“Bregrets” is how some wags are labeling what a few interviewed Britons who voted to separate Britain from the European Union last week are feeling. The petition effort to hold another vote before the divorce is finalized is moving ahead rapidly. But whether or not that will happen, the stunned view among a considerable slice of elite opinion is that much irreparable damage has already been done. That may be so. But what’s certain is there will be boatloads of decrying and defaming of culprits real and fabricated in the months to come even if a second vote reverses the first. Even if a Round 2 vote keeps Britain in the EU, can anyone believe that the status quo ante is a realistic objective?
The Guardian’s editorial board assesses one bit of fall-out:
A country in peril, without a functioning government, needs an office-ready opposition – to ask the awkward questions, warn against wild swerves, and force somebody on the government side to explain what is going on. Britain, however, is saddled with a second party so beset by schisms, that – even as the union strains, the government crumbles, and the economy teeters – the thing making the headlines is Labour’s disintegration. Hilary Benn’s “sacking”, a dubious description seeing as the shadow foreign secretary constructed his own dismissal, was followed by the self-sacrifice of no fewer than 11 shadow cabinet ministers by late evening on 26 June, a run of career suicide bombs all detonated with the single aim of forcing Jeremy Corbyn out, just nine months after the leftwinger secured an almighty mandate from party members, taking more than thrice the votes of any of his three rivals, from the party’s centre and right.
This is a dismal pass that Labour was always likely to reach, because the overwhelming bulk of MPs have, from the off, been convinced that Mr Corbyn would drive them off a cliff. Many members are understandably furious with parliamentarians who never allowed him a chance. But there is no escaping that the day-to-day work of a party leader is fronting the efforts of a team of MPs. And when he was initially backed by fewer than one in 10 of that team, and not much interested in compromises to win more over, it was a job he was always going to struggle to do effectively. After the attempted coup, Mr Corbyn may attempt to fill his top team with other MPs. But there is now a real question about whether he can function in the job at all.
E.J. Dionne Jr. at The Washington Post writes—Learning from Britain’s unnecessary crisis:
Ethno-nationalism is on the rise across Europe, and this vote will only intensify the trend. But in so many nations, including our own, technological change, globalization and financialization force the left-out to stare at prosperity from a great distance. In their justified frustration, they often see immigration as of a piece with the other changes in the world that they deplore.
Responsible officials should always be ready to denounce racism. But their job description also requires them to provide realistic policy answers to quell the rage. If center-right and center-left politicians fail to do this, their parties will remain suspect.
Yet if Britain’s vote is understandable, it’s also a cause for sadness. It’s a vote against a more open world and a rejection of the idea that democracies can actually gain power by pooling sovereignty and seeking goals in common.
John Nichols at The Nation writes— An Urgent Message From the UK: Take the Trump Threat Seriously:
Trump may have looked like a fool to knowing observers on Friday, as he celebrated the Brexit vote in Scotland—seemingly unaware that the Scots had just voted by an overwhelming margin to remain in the EU (and may now choose to leave the UK and position itself as an independent and internationalist nation). But Trump is no fool; there are no coincidences with the most cynical presidential contender since Richard Nixon. Trump traveled to the UK with the intent not to speak to Scots, or to Brits, but to Americans—especially to Americans who live in the battleground states where presidential elections are decided.
Democrats should recognize this. Those who seek to stop Trump would be foolish if they failed to see the parallels between his campaign in the US and the Leave campaign in the UK. Indeed, it is with this recognition, and a response to it, that the defeat of Trump can be assured.
British political and media elites underestimated the full appeal of the Leave campaign. Americans who seek to defeat Trump and Trumpism must avoid making the same mistake.
Now, I’m in the same company as my colleague Mark Sumner in that I hesitate ever to publish the words of George F. Will as an “act of public charity, if not public safety” to readers here. I promise not to let this become habitual, but I’m making an exception this morning so that readers can get a whiff of our leading pundit-as-patrician’s take on Brexit. The views of the ex-Republican-for-five-minutes was published in The Washington Post and headlined Brexit: Britain’s welcome revival of nationhood. It would have been more truthful labeled “Long Live the British Empire!” (a Britain which may lose one of its most closely held and last remaining acquisitions, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in the not-too-distant future):
The “leave” campaign won the referendum on withdrawing Britain from the European Union because the arguments on which the “remain” side relied made leave’s case. The remain campaign began with a sham, was monomaniacal with its Project Fear and ended in governmental thuggishness.
The sham was Prime Minister David Cameron’s attempt to justify remain by negotiating E.U. concessions regarding Britain’s subservience to the E.U. This dickering for scraps of lost sovereignty underscored Britain’s servitude and achieved so little that Remainers rarely mentioned it during their campaign.
Project Fear was the relentless and ultimately ludicrous parade of Cassandras, “experts” all, warning that Britain, after more than a millennium of sovereign existence, and now with the world’s fifth-largest economy, would endure myriad calamities were it to end its 23-year membership in the E.U. Remain advocates rarely even feigned enthusiasm for the ramshackle, sclerotic E.U. Instead, they implausibly promised that if Brexit were rejected, Britain — although it would then be without the leverage of the threat to leave — would nevertheless somehow negotiate substantially better membership terms than Cameron managed when Brexit was an option.
Joe Macaré at TruthOut writes—Who Should We Blame for Brexit—and Where Do We Go From Here?
What lessons can those of us residing in the United States take from this?
The first is that it is always a mistake to underestimate the forces of right-wing nationalism and nativism.
Much like Donald Trump, several of the winners in the "Leave" campaign have previously been dismissed as national jokes, whilst simultaneously being coddled and celebrated by the media. Boris Johnson has been called the British Trump, but he actually predates Trump in politics -- he became mayor of London after fusing media-savvy and deliberately clownish antics with very real racism and putting the super-rich first. Now he may be the next prime minister. Meanwhile, Farage, once seen as even more of a fringe outlier than Trump, gave a horrifying speech claiming the "Leave" vote as a victory for "the real people, for the ordinary people, for the decent people." The fascism here is barely coded, and the actual decent people of the UK -- those who oppose this fascistic and anti-immigrant turn -- will need to scramble to protect those defined by Farage as not "real."
The second lesson for US onlookers is that when far-right nationalist parties, figures and campaigns are successful, there are immediate consequences, and it is extremely reckless for the left not to oppose them. There is a left-wing case for leaving the EU. That is not what triumphed yesterday. Farage, like Trump, sometimes produces rhetoric that sounds anti-corporate: "We have fought against the multinationals, we have fought against the big merchant banks," he said in his speech on Wednesday night.
But it is not the multinationals who will feel the painful results of an emboldened UKIP and an emboldened Britain First. Nor is there any guarantee that the damage this result does to the Conservative Party will create any opportunities for the left in UK, not when some Labour MPs are already using it as another pretext to call for Corbyn's head.
Jeet Heer at The New Republic writes—Britain’s Long, Tortured Relationship With Europe:
Winston Churchill is sometimes regarded as a pro-European English leader, but even he was careful to say that a union with Europe did not mean becoming European: “We are with Europe but not of it.” For Churchill, Britain’s empire and special relationship with the United States were as important as its ties to Europe.
Churchill’s dream of a Britain that could maintain its empire while advising the United States on global affairs fell apart in the 1950s and 1960s. As the empire fell apart, John F. Kennedy told Churchill’s successor Harold Macmillan that, if forced to choose between a united Europe and a British-led trade union, America would go with the continent.
Under duress, Macmillan became a reluctant aspirant to European status. But even so, in his 1973 memoirs he insisted there was a vast “temperamental and intellectual” difference between “Anglo-Saxons” and Europeans. According to Macmillan, “[T]he continental tradition likes to reason a priori from the top downwards, from the general principles to the practical application…The Anglo-Saxon likes to argue aposteriori from the bottom upwards, from practical experience.”
Philippe LeGrain at The New York Times writes—This Is Just the Start of the Brexit’s Economic Disaster:
This unpredictable situation will not be brief. Once triggered, the formal process of leaving the European Union is supposed to take two years. But extricating the union’s second-biggest economy from 43 years of European Union legislation is a daunting task.
Negotiating a new trade relationship with the European Union is equally tricky. Britain seems certain to lose access to the single market — with which it does nearly half its trade — because this is conditional on accepting the free movement of people and contributing to the European Union’s budget. (These were key issues for pro-Brexit voters.) That will jeopardize the foreign investment and good jobs predicated on single-market membership. Britain-based financial institutions will lose their rights to operate freely across the European Union.
Brexit’s supporters are deluded when they argue that Britain could cherry pick what it likes about the European Union and discard the rest. Since exports to the European Union (13 percent of G.D.P. in 2014) matter much more to Britain than exports to Britain (3 percent of G.D.P. in 2014) do to the European Union, the European Union will call the shots. Other governments have every incentive to be tough, both to steal a competitive advantage and to deter others from following Britain out the door.
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept writes—Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions:
THE DECISION BY U.K. voters to leave the EU is such a glaring repudiation of the wisdom and relevance of elite political and media institutions that — for once — their failures have become a prominent part of the storyline. Media reaction to the Brexit vote falls into two general categories: (1) earnest, candid attempts to understand what motivated voters to make this choice, even if that means indicting one’s own establishment circles, and (2) petulant, self-serving, simple-minded attacks on disobedient pro-leave voters for being primitive, xenophobic bigots (and stupid to boot), all to evade any reckoning with their own responsibility. Virtually every reaction that falls into the former category emphasizes the profound failures of Western establishment factions; these institutions have spawned pervasive misery and inequality, only to spew condescending scorn at their victims when they object. [...]
These are not random, isolated mistakes. They are the byproduct of fundamental cultural pathologies within Western elite circles — a deep rot. Why should institutions that have repeatedly authored such travesties, and spread such misery, continue to command respect and credibility? They shouldn’t, and they’re not. As Chris Hayes warned in his 2012 book Twilight of the Elites, “Given both the scope and depth of this distrust [in elite institutions], it’s clear that we’re in the midst of something far grander and more perilous than just a crisis of government or a crisis of capitalism. We are in the midst of a broad and devastating crisis of authority.”
It’s natural — and inevitable — that malignant figures will try to exploit this vacuum of authority. All sorts of demagogues and extremists will try to re-direct mass anger for their own ends. Revolts against corrupt elite institutions can usher in reform and progress, but they can also create a space for the ugliest tribal impulses: xenophobia, authoritarianism, racism, fascism. One sees all of that, both good and bad, manifesting in the anti-establishment movements throughout the U.S., Europe, and the U.K. — including Brexit. All of this can be invigorating, or promising, or destabilizing, or dangerous: most likely a combination of all that.
The solution is not to subserviently cling to corrupt elite institutions out of fear of the alternatives. It is, instead, to help bury those institutions and their elite mavens and then fight for superior replacements.
John Hilary of The Independent writes—We thought the best thing about Brexit would be avoiding TTIP - but the fight isn't over yet:
Since the adoption of the Lisbon Agenda in 2000, the EU has committed itself to the most extreme programme of neoliberal capitalism in its trade agreements with other countries, relentlessly promoting the interests of big business at the expense of labour, society and the environment.
Nowhere has this agenda been more apparent than in the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently under negotiation between the EU and USA. The fact that unelected EU bureaucrats have pursued TTIP in open defiance of public opposition was a standard complaint in every one of the referendum debates that I took part in, and in many serious comment pieces written on both sides.
Yet the TTIP agenda of permanent austerity, deregulation and free market fundamentalism is not an aberration on the part of Brussels. It is now the EU’s standard programme for all peoples, within and outside Europe. Breaking with this model became a determining issue of the referendum for many on the left.
The Leave vote means that the British people have escaped being party to any future TTIP agreement as an EU member state. It is also highly doubtful that the TTIP project will be able to survive the UK’s withdrawal on top of all the other shocks that have hit the EU-US negotiations over the past few months. Brexit may well be the last straw that broke the TTIP camel’s back.
As usual, the environment—even in this year of bad climate news from the Arctic to the Amazon—gets short shrift in the media and figured in almost no stories about what Britain’s departure from the EU might mean on the eco-front. Damian Carrington at The New Republic was an exception, writing—Brexit Is Bad News for the Environment:
Despite being an issue that knows no borders, affects all and is of vital interest to future generations, the environment was low on the agenda ahead of the UK’s historic vote to leave the European Union.
The short answer to what happens next with pollution, wildlife, farming, green energy, climate change and more is we don’t know—we are in uncharted territory. But all the indications—from the “red-tape” slashing desires of the Brexiters to thejudgment of environmental professionals—are that the protections for our environment will get weaker.
There is one immediate impact though, right here, right now: the crashing financial markets will damage the huge investments needed to create a cleaner and safer environment and will dent the nation’s fast-growing green economy, one economic sector where the UK could lead.
Charles M. Blow at The New York Times writes—White Savior, Rape and Romance?
The movie “Free State of Jones” certainly doesn’t lack in ambition — it sprawls so that it feels like several films stitched together — but I still found it woefully lacking. [...]
Throughout, there is the white liberal insistence that race is merely a subordinate construction of class, with Newt himself saying at the burial of poor white characters, “somehow, some way, sometime, everybody is just somebody else’s nigger.” [...]
Second, there is little space in the film for righteous black rage and vengeance, but plenty for black humor and conciliation. After Moses, one of the runaways from the swamp, is lynched after registering blacks to vote, Newt gives his eulogy, remarking: “The man had so many reasons to be full of hate, and yet he never was. That, Lord, is one of your greatest miracles.” This is too often the way people want to think of black folks in the wake of trauma: as magically, transcendently merciful and spiritually restrained.
But perhaps the most disturbing feature of the film is the near erasure of slavery altogether and the downplaying of slave rape in particular to further a Shakespearean love story.
Lauren Duca at The Nation writes—The Depressing Truth About How Sexism Changes Us:
The title alone of Jessica Valenti’s Sex Object: A Memoir invites backlash. Even without the context of Valenti’s career as a feminist writer, it’s a bold statement, almost deliberately soliciting the dig that will follow: So, you think you’re sexy? She does, actually, if inconsistently, but that’s not the point. By welcoming such a reaction, Valenti urges us to get back to probing the foundational issue of objectification. In other words, if you think Valenti calling herself an “object” is a compliment, well, you just don’t get it.
Published earlier this month by Dey Street, Sex Object, Valenti’s fifth book, aims to chip away at the irreverence and denial that mainstream feminism often uses to soften the blow of objectification. Valenti is the founder of Feministing.com, a former Nation columnist, and a current staff writer atThe Guardian. In each of these roles she has tackled subjects at the intersection of feminism, politics, and culture—high-profile rape cases, legislation aimed at curbing reproductive rights, sexism in the media and in everyday life. But in Sex Object Valenti looks inward, exposing a troubling paradox that accompanies such work: Can intellectual awareness of the impact of objectification undo its effects? Or, as Valenti asks, “Who would I be if I didn’t live in a world that hated women?”
Jessica Valenti at The Guardian writes—The gun control sit-in is a symbolic victory – and there's still power in that:
Speaker Paul Ryan dismissed the sit-in over gun control votes as a “publicity stunt”, and in a way, he’s right.
For all the political might on display, the House Democrat’s sit-in was hopeless. Even if Democrats did get a vote on the legislation in question, they’d lose in a landslide in the Republican-controlled House. And already we know for a fact that it wouldn’t get past the Senate.
The fact that the legislation is thought to be too weak to meaningfully reduce gun violence in America, that it might unduly affect those wrongfully on the government’s “no-fly” list, that it’s crafted more to make Republicans look bad than prevent the greatest number of gun-related deaths – all those points of nuance are afterthought. What matters is that we take action; we need to do something about gun control in America now.
The motion is about political messaging – shaming really – in the purest sense.
Steven W. Thrasher at The Guardian writes—Happy Pride to you: my brave queer community:
Having arrived in Orlando the day of the Pulse shootings and stayed there all week, and having spent the past week in New York City in the neighborhood where the Stonewall riots kicked off the modern lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights movement, there are many things I am proud of this pride season.
I am so proud of my queer brothers, sisters and gender nonconforming family.
I am proud that here in New York, where the Stonewall Inn looks like a fortified police bunker post-Orlando, queer people are nonetheless questioning the over-policing of our society. I’m proud that queer people are considering how police at bars could put our Latinx queer family at risk for harassment and all queer people of color at risk for police violence. I am proud that queer Americans are resisting turning this moment into a pinkwashing opportunity to justify even more police surveillance.
I am proud that our queer ancestors resisted the police 47 years ago, when they rose up against abusive arrests at the Stonewall, just as I am proud that a pillar of our queer community, Chelsea Manning, has continued to stand up to state violence as a whistle blower.
I am proud that queer people of color, especially queer Latinx people, are refusing to be erased by demanding accountability when anyone tries to make them invisible.