Bill Mitchell-ek Brexit-i buruz

In Mitchell-en Australian election outcome resonates with the Brexit dynamics1.

(i) Gertatutakoa2

(ii) Irakurria desberdina da, erabat3

(iii) Brexit-en antzeko afera Australian ere4, baina bertako alderdi laborista hobeto dago

(iv) Eta Jeremy Corbin?5

(vi) Argi dagoena: Britainia Handian banatuta dago, ez soilik eskualdeka6

Goazen Mitchell-ekin referendumaren emaitzak analizatzera

(a) Brexit, garaipen argia7

(b) Langileek beren alderdiaren gainetik eman zuten botoa8

(c) Aspaldian ikusitakoa eta neoliberalismoaren aldeko alderdi laboristaren jarrera9

(d) Europar Batasuna degeneratzen ari da10

(e) Britainia Handia eurogunean sartzeaz11

(f) Jaques Delors eta EB-ko merkatu bakarra12

(g) Ekonomialari neoliberalak Brexit-en aurka13

(h) Londresko Hiria14

(i) Alderdi laboristaren ipar galdua eta Jeremy Corbin15

(j) Aholkulari ekonomikoak: batzuk soberan daude, beste batzuk behar dira16

Baina Gabriel Arestiren Granada honetan askoz hobeto gaude…

Izan ere, hona hemen Granada maitean, sorry Euskal Herrian, aspaldi honetan argitaratu den artikulurik zientifikoena, zientziatan hoberena inongo dudarik gabe: ¿QUIENES SON LOS 17 MILLONES QUE VOTARON POR EL BREXIT?

Zorionez, Granada honetan zientzia hutsean murgiltzen gara. Bejondeigula. Gora Granada zientifikoa! Gora gu eta gutarrak!


2 Ingelesez: “Less than two weeks ago, Britain sent a bombshell into the conservative, neo-liberal policy agenda and the narrative that supports it.”

3 Ingelesez: “I have read a lot of comments that the Referendum result was a reflection of racist attitudes towards minority immigrants. While it is no doubt that the open borders policy that allows firms to batter down wages growth and keep a constant excess supply of labour as a threat was an important part of the debate and vote, that in itself, was a reflection of the underlying tension that people and their communities have with the neo-liberal policy agenda. There would be much less concern about migration if there was full employment.

4 Ingelesez: “The same sort of tensions that pushed the majority of British voters to support the Leave campaign have been apparent in the Australian Federal election which was held on Saturday (July 2, 2016). Australian voters have rejected a first-term conservative government. It is a rare event for us to reject any first-term regime of either persuasion. The conservatives in Australia are now in tatters without credibility and the unstable situation that has arisen as a result of the political uncertainty provides a great opportunity for the Australian Labor Party, who did very well in the poll on Saturday, to refresh their outlook and reject their neo-liberal tendencies to reflect the big shift in sentiment in the Australian electorate.

5 Australian, bezala, “A similar opportunity exists in Britain and I hope Jeremy Corbyn takes it and expunges the Blairites from his own Party.

6 Ingelesez: “The Referendum results map was stunning (ikus irudia) in terms of the regional polarisation that it depicted. But it wasn’t just the regional polarisation that was evident. Divisions across age, education, occupation etc were all evident.

Britain is clearly a divided society.”

7 Ingelesez: “51.9 per cent of voters indicated they wanted to leave – a clear victory. Any attempt by the losers to set the result aside and I expect there will be many such proposals and actual attempts would be disastrous for the nation as a whole given the socio-economic composition of the votes on either side.”

8 Ingelesez: “Voters in traditional Labour areas in Britain defied their own party to support the Leave position. Think about the areas in the North East and in Wales, which emphatically voted to Leave.

These are the areas that neo-liberalism left behind and that neglect goes back to the first Monetarist-inspired cuts of the 1970s under Denis Healey.

Those attacks were followed by Thatcher’s full-scale assault on the ship-building industry and the coal miners, traditional large-scale employers in these areas.”

9 Ingelesez: “I wrote a blog some years ago that the majority of new jobs outside London (north of the Watford line) in the last decade leading up to the GFC were in the public sector as the private labour market was increasingly hollowed out by the neo-liberal policy settings.

And then the Cameron government took over in 2010 and set about implementing an austerity they started to cut public employment, which further damaged these communities.

According to the Cities Outlook 2014 Report from the Centre of Cities, 80 per cent of new private sector jobs in Britain between 2010 and 2012 were created in London.

British Labour has not been able to provide these communities with a viable alternative given it has been obsessed with the ‘market’ and has advocated austerity-lite – a slight variation of the Tory nightmare.

And then Labour came out endorsing the neo-liberal corporate cabal that we call the EU, which has patently failed as a arrangement to produce prosperity.

People in northern England might be increasing impoverished with sufficient work but they still understand what the European Commission has done to Greece and they can still appreciate what is happening in Spain and Portugal. Why would they want to be part of that?

That is why Labour lost authority in these communitiesLabour was advocating continued membership of an arrangement that is now broadly seen as a vehicle of the elites to suppress wages, employment and push more people into compliant poverty.”

10 Ingelesez: “The EU is degenerating rather than becoming a stronger organisation of peoples. It is being seen as a body that serves the self-interest of well-heeled personal and corporate elites.

The elites have been prepared to use ordinary citizens and their prosperity as fodder just to maintain political control over an increasingly untenable social and economic settlement.

Maintaining unemployment rates above 20 per cent in Spain and Greece indefinitely, is alone, a symbol of the failure of the political system in the EU to deal with reality instead of persist with an austerity-centric ideology.

British people knew that and rejected it. The Brexit vote clearly divides the political elite in Britain (remain) and the rest of the population (ignoring Scotland).” Ezkozia dela eta, ikus Moneta berria jaulkiko ote du balediko Eskozia independenteak?

11 Ingelesez: “In the same way that the construction of the Eurozone was deeply flawed, Britain’s entry into the EEC was the result of a con job by Edward Heath who lied about the significance of the decision in 1973 to enter without a popular vote.

I dealt with that historical deception in this blog – Britain should exit the European Union.

12 Ingelesez: “The move towards a single market, which was driven by Jacques Delors in the 1980s, was the first real neo-liberal initiative that became the Eurozone and the Treaty of Lisbon.

The policy to allow free movement of people was deeply flawed from the start because it clashed with cultural differences that remain today and which prevent the EU from ever becoming an effectively functioning federation.

If you ask me where I come from at any time I will respond Australia. You will get more specific geographic disaggregation if you continue to ask me. But if I ask a German or a Greek where they are from they will never answer ‘Europe’. Nor will a Brit.

Indeed, the identity of the British working class is probably less defined in terms of Europe than it would be for workers on the continent proper.”

13 Ingelesez: “The people finally ignored all the dire warnings from neo-liberal economists on the consequences of leaving the European Union. And why shouldn’t they?

After all, the track record of this sleazy grouping of IMF, OECD, right-wing think tanks etc has been appalling over an extended period. The IMF admitted a few years ago it made a major mistake in estimating the consequences of the Greek bailout upon which the austerity package was based.

Millions of people have been rendered jobless because of these sort of ‘mistakes’. The same economists failed to see the GFC coming despite it being obvious that there would be crash years before Lehmans set it off big time.

So why trust the economists who are seen as providing spurious authority to the elites to justify the increasing attacks on working class prosperity.”

14 Ingelesez: “Remember the City of London banker who waved a £10 note out the window of his office to taunt doctors and nurses protesting about the cuts to the National Health Service in March 2011. (…)

This symbolised the divide between the ‘coke-headed’ financial market traders making millions and seemingly escaping any scrutiny from the ‘light touch’ regulation that British Labour under New Labour introduced and workers who were concerned with protecting health care standards, the latter representative of the ordinary person.

So when the bankers and financial market commentators prophesised doom if Leave won, why would they be trusted? Why wouldn’t their interventions be assumed to be just a reflection of their desire to protect their cosy world of affluence and excess?

15 Ingelesez: “The ructions in the Labour Party are symbolic of the ideological divide that is represented by the Brexit result. The Blairites clearly have not realised their day has come and gone and want to reinstate their failed vision of British society.

I hope that Jeremy Corbyn stands firm and rejects any arguments that he steps aside to ‘save Labour’. The Blairites don’t want to save ‘Labour’ they failed to regain government despite the appalling performance of Cameron in his first term.

Jeremy Corbyn should demand that the grass roots branches of the Party de-select every single MP who voted no confidence in him last week. He should insist that their careers end now and promote a new breed of Labour politicians who can represent the workers who have been disenfranchised by the neo-liberal era.”

16 Ingelsez: “And I note the petulant response of his so-called Economic Advisory Committee who have spat the dummy over the Brexit result. Corbyn is better off without the advice of those economists who cannot get away from the notion that there is something important about being a member of a neo-liberal austerity machine (EU).

British Labour badly needs advice from economists who understand how the monetary system operates (and that excludes New Keynesians) and who prioritise the well-being of people and job creation and expose the idiocy of proposing fiscal rules like balancing ‘budgets’ now, over a cycle, or anytime as a matter of doctrine. Corbyn’s advisors who have publicly derided him last week are never going to be able to provide that sort of advice. Good riddance.

Utzi erantzuna

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude