sovereign nations who join with Iran — another individual sovereign nation — to say no to the Imperial power (the U.S.), and yes to national sovereignty, which sovereignty constitutes the sole foundation-stone upon which any and all democracies are constructed. No democracy can exist in any nation that is a vassal to some other (the imperial power). In a world where national sovereignty is honored, democracy would not necessarily exist everywhere, but it would no longer be internationally prohibited by an imperial power, which inevitably is itself a dictatorship, no real democracy at all.

On March 3rd, the 175-year-old imperial magazine, The Economist, headlined against China as an enemy in this continuing Cold War, “How the West got China wrong” and explained “the Chinese threat”:

“China is not a market economy and, on its present course, never will be. Instead, it increasingly controls business as an arm of state power. … Foreign businesses are profitable but miserable, because commerce always seems to be on China’s terms.”

The imperialistic view is that the international dictator and its corporations should rule — there should be no real sovereign other than this dictatorship, by the U.S. regime now, since America is today’s imperialist nation.

Perhaps Europe now will make the fateful decision, between international dictatorship on the one side, or else the supreme sovereignty of each and every nation on the other, to determine its own laws — and to require any corporation that does business there to adhere to its legal system and to none other: the supremacy of each nation within its own territory, not of any international corporations, not even of ones that are based in some international-bully country that says it’s “the one indispensable nation” — meaning that every other nation is “dispensable.” Russia won’t accept that. Iran won’t accept that. China won’t accept that. Will Germany accept it — the land of the original: “Deutschland über alles”? Will France? Will UK?

Americans accept it. The U.S. public are very effectively controlled by America’s aristocracy. A Yougov poll at the start of 2017 (the start of Trump’s Presidency) asked over 7,000 Americans to rate countries as “enemy”, “unfriendly”, “friendly”, “ally”, or “not sure”; and, among the 144 rated countries, Americans placed at the most hostile end, in order from the very worst, to the 13th-from-worst: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan. Other than Saudi Arabia, which the U.S. Government treats as being its master if not as being its very top ally, and which is, in any case, by far the U.S. military’s biggest customer (other than the U.S. Government, of course), that list from Yougov looks very much like, or else close to, what America’s aristocracy would want to see targeted, as being America’s ‘enemies’. So, other than Americans’ including the top ally both of America’s aristocracy and of Israel‘s aristocracy, Saudi Arabia, on that list of enemies, the list was very much what the U.S. aristocracy’s ’news’media had been promoting as being America’s ‘enemies’. In fact, even though those ‘news’media haven’t informed Americans that 92% of Saudi Arabians approve of ISIS, or that the Saudi royal family financed and organized the 9/11 attacks (in conjunction with others of George W. Bush’s friends), Americans view Saudi Arabia hostilely. That’s acceptable to America’s aristocracy, because the Saud family’s hatred is focused against Iran, the main Shiite nation, and the U.S. public (have been deceive to) prefer Saudi Arabia over Iran. In fact, a 17 February 2016 Gallup poll showed that Iran was seen by Americans as being even more hostile toward Americans than is Saudi Arabia. So, America’s aristocracy have no reason to be concerned that their chief ally and second-from-top governmental customer, the Saud family, are unfavorably viewed by the U.S. public. Both in America and in Saudi Arabia, the aristocracy effectively controls its public. Thus, the American people think in the way that the American aristocracy want them to — supporting any conquest (e.g., Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-) that the aristocracy want to perpetrate. Of course, the way to achieve this control is by means of the windows through which the public get to see the world around them, which windows on the world are the nation’s ‘news’media.

On May 12th, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) reported that the American people are very effectively controlled to believe Iran to be America’s enemy and very dangerous to us. The headline was “Media Debate Best Way to Dominate Iran” and the article documented that the American people are being very intensively propagandized by the aristocratically controlled media, to favor aggression against Iran, and are being heavily lied-to, in order to achieve this.

So, though the American public will continue to support the American Government (despite distrusting both their government and their ‘news’media), foreign publics aren’t so rigidly under the control of America’s aristocracy; and therefore Europe’s aristocracies could abandon their alliance with the U.S. aristocracy, if they strongly enough want to. Their ‘news’media would obediently do whatever they’re told, and could begin immediately portraying the reality of the U.S. Government, to their people — including, for example, the reality that the U.S. stole Ukraine

, and some of the participants have even confessed their roles; Russia did not steal Crimea (and the Crimea-Ukraine issue was the alleged spark for the ‘restoration’ of the Cold War — which The West never actually ended on its side, only Russia did on its side).

An end of The Western Alliance (America’s empire) could happen. But it would require — from the EU’s leaders (and/or from Turkey’s Erdogan) — courage, conviction, and a commitment to national sovereignty’s being the foundation-stone to any democracy anywhere, and this change-of-political-theory would be something drastically new in Europe (and-or in Turkey), which is a region that has historically been staunchly supportive of empires, and thus supportive of dictatorships (ones that are compliant — foreign stooge-regimes). That would require a historic sea-change. Iran’s peace, if not Iran’s very existence (and maybe even world peace), might be depending upon this slender hope.

first posted at strategic-culture.org

Continue Reading

Europe

EU unlikely to be able to keep JCPOA alive

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

On May 8th , The US President Donald Trump announced Washington’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite the United States’ closest allies opposition.

His decision have left the future of the internationally signed Nuclear Deal with Iran in question.

All the other signatories of the deal (China, Russia, France, UK and Germany and Iran) has expressed their concerns about Trump’s irresponsible decision that can intensify the tensions.

Iran has announced if the European signatories of the deal can guarantee Iran’s interest under the deal, Iran will remain committed to its obligations under the JCPOA otherwise it will leave the JCPOA, too.

To discuss the issue with China, Russia and the Europeans, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has visited Beijing, Moscow and Brussel during the last week.

Despite the EU promises to keep the JCPOA alive without the US, there are some major concerns about the EU promises for Iran. The first one is the real good will of the EU and the other one is the EU real capabilities to be able to keep the deal alive.

As the Europeans are the closest allies of the US, many in Iran are of this view that Washington and its close European allies have divided the task to put pressure on Tehran to succumb to their demands.

Others in Iran doubt the EU can challenge the White House decision on the JCPOA even if they actually decide to keep the deal alive due to bellow reasons and challenge the US:

-While the EU is a major economic power, it is not a united entity politically, economically and socially because of internal rivalry and differences among the member states and gaps and differences have been increasing over the recent years due to the EU economic crisis, refuge crises, the US President’s unilateral policies and rising of the rightist groups in Europe.

-The ones who are going to do business with Iran and invest in Iran are the European private sectors and governments cannot force them to work with Iran. Since implementation of the JCPOA over the past 3 years, despite European governments’ efforts major EU firms and financial entities have already refused to work with Iran due to irresponsible behavior of the US administration and possible US punishments. Therefore nobody expects these private sectors to endanger themselves.

-Regardless of the EU’s dependence on the US politically and for its security, the volume of the EU trade with the US is not comparable with the Union’s trade volume with Iran. And there is a great interdependency between the transatlantic economies, as well. Any EU economic retaliatory act against the US to save the JCPOA will be counterproductive and face the US reaction which can finally end in trade war. It is totally unreasonable to think that the EU will endanger its economy by triggering a trade war with the US for Iran’s sake.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy