WHY BREXIT?

A MESSAGE FROM TROIKA OCCUPIED GREECE

The EU's regime of open borders in capital and goods has meant produce from
around the world flooded Greek markets, destroying all indigenous production
to the point of making it extinct.
23 April 2016

It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

-An American General after the destruction of the Vietnamese Village Ben Tre
After arriving six years ago in May 2010, the Troika (IMF,EU, ECB) took full
control of the Greek economy to allegedly save the country from bankruptcy,
but in reality bankrupted the people, by saving the Eurozone. After the US's
fake 'War on Terror' which launched global interventions in Afghanistan and the
Arab world, the explosion of the Greek crisis and the ensuing foreign economic
supervision was required to save the Greek economy by destroying it.
If there ever was an argument why Brexit is necessary it can be found in the
experience of Greece. A small tourist-based agricultural economy, on the
periphery of Europe, Greece joined the then EEC (without any electoral
mandate) in 1981 under the guise that it would become industrialised as its
Northern European neighbours. Instead, it became a fully fledged EU
protectorate whose whole economy is micromanaged from Brussels. Basic
parliamentary democracy no longer exists and laws pertaining to the countrys

debt are set in London which contravenes the national sovereignty of Greece
and its constitution.
In the longest recession in peacetimes history of any semi-developed state now
going into its 7th year, there has been no let up in austerity and cuts. Without
actually being in a real war, over 30k Greeks have so far committed suicide,
deaths since 2011 now overtake births, schoolchildren faint in schools from
malnutrition, and over 40% of all hospital facilities have been cut. Thousands
are homeless and the only real booming industries are gold sales to money
launderers, soup kitchens, alongside burglaries with a massive increase both in
domestic and imported prostitution. Despite voting in a new government in
2015, all its modest proposals of ensuring the unemployed had some form of
income with housing benefit never ever arrived. At present, according to
Eurostat statistics, 22.6% of the Greek population is below the official poverty
line, the largest percentage in any Eurozone state, whilst 600,000 children are
below the poverty line, according to UNICEF. [1] No global UN celebrities or
Greek MPs have visited any of the above. Real poverty doesn't sell.
In the realms of trade union rights everything has been ripped apart, from the
right to strike (return of 1970's Junta laws banning strikes in metros, teachers,
seafarers etc.), rights to compensation due to being fired, the gutting of all
work-based pension schemes and actual pension payments, and the mass arrival
of four hourly part time contracts with differentiated rates of pay depending on
age. The minimum wage has been reduced by 30% to around 500 euro for those
under 25, and most bosses, to avoid national insurance contributions, pay
around a third of that under the table. A Syriza MP Mihelogiannakis said that
real unemployment is probably around 40% and not the official 25%, as many
leave once their unemployment pay is over (paid for only 6 months) since there
is no point in having an unemployed status. [2]
Banks - used to be 13, are now down to 4 systemic ones, and are linked directly
to the ECB. Theres no more an agricultural bank and there is 300 billion euro
in bank bailouts. This is the EU's proposal in resolving the crisis, centralising
money in fewer and fewer institutions and introducing capital controls in an
alleged single currency with now negative interest rates in Brussels but 2%
interest in the most economically devastated economy of the EU. Loans and
mortgages are now a dream of the past and economic activity is so dire, that
bartering has returned in certain parts of the economy as has a non-payment
crisis for many workers. 400,000 loans are in the red and the Troika on behalf of
the banksters has been pushing for mass repossessions. Its just that negative
equity is is so bad with prices having dropped as much as 60% that banks dont
want the properties to be placed in auctions as this would drop values even
further...[3]

Under terms of successive bailouts (which are just a logistical accounting tricks
to keep on piling debt upon debt to keep interest flowing indefinitely to parasitic
hedge funds), the economy is under permanent siege. The EU's regime of open
borders in capital and goods has meant produce from around the world flooded
Greek markets, destroying all indigenous production to the point of making it
extinct. The logic of EU policies is such that a regime of percentages in
agricultural produce has meant that whilst Greece for instance had salt factories,
they were bought out by Poland, and now Greece imports salt at a higher price.
Enforcing budget surpluses as a percentage of GDP is absurd with the Troika
demanding a 3.5% budget surplus for 2018 when unemployment continues
indefinitely and austerity is built in to all budgets.
The EU is only about merging Big Business, gutting all workers rights and
globalising labour forces so they have no history or tradition. Its about
offshoring, outsourcing and inshoring. Labour is now just an appendage of
capital. Mass emigration took place out the region of at least 600,000 in the last
six years - which is equivalent to around 15% of the working age population.
[4] This is obviously countered by the mass importation of labour both from
outside the EU as from within the EU. Its essentially a game of musical chairs
where unemployed workers move from one country to another in a permanent
race to the bottom. Since the Soviet Union collapsed Greece has received 23million workers, nearly enough to 75% of its total labour force, in almost
every sector: agriculture, industry and services. Such vast numbers of surplus
labour in a shrinking economy which has seen a 25% collapse in GDP ensures
there is no possibility of any effective union action as bosses have an endless
surplus of labour to choose from and as the tax base constantly shrinks so do
taxes constantly go up in a never ending cycle. Less tax is actually raised in
taxes with every new bailout. When there are over 1 trillion euro in private and
public debt, it is impossible to kick start basic economic activity, or to push for
Special Economic Zones in areas where migrants have been dumped i.e. over
30,000 in Macedonia-Thrace (which happens to have a pre-existing Muslim
population!) [5]
Due to the excessive taxation, around 60,000 businesses have re-registered in
Bulgaria, and a newspaper in that country published a big welcome for
providing so much work! So ridiculous is the EU that it has no minimum
standards either in pay, health, safety, taxation etc. and modern business is just
about using disparities in the EU to their corporate advantage, nothing more. [6]
Since the Troika arrived in Greece no single group of workers or any social
group has achieved any gains whatsoever, nor has it managed to stabilise any.
All the union led strikes have been more about sustaining the union leaderships
in their parasitic existence (they get pensioned off after two terms) and they

have been saved by successive governments using a twin track approach (riot
police attacks and banning of strikes). Having been directly in control the
Troika has revealed the actual full neoliberal nature of the EU in a period of
capitalist decline. It will stop at nothing to eradicate basic democratic rights at
the workplace.
When Greeks occupied their squares in the spring-summer of 2011, the riot
police repeatedly baton charged them and dropped so much teargas in the whole
of central Athens that one could smell it for days. Dispersal of all legitimate
protests by riot police using mobile tear gas charges, stun grenades and baton
charges has been the norm under the Troika. [7]
All the arguments in Greece by the governments in power have been to compare
the country with Bulgaria and to argue that Greeks are still better off. Gone are
the days of talking about Swedish style standards of living (like they did during
the 1980s). Returning to recovery is such a joke that it has been repeated so
often that one loses count, yet no recovery has occurred or will ever occur
insofar as the Troika is in charge irrespective which government comes to
power under whatever label it provides for itself (socialist-PASOK, centre
right-New Democracy, or left-Syriza).
The economy requires a general overhaul by defaulting on the alleged debts
(Greeks have paid more than three times the original debt in interest payments
alone), introducing a regime of less work but work for all to ensure the
unemployed aren't left to rot, and breaking away from the Eurozone and the EU
by defaulting on all debts. Without that as a start there can be no national
programme of recovery nor can the power of big business be curtailed till it is
overthrown. It will only get stronger and stronger until the race to the bottom is
enshrined in all EU laws, all voting is abolished and any resistance is met by
military, not police force. Lets not forget the Greek OXI Referendum had all
the previous PMs, the leaders of the Greek TUC, Brussels politicians, Greek
celebrities etc. pushing for a YES vote, which the population instinctively
understood as being a class vote and in less than a week 62% went against the
EU. The future is already present in Greece. Brexit can offer hope in derailing
the EU juggernaut, setting a precedent as ignoring a possible Leave vote, by a
big European power, may prove to be a step to far.

Endnotes
1. UNICEF figures: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/05/23/unicef-600000children-below-poverty-line-in-greece/
2. Skai TV 11am 7th April
3. Neoliberal Pensions in era of EU: https://gianalytics.org/408-troika-s-war-onhousing-greek-homelessness-goes-mainstream
4.ELSTAT Greek statistic service 600k Greeks have emigrated:
http://odosdrachmis.blogspot.gr/2016/04/600000-6_18.html?spref=fb
5. 'Kontra' newspaper p.4, 19th April, 2016
6.
60,000
Greek
businesses
relocate
to
Bulgaria:
http://eu.greekreporter.com/2015/12/23/60000-greek-firms-relocate-to-bulgaria/
7.
How
the
IMF
broke
https://www.createspace.com/3700466

Greece

Eyewitness

Reports:

What is at stake in the British

referendum[1]
TAKIS FOTOPOULOS
(01.05.2016)

The struggle in Britain between those fighting for Brexit and those fighting
against it is a very unequal struggle.
The two sides in the struggle
On the one side there are the entire Transnational and British elites, i.e. the
entire network of economic, political and media elites which run the New
World Order of Neoliberal Globalization: from the Nobel Laureate
Obama, who managed to bomb 7 countries in the first 6 years of his
presidency, to the transnational economic and political elites, such as the
business federations of Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands and
BusinessEurope representing organisations in 34 European countries
which joined the UKs CBI to argue that EU membership is an important
factor in maintaining and attracting investment to the UK.
The reason the elites are fighting so hard against Brexit is because they
know that a victory for Brexit could set in motion a domino effect that could
demolish the EU. This is particularly the case now that an anti-EU tsunami is
blowing all over Europe, both in the South and in the North. A Brexit could
set in motion forces that could lead to the dismantling of the elites entire
globalization plan, which involves firstly the effective abolition of economic
and national sovereignty within economic unions like the EU and, secondly,
the unification of such unions through deals like the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP), which puts at risk even the NHS the major
social achievement of the post-war period. The end result of all this may
well be that, soon afterwards, poor Britons suffer the same fate as that of
poor Americans, who now have the same life expectancy as the Sudanese
according to a very recent study![2] In fact, the very reason that Obama
rushed to London and then to Berlin was to co-ordinate the fight for TTIP, so
that this agreement would not be put at risk by a Brexit.

On the other side, there are the victims of globalization in Britain and
throughout the world: i.e. the millions of workers all over Europe who have
lost their jobs since globalization began taking effect about 30 years ago,
from the miners after being defeated in the 80s following a long and heroic
struggle to the steelworkers who are about to suffer the miners fate, as
soon as the referendum is out of the way.
That is, on the other side are all those who are the victims of the opening
and liberalization of markets for capital, labour and commodities. As even
the Financial Times admitted a few days ago, we are close to the point
where globalization and membership of the Eurozone in particular have
damaged not only certain groups in society but entire nations.[3] In other
words, we are talking about all those in Britain (and beyond!) who are
forced to work for survival wages and zero contract hours, not to mention
the victims of a continuously deteriorating social welfare system (health,
education and so on). This system is under the constant threat of further
funding cuts while, at the same time, having to cover the needs of more and
more people because of the so-called four freedoms of the EU, introduced
by the Maastricht Treaty and those that followed it (i.e. freedom in the
movement of capital, commodities and of course labour).
But it is exactly the imposition of these so-called freedoms that could
explain why Britain where supposedly there is almost full employment is
experiencing stagnant real-term wages at the same time. The present job
miracle in Britain, for instance (which is characterized as the job creation
capital of the western economies), hides the fact that, as an analyst
pointed out, unemployment is low, largely because British workers have
been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian
era.[4]
What is really at stake in the British referendum
However the elites, including the Blairite Labor Party (its new leader Jeremy
Corbyn has already shown his true Left colorswhich remind one of Tsipras
and Varioufakis of whom he is an admirer! with his about turn on the EU
issue and the suspension of Ken Livingstone, according to the demands of
the Transnational and Zionist elites) and the associated trade unions, do not
say a word about the real issue of the plebiscite: namely, globalization.
Instead, they try desperately to disorient the people to make them believe
that the issue is about workers rights, with Alan Johnson declaring the other
day that Europe remains the backstop guarantee for workers rights.[5] Of
course, working people know full well that their rights have always been
won and protected through their own struggle, while the EU is well known
for continuously passing legislation, ever since Maastricht, to restrict
workers rights severely, so that European labor can compete with that of

the US, if not China and India. This is what people in Greece, Portugal, Spain
and now throughout France as well, are resisting.
So, what is really at stake is the economic and national sovereignty of the
European peoples, not the democratization of Europe, as its Left
supporters assert in a very disorienting way.[6] Democracy presupposes
peoples sovereignty, and this sovereignty cannot be secured at the
European level. The peoples sovereignty can only be secured at the local
level. European sovereignty simply means the sovereignty of the unelected
economic and political elites running the EU, or at most, the more powerful
countries
within
it. Furthermore,
democracy
presupposes
the economic sovereignty of the people, i.e. their power to determine their
own monetary and fiscal policy, as well as control of their countrys
resources, in a sovereign way. But this right disappears as soon as a country
joins the EU, or even worse, the Eurozone.
Towards a Democratic Community of Sovereign Nations[7]
Finally, from the point of view of the Left, which is supposedly fighting for
radical social change, such change is impossible in a globalized world
without economic and national sovereignty. What we therefore need in
Britain, in Europe and in the world as a whole, is to start building Popular
Fronts for National and Social Liberation (PFNSL), in every country which is
integrated into the New World Order. Such fronts would fight for the
recovery of national and economic sovereignty and the self-reliance of each
country, in their struggle for the creation of a new democratic world order
based on the values of solidarity and mutual aid, rather than the principle of
competitiveness which has led to the present record level of inequality in
the distribution of wealth and income throughout the world, as well as to an
ecological disaster. Such a process of recovery would necessarily involve the
creation of an alternative pole of sovereign self-reliant nations, and Brexit is
a precondition for this.
ON TO THE STRUGGLE!

[1] This brief text is based on Takis Fotopoulos solidarity statement for the May
2nd rally on the referendum, in Chesterfield. It is also published in Global
Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/brexit-neoliberalism-and-the-eurozonewhat-is-at-stake-in-the-british-referendum/5522380
[2] Will Pavia, Poor Americans have same life expectancy as Sudanese, The
Times, 13/4/2016

[3] Wolfgang Munchau, The

Times, 24/4/2016

revenge

of

globalizations

losers, Financial

[4] Ed Conway, The UK is paying the price of its jobs miracle, The
Times, 14/10/2014
[5] Alan Johnson on the EU referendum: Weve got the best lyrics, but were still
struggling for a tune , The Guardian, 26/2/2016
[6] see e.g. Y. Varoufakis, A Manifesto for Democratizing Europe and Takis
Fotopoulos, DIEM25: A Manifesto for democratizing Europe or for perpetuating the
EU elites domination of the European peoples? Global Research,
19/2/2016 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-diem25-manifesto-democratizingeurope-or-perpetuating-the-domination-of-the-eu-elites/5508950
[7] see Takis Fotopoulos, THE NEW WORLD ORDER IN ACTION: MIDDLE EAST,
GREECE, UKRAINE, Towards a Democratic Community of Sovereign Nations
(Progressive Press, May-June, 2016)

source: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol12/vol12_no1_Wh
at_Is_At_Stake_British_Memorendum.html
The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/

BREXIT A TALE OF TWO OPTIONS OR JUST A US TROJAN

HORSE FOR TTIP? PART ONE
After France, Ireland and Greece where referendum results were either ignored
or overturned, it is now Britains turn to vote.
30 March 2016

When it comes to EU Referendums nothing can be taken at face value. They

might occur but the result is usually the exact opposite of what the people voted
for. After France, Ireland and Greece where referendum results were either
ignored or overturned, it is now Britains turn to vote. The outcome cannot be
determined from now but even if Brexit occurs the result could be a case of out
of the frying pan into the fire. This political class, this political generation
throughout Europe is corrupt beyond anything anyone can imagine.
Only one country ever got out in one piece from the EU: Greenland. And its
foreign policy was still controlled by Denmark. Others (such as Norway) have
had to vote more than once not to join. Its the modern equivalent of hell: once
checked in, you are there for eternity.
History of a United Europe
Whilst not formally an original creator of the precursor to the EU, Britain was
in many ways a trailblazer. Throughout history, it has had an uneasy relationship

with continental Europe only because Europes perennial question has always
been its unification, and the means to achieve that have always so far led to a
military solution (Roman Empire, Napoleon, WW1 & 2, EU). The fact that the
UK acquired after France the largest global empire under capitalism gave it
independence from continental Europe and a role which competing
imperialisms aspired to emulate. Whilst unifying the planet under its colonial
terms it never had a reason to unify Europe, but those emulating Britains rise to
a global superpower, having lost the struggle for the division of the planet,
could not but attack the source of their defeat: the empire at home.Thus, we
were led to WW1.
After WW2 and the abject bankruptcy of the European colonial empires, the
liberation of around fifty countries worldwide, and the reliance of the European
nation states on the US Marshall Plan after a whole series of international
agreements (Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF), moves were made to end the
causes of European conflict by going towards integrationist policies in the
European Coal and Steel Community and the Treaty of Rome.
Capitalism as a social system cannot stand still. It has to keep on growing,
expanding and if it stops, it starts to implode. Similar to a companys products,
if they arent sold they rot and with it a companys balance sheet and eventually
the company itself. The creation of a United Capitalist States of Europe is/was a
political project of trying to integrate the ruling classes of Europe into one
national ruling class and expanding eastwards till it encompasses the planet in a
neoliberal free for all.
During debates that occurred in the first half of the 20 th Century by Russian
socialists regarding the creation of a United Europe,it was stated thatUnder
capitalism the smooth economic growth of individual enterprises or individual
states is impossible. Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the
periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in
politics.[i]
The other main issue is that we have in the geographical area which
encompasses more than the 28 present states of the EU, different nations, with
different histories, and in particular different languages. To integrate all these
into a single state entity like the EU pretends to do in the EU bureaucracy by
translating all documents in only four languages, is beyond absurd, as nations
werent asked whether they want to be erased in such a manner, nor should they
be.
The project therefore of uniting all states, ensuring a few imperialist centres
control the process (Britain, Germany, France) is a project that is prone to
collapse and breakdown. It has failed twice before. They are now attempting a

third time and it looks like they are going towards a fast-track approach using
terrorism as the excuse to fast-forward the process via extended state of
emergencies which first started in France, are now extended to Belgium, and
soon probably will be wheeled out in many more states.
As Lenin observed From the standpoint of the economic conditions of
imperialismi.e., the export of capital and the division of the world by the
advanced and civilised colonial powersa United States of Europe, under
capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary.[ii]
WW1 and WW2
German imperialism having lost the global scramble for colonies to France and
Britain engaged in a war with them to acquire its colonies and at the same time
unite Europe under its leadership. It paid a heavy price for this in Versailles
where it was humiliated and lost more than what it had before the war. Once
again, a couple of decades later, the same event is taking place, but this time
with France onboard. The first two attempts were military projects and
economic and fiscal union would occur as a consequence. It was obviously too
difficult for Germany as a nation state to take over Europe and at the same time
take on the world. There were not enough Germans with guns to achieve this
aim even when they subcontracted their war aims to their allies such as Italy.
Russia, which borders Europe to its east, stretches all the way to Asia-Japan. It
is vast and no European country in history has colonised it or ever will.
German globalism during the first and second world war failed at inception only
because the project was too vast and did not include a single element of
agreement of any of the nation states being taken over. It only takes one to
disagree then the project stalls. The stalling of an expansionist Empire (all
Empires are expansionist)led inevitably to reversals. This isnt necessarily
taught but its an inevitable process in life: if one climbs the top of a pyramid
then the only way is down after having a rest. One cannot stay at the top forever.
EU Unification: A US Coordinated Project
Every EU country has been fed the story that the EU was created to stop the war
in Europe. Funny that with the break-up of Yugoslavia (promoted and stoked by
Germanys support for secession of Slovenia then Croatia) war broke out in
Europe and NATO started bombing creating 3m internally displaced
people.Recently, we saw EUs role in the break-up of the Ukraine and the war
there. Now the EU is laying the foundations for the total collapse of the Greek
state by agreeing to turning it into a parking lot for millions of migrants for the
cheap labour dictates of the 4th Reich.

The British who essentially became Americas counsel in their rise to global
leadership helped spirit out 3rd Reich Nazis from Germany and inaugurated a
civil war in Greece as a blueprint from which all the post-colonial conflicts
would develop (Algeria, Kenya, Cyprus etc.), rehabilitating openly Hitlers
3rd Reich collaborators and hunting down and killing Greek anti-Nazi partisans
and their leader Aris Velouhiotis.[iii] The British then handed over the reins to
the US, who inaugurated from Athens the Cold War Truman Doctrine while
napalming partisans in mountains. The 3 rd Reich didnt die, it remained dormant
until it morphed into the 4th which is what happened openly after the Wall Street
crash of 2007/8. There is also some evidence that the 3 rdReich planned the
creation of the 4th just as it was being eclipsed.[iv]

During 1948-1960, the American Committee on United Europe was created. Its
clear aim was to have America control the European nation-states, centralise
production and distribution, and link them directly with what was occurring in
the USA.[v] A whole series of Treaties have occurred:
Brussels Treaty 1948
Paris Treaty 1952
Modified Brussels Treaty of 1955
Treaty of Rome 1958
The merger of Treaties in 1967 (this was called the Common Market or
the European Economic Community (EEC)).
The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 that laid the real foundation stones of the
EU
Amsterdam Treaty 1997
The Nice Treaty of 2003
The Treaty of Lisbon that was signed by the EU member states on 13
December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009
1973 Crash
The Vietnam War and the crash that followed created conditions whereby
America instigated round table discussions to coordinate industrial policy with
the European countries in what were the US-EEC Businessmens Conferences
chaired by the UK. Britain was always Americas bridge to Europe and despite
not physically taking part in Vietnam, the former had advisors there.[vi]
Throughout the 1970s and after the collapse of the US dollar and the post-war
Bretton Woods system, Britain was deeply involved with the Atlanticist cold
war agenda, pushing for entry into the EEC, being accepted in 1973, and then
ratifying this agreement in a Referendum in 1975.

It was an irony of history that the biggest trade union, the TGWU, and the
majority of the Labour Party led to a big campaign for Exit. Today its the Tory
party riven with big divisions and its parliamentary group split right down the
middle, while an overwhelming majority of British trade unions (97 out of 100)
are for staying in.(RMT, Aslef, Bakers Union are all for an Exit, including the
TUC).
The severe economic crisis of 1973 led to Britain being the first in the EEC to
adopt a neoliberal economic order accepting the IMF into the country
even before the neoliberal order embarked on its world tour (Sub-Saharan
Africa, Latin America and the ex-Soviet Union, then a return to Europe with
Greece in 2010) and the first country to turn away from state ownership. Now
private ownership of all the means of production was elevated to a new God.
History would end with the advent of a liberal order as stated by Fukuyama.
Propaganda had reached epic proportions.
During that period the British political class tried to move forward to the
dynamics of the single currency by joining European Exchange Rate
Mechanism (ERM, explained in this video) but the different nature of the
British economy in relation to continental Europe (closure of manufacturing
industry and growth of the financial one) meant that it was difficult for sterling
to be able to maintain the parities required to stay in ERM. The Bank of
England had to pump in billions to prop up sterling. At the time, neo
colonyGeorge Soros, who was an unknown fund manager, gambled against
Sterling and blew up ERM. The architect of the British move was Normal
Lamont, from the core group at Oxford who were instrumental in creating
Thatchers economic privatisation agenda throughout the 1990s. Ironically after
having failed to get Britain into the single currency, recently Lamont has come
out for Brexit.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed Britain became a full neo-colony of the USA
in both foreign and domestic policy. This is where the hub of the differences
lie:Continental Europe wants to be where Britain is and Britain wants to be
America. This was played out in the late 1980s and 1990s and will be analysed
in Part Two.

[i] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
[ii] https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
[iii] Athens
1944
Britains
Dirty
Secret http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/athens-1944-britainsdirty-secret
[iv]The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of
a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944.
There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for
Germany's post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis' return to power and work
for a 'strong German empire'. In other words: the Fourth Reich.Read
more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secretreport-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich--EU.html#ixzz43fiUThly
[v]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._%E2%80%93_E.E.C._Businessmen
%E2%80%99s_Conference
[vi]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._%E2%80%93_E.E.C._Businessmen
%E2%80%99s_Conference

BREXIT A TALE OF TWO OPTIONS OR A US TROJAN HORSE FOR

TTIP? PART TWO

Brexit offers hope in destroying the process, but there is no guarantee that a
Leave vote will be implemented based on past performance of EU votes.
14 April 2016

Single European Act and the Myth of Social Europe

The SEA (Single European Act) and its marketing angle (Delors plan for a
Social Europe) essentially sold the concept of a Big Business reform of the EEC
by paying lip service to labour rights and standards across the EU. In reality, it
set the foundations to ensure a race to the bottom was codified in EU law[i].
Just as the original EEC was sold to Britain as a way of raising labour standards

and democracy (work councils were promised to British labour but instead it got
mass sackings and privatisations in the car, steel and coal industries), now the
SEA was touted as a solution to Germanys economic problems and all the
regulations were drafted by ministries of Thatcher and Kohl. It codified, in a
pan-European level, neoliberalism. This means no state support in utility,
transport, rail, road, postal services or communication, with the aim of
privatizing education and health, i.e. the rollback of the post war consensus of
full employment and state nationalisations.
What essentially occurred was the creation of large private monopolies whose
infrastructure and order books had mostly been funded by the state of each
country, i.e. the working taxpayer. While German industrial firms, French utility
companies, agribusiness and Britains financial industry gained throughout this
period, Britain was at the cutting edge of further expanding the neoliberal nature
of the EU and one can argue that it has never strayed from this path. By alleging
labour standards were to be maintained, the SEA was sold to German and
French workers and the British TUC (Trade Union Congress) adopted them; but
in reality, the Brits and the Germans created an EU in their past image: a never
expanding, all devouring corporate Empire that would only rest when it took
over the planet.
Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties
The Single European Act which was promoted and instigated by Thatcher had
to be sold in Britain. Maastricht enshrined in EU law the core five freedoms of
the EU: freedom of movement, services, capital, labour and business. Almost
four out of every five laws emanate from Brussels and the Treaty of Lisbon,
which essentially turned the EU into a Superstate. When Ireland didnt agree it
had to vote twice to get the right result. In historical terms nation states are
defunct and all the gains of the bourgeois democratic revolutions against the
autocracy in France, Britain, etc. have been thrown out of the window. One state
cannot undo the decisions of the other 27. There is no chance in a million years
we would have 28 states in full agreement against the neoliberal order.
The EU in its present form and via its structures, almost all of which are
unelectable and appointed in the modern equivalent of Gaulieters, is a top-down
entity whose central core is: anti-socialism, pro-big business and ultrareactionary. The eventual aim is one world currency and one world government
and it is this aim the globalist elites work for in Europe and in each party that
has representation in national Parliaments. National sovereignty no longer exists
and the democratic right of electing governments that go against Brussels rules
(max 60% public debt, inflation no more than 1.5% of Euro average, national
budget deficit max 3% of GDP) does not exist. Case in point was the election of

Syriza in Greece, which was greeted with no change whatsoever in economic

policy other than further austerity.
British Jobs for British Workers
The election of Blair in 1997 and the opening of Britains borders via student
immigration from non-EU countries, as well as being first to accept the East
European Accession states in 2004, meant that by 2007 Blairs finance leader
and subsequent PM, Brown, circulated the pseudo protectionist and nationalist
slogan British Jobs for British Workers to try to arrest the haemorrhaging of
support to the Labour Party from Britains industrial/post-industrial heartlands,
where a splinter from the Tory party started to gain a following (UKIP). There
never was any intention in prioritising jobs for British workers, nor could that
be allowed under EU laws[ii].
Indeed, the EU codified in law via directives like the one at Bolkenstein and via
court rulings in cases such as Laval, Viking and Ruffert , that wages and
conditions could legally be undermined in any nation member state by allowing
corporations to import workers from states with lower national pay. In other
words, the primary purpose of the EU in relation to freedom of movement of
workers was to drive wage rates down to the lowest rate in the EU, which was
at the moment, Bulgarias[iii].
2010 IMF & Euro crash
The Euro came into motion as a fully-fledged replacement currency from 1st
January 2002 in a series of countries, although it had been in prototype
existence via ERM (European Exchange Rate Mechanism) for almost a decade
before. Since its inception 18 countries have joined out of 28 in the EU. Its main
stumbling block has been Britains non-entry despite the fact that both the
Labour Party and the Conservative leaders (Blair and Cameron) have supported
it.
Once the Wall St. crash led to global turbulence in relation to the position of the
Dollar, a mechanism was required to control money flows away from the US
and money which would have gone to the US by controlling the rate of the
Euro. The IMF was brought in via the back door by the US born and paid for
ex-President of Greece Papandreou (who is also President of the European
Social Democrats body, which the Labour Party belongs to) and then the
economic devastation of Greece occurred. Various countries around the world
who also wanted to stop trading in Dollars were also brought to heel, e.g. Iraq
and Libya. The IMF acts as a surrogate child to US economic policy. Once they

are in, you stand no chance as they will take the economy in the direction they
see fit and destabilise currencies to their advantage.
The Euro was initially at almost parity with the Dollar starting off at 90c to $1.
It then went to a high the years after the Wall St. Crash reaching almost 1 Euro
to $1.5. This process had to be arrested, so a small crisis in a small state of the
EU, i.e. Greece with less than 2% of EU GDP, had to be magnified beyond all
proportion. The crisis had to go nuclear to save the Dollar and no other country
in the EU faced 40-50% combined wage and pension cuts with official
unemployment going from 11% to 28% whilst unofficially at around 35-40%
The Euro crash, which led to Depression economics being applied to a series of
countries, led to the opposite development for the UK. It now became a safe
haven for money laundering rackets from all the Euro countries. Massive
amounts of money from Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. were invested in the London
property market alongside Russian, Chinese and other Afro-Asian oligarchs[iv].
The rise in property prices spiralled a new building boom and thus the demand
for labour shot through the roof. Just as prior to the Wall St. crash and the
entrance of a number of East European Accession states, i.e. Poland, Czech
Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, were allowed to work in Britain prior to
France and Germany, after the Wall St. crash and the onset of the Euro crash
tens of thousands started arriving in the UK.
Euro Crash Impact on the UK
As the UK imports more goods from Europe than the other way round and it
still maintains its own currency and can print money like a drunken sailor
spending it on a night out, it has been able to support a property based economic
boom almost similar in form if not in size with that which existed after 1997
until the Wall St. Crash of 2007/8.
Britain pioneered the financialisation of everything, adopting the US Wall St.
model whereby wealth creation no longer meant creating long-term value from
productive activity, but generating short-term value using financial reengineering, which was only possible because of a massive increase in the
money supply (debt financing). Hence, house prices became a form of collateral
in ensuring ever increasing living standards, without the recourse to higher
wages which had remained essentially static, while all other prices had gone up
(housing,
transport,
utilities,
etc.).
Whilst it was possible on a workers wage to buy a whole house in central
London in the 1970s, now one would have to be a Russian oligarch with a
couple of million pounds spare. This new economy, possible primarily due to
Britain not adopting the Euro and as a consequence of being the next best thing

after America (after the Soviet Union collapsed), allowed a free for all in terms
of capital flows, which were then recycled into the property market, which
alongside capital growth could also provide rental income, which in many cases
was a state subsidy in the form of a housing benefit. In todays world, one left
University with around 50k in debts and for the skilled working class,
apprenticeships no longer existed due to the opening up of the EU labour
market and the mass importation of labour. According to media reports, in the
last 3 years alone 3.3m National Insurance cards have been issued (work
permits) and this level of migration has led to massive shortages in school
places, lack of affordable flats to rent and notices by a central metro station in
London (Victoria) to not use it during rush hour, as the safety of passengers
cannot be guaranteed due to ...overcrowding[v].
Extreme Centre Imploding
Hyper globalisation, which in London meant the twin evils of hyperinflation in
property prices (i.e. cost of living due to almost all under 50 renting) and the
mass importation of labour under both Labour and Tory, led to the rise of a party
that emphasised the problem of mass migration (UKIP), and this forced the
Brexit Referendum on the Tory party as many of its MPs were ready to jump
ship at the last election (only the guarantee by Cameron that a Referendum
would occur kept the party from splitting). The fact as well is that 100 Labour
seats were under threat from UKIP where they came second, and after Nigel
Farage destroyed the Liberals (after debating them on Europe), there is much to
play for. The extreme centre parties are imploding over globalisation and
nothing can keep them together as the fissures of a split are too great.
26m votes went to the three extreme centre parties in 2010, i.e. around 60% of
overall electorate, which was reduced in the following election of 2015 to
22.5m votes, i.e. around 50% of overall electorate (2015) and 4m to UKIP. Half
the Tory MPs (150 out of 300) are for Brexit. A 30-40% swing away from the
extreme centre parties if the UKIP vote held would guarantee Brexit. The
Liberals have already imploded, the Tory party is already at daggers drawn and
is trying to dominate the Brexit campaign by placing the Mayor of London,
Boris Johnson, in the Brexit camp (when he never, ever had a history of being
anti-EU) in order to save the party in case Brexit wins. The Labour Party,
despite having an anti-EU leader, has gone for supporting the EU, which is also
absurd as one would assume they would love the disintegration of the Tory
Party and Camerons government.
Brexit then TTIP?
The TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is about removing
all barriers to trade between the EU and the US and undermining the
sovereignty of EU member states by increasing power to the large transnational

corporations that rule the world. The whole of the EU becomes like Greece in
terms of sovereignty. Originally the TTIP was to be called TAFTA Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, but bad press over NAFTA meant they had
to avoid that name, but its content is identical.[vi]
US pharmaceutical corporations and health corporations have reached the limits
of their domestic market expansion. They need to go elsewhere. Britain has
gone furthest down the path of privatisation in both the National Health Service
and the Education system compared with the rest of continental Europe. No
other country on the planet has sold more than 50% of its companies to
foreigners.[vii] The UK is the globalists wet dream.
Every event that occurs in mainland Europe, from the alleged terrorism in Paris
and Brussels to the alleged war refugees arriving in their millions on the shores
of Greece, shifts the debate for Brexit. The Stay In camp, known as Project
Fear, daily comes out with absolute nonsense. Flights will go through the roof,
tampons will be overtaxed, 3m jobs will be lost, all EU migrants overnight will
be booted out, all major businesses are for Staying In, stock prices will go up,
all the British pensioners will come back from Spain, etc. The list is endless.
Almost three months to go. Soon one will be told one will go blind if one votes
for Brexit!
Whatever the outcome, and it is too soon to be able to make a realistic
prediction, millions are already against the EU Superstate and its domination by
unelected Brussels Gauleiters. National economic policy can no longer occur by
elected governments (as evidenced by the announced closure of last remaining
steelmaking company in the UK, Tata Steel). The mass importation of labour,
whether intra-EU or from outside the EU (Mode 4 Agreements, students, fake
refugees, etc.), continues unabated, and if the price is to keep the EU juggernaut
afloat instead of breaking it apart, things will only get much, much worse.
Brexit offers hope in destroying the process, but there is no guarantee that a
Leave vote will be implemented based on past performance of EU votes. This
could actually be a marriage, whereby having gone on honeymoon many moons
ago, there can be no divorce from the Brussels roadshow so provisional
separation may be inevitable, if not predictable, and the breakup of the
Conservative party is now upon us.

[i] Social Europe

http://tuaeu.co.uk/?page_id=803
[ii] British Jobs for British Workers.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7097837.stm
[iii] Bolkenstein Directive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4698524.stm
[iv] Foreign Buyersin London
http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2015/nov/21/foreign-buyers-britishproperty
[v] 1.3 Million Extra Citizens living in the UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490817/Migration-cover-fearsgrowing-HMRC-refuse-provide-National-Insurance-figures-1-3MILLIONextra-EU-citizens-living-Britain.html
[vi] STOP TTIP
https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-the-problem-ttip-ceta/faqs/
[vii] Britain has sold more than 50% of its companies
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129507/Britain-sale-Uniquely-worldBritain-sold-half-companies-foreigners-And-paying-price.html

Brexit, Globalization and the

Bankruptcy of the Globalist Left*
TAKIS FOTOPOULOS
(10.04.2016)

Abstract: The aim of this article is to examine the fundamental change in

the parameters determining the UK-EU relationship since 1975, when the
first referendum on whether Britain will stay in the Common Market (the
precursor of the EU) was held. It is argued that the British Left (and the EU
Left in general) has now become much more pro-EU than ever before,
despite the fact that the EU in the last quarter of a century or so excelled
at political and economic violence. Has the EU moved to the Left, or is it
the other way round, i.e. the Left is today theoretically and politically
bankrupt and has been fully integrated into the NWO of neoliberal
globalization?

1. The historical background of Brexit

The June referendum on whether Britain will remain a member of the EU or
not is in fact the second referendum on the issue. The British people was
asked again to vote on the same issue some 40 years ago, in 1975, when
they had to decide on whether to stay in the Common Market (the
precursor of the present EU) or not. At that time, the Left was not yet
integrated into the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization
expressing the interests of multinational corporations, which were just
emerging en masse.
This was reflected in the fact that not only the antisystemic Left but also
the Left of the Labor party under the leadership of Tony Benn was fighting
for a British exit. Today, Benns son is one of the strongest opponents of
Brexit and supporter of all the wars by the Transnational Elite (TE) i.e. the

network of economic and political elites based mainly in the G7 countries,

which effectively rules the world today. In fact, the entire Labor party and
the Trade Unions controlled by it are now against Brexit, apart from a
handful of its members in Parliament. So, what has changed since 1975? Has
the EU moved to the Left, or is it the other way round, i.e. the Left is today
theoretically and politically bankrupt and has been fully integrated into the
NWO of neoliberal globalization?
The process of creating a single European market, which began in the 1950s
with the Rome treaty, accelerated in the late 1980s and the early 1990s with
the 1992 Maastricht treaty (which replaced the Rome treaty) and the Single
Market Act that was put into effect in 1993. At the same time, and not
accidentally, these Treaties implied a very significant acceleration of the
integration process that was made imperative for the elites because of the
growing internationalization of the market economy as expressed by the
rapid expansion of multinationals and the intensifying competition with
the other two parts of the Triad (North America and Far East).
The supporters of the acceleration process maintained that, in the ultracompetitive internationalized market economy of the twenty-first century,
only a market of continental dimensions could provide the security and the
economies of scale needed for the survival of European capital, i.e. of the
Europe-based multinationals. And indeed, during the last two decades of the
20th century, the economic gap between the European countries and the
rest of the Triad has widened considerably. A characteristic indication of the
widening gap was the fact that the European Unions world export share
decreased by about 7 percent between 1980 and 1994, whereas at the same
time the USs share fell by only 2 percent and the Japanese share increased
by a massive 31 percent. The main cause of Europes failure was the fact
that its competitiveness had, for long, been lagging behind the
competitiveness of the other regions. Thus, European competitiveness has
fallen by 3.7 percent since 1980, while US competitiveness has risen by 2.2
percent and Japanese competitiveness (which for many years has been on
top of the competitiveness league) increased by 0.5 percent.[1]
The form that the integration had taken reflected, in various ways, the
neoliberal trend, which had already become dominant by then, as
necessitated by the exigencies of globalization for open and liberalized
markets. On the other hand, a politically and theoretically bankrupt Left,
which developed in parallel with the rise of globalization, ceased
questioning globalization itself and its institutions like the EU, the IMF, WTO
and so on. This development was of course in consistence with the
systematic effort of the reformist Left to undermine the antisystemic
movement against globalization, which emerged since Seattle, and its
replacement with a reformist, in effect globalist, movement under the
meaningless title Another World is possible.[2]

For the globalist Left that emerged, neoliberalism was just an ideology
or a dogma, if not a doctrine imposed by unscrupulous capitalists and
bad free-market economists and politicians associated with them!
[3] This is the kind of reformist Left which takes for granted globalization
and its institutions such as the EU, the WTO, the IMF and so on (e.g. the
Left of the Syriza presently presiding over the catastrophe of the Greek
people and Podemos kind).
Alternatively, an antisystemic version of the globalist Left that emerged in
parallel simply waits for the overthrow of capitalism to take care of
globalization. This is the kind of globalist Left which, using the theoretical
tools of the 19th and early 20th centuries that were based on nation-states,
attempts to analyze a new systemic phenomenon, the NWO of neoliberal
globalization, which implies the phasing out of national sovereignty. So, they
fight against imperialism in general and wait for the overthrow of
capitalism to abolish the NWO institutions, despite the fact that
imperialism, in the old Marxist sense of the world that they invoke, has
disappeared together with the effective decay of the nation-state, with
which capital was intrinsically linked in the past!
Yet, had, for instance, the acceleration of the integration process started
about 10 years earlier, i.e. in 1979, when a European Commissions report
was still foreseeing a European Union built on indicative planning at the
continental level, a very different picture of European integration might had
emerged. In fact, the European Commissions report was accurately
reflecting the essence of the social-democratic consensus, which had just
begun breaking at the time. Its proposal amounted to a kind of European
Keynesianism that should have replaced national Keynesianism, which had
already become obsolete under conditions of increasingly free movement of
capital.
However, the collapse of the social-democratic consensus, following the
flourishing of the neoliberal trend in the 1980s (Thatcherism, Reaganomics,
about turn of Mitterrand etc.), as a result of the rise of multinationals,
brushed aside the proposals for a European Keynesian strategy. Thus, the
tendency that was encouraged by the economic and political elites and
eventually prevailed in the European Union was one that identified
economic unification with the radical shrinking of national control on
economic activity. Consequently, the European Unions executive power has
been confined to creating a homogeneous institutional framework that
allowed for unimpeded entrepreneurial activity, while, simultaneously,
providing for some minimal guarantees (those compatible with the
neoliberal consensus requirements) regarding the protection of the
environment and labor.
Thus, the agreement for the single market rested on the main neoliberal
assumption that the European Unions economies were suffering from a lack

of structural adjustment, that is, from structural deficiencies due to

inflexibilities of the market mechanism and barriers to free competition.
Such barriers that were mentioned in the Cecchini Report,[4] on which the
official ideology of the single market rested, were the various physical,
technical and fiscal barriers that were assumed to obstruct the flow of
commodities, capital and labor. As regards the capital market in particular,
freeing this market from any controls, that is, the creation of conditions for
the easy and unrestricted flow of capital between countries, was considered
to be a basic requirement in this process. This is why the abolition of all
foreign exchange controls has always been considered an essential condition
for the Single European market of 1993.
However, the most important barriers were not the ones explicitly
mentioned in the Report, but those implied by it and, in particular, the
emphasis it placed on competition. These implied barriers were the
institutional barriers to free competition, that had been introduced by the
social-democratic consensus and which the agreement for the Single Market
undertook to eliminate a task brought to completion by the Maastricht
treaty. Such institutional barriers were the Keynesian type of state
interventionism to secure full employment, the large welfare state that
created fiscal problems, the labor unions restrictive practices and the
public corporations, which did not always act on the basis of microeconomic criteria to raise economic efficiency. These barriers, as long as the
degree of internationalization of the European economies was still relatively
low, did not have a substantial negative effect on economic growth.
However, once the growing internationalization of the economy and, in
particular, the enlarged mobility of capital ceased to be compatible with the
implementation of national macro-economic policies on Keynesian lines,
their negative effect on growth became evident, as manifested by the
stagflation crisis of the 1970s which hit particularly hard the European
economies.
The Maastricht treaty, therefore, simply confirmed the overtly neoliberal
character that the Community had begun to acquire with the Single Market
Act. The improvement of competitiveness was the primary goal. To this goal
belong the mechanisms that were established by the Economic and Monetary
Union (1999-2002) and the Eurozone.
Thus, this Union, as indeed the single market, signified not the integration
of peoples, or even the integration of States, but just the integration of free
markets. Still, free markets mean not just the unimpeded movement of
commodities, capital and labor, but also flexibility, that is, the
elimination of barriers to the free formation of prices and wages, as well as
overall curtailing of the states control on economic activity. And this is, in
fact, the essence of the neoliberal consensus that characterized the EUs
new institutional framework, i.e. the further marketization of the European

Unions economy. Thus the aim of the new institutions was obvious: to
maximize the freedom of organized capital, the concentration of which was
facilitated in every way (as it was witnessed, for instance, by the mass takeovers and mergers that took place in the late 1980s in view of the single
market) and to minimize the freedom of organized labor, through any means
available and, particularly, through the threat of unemployment.
So, in the interest of enhancing competitiveness, the European ideal had
degenerated into a kind of Americanized Europe, where luxury and
extreme poverty stand side by side and the comfortable life of a minority
was a mirror image of the marginalization of the rest. Britain, which was the
first European country to embark on neoliberal policies, which were then
enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, was showing at the time the future image
of Europe. Therefore, the institutional framework that was established in
Europe consisted of a model in which the continuation of growth
depended on a process of further internationalizing its economy, through
the destruction of local economic self-reliance and the continual
expansion of exports to cope with a growing volume of imports.
All this implies that the rise of the NWO of neoliberal globalization was not
just the result of a betrayal by social democrats that consented to the
neoliberal content of the new Europe then emerging. Similarly, the present
criminal policies implemented by a left government in Greece are not just
the result of a capitulation, as todays globalist Left, asserts.[5] Nor
simply is the present recession to be blamed on the austerity policies
adopted by EU member-states etc. If we accept interpretations (or rather
myths) such as these, then the replacement of the neoliberal institutional
framework is simply a matter for the true socialists and Leftists to gain
power, who, in the context of economic recovery, would reinstate the
institutional framework of the social-democratic consensus.
However, if a government today takes for granted the institutional
framework of the internationalized market economy and its institutions such
as the EU and the WTO, then, it will simply implement the same neoliberal
policies irrespective of whether it calls itself a government of the Left,
including the communist Left. But, this is exactly what the globalist Left
does today when it does not raise the issue of a new world order of
sovereign nations, in the name of an outdated internationalism. This is why
the issue is not one of Left betrayal nor is the radical change of the
institutional framework from within possible, as it proved to be impossible
in the past (Mitterrand, Lafontaine and so on), or at present (SYRIZA) and
will undoubtedly prove once more in the future if Podemos take over in
Spain, or the Labor party under Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
The reason for this is that, within the framework of capitalist globalization,
the minimization of the states social role and of national sovereignty in
general does not constitute a choice but a pre-condition for European

capital (i.e. the Europe-based multinationals) to effectively compete with

those based in the USA or the Far East. Particularly so if we take into
account the fact that the latter face much weaker institutional barriers due
to the lack of a social-democratic tradition in the United States and the Far
East. Today, therefore, social democracy and the globalist Left in general,
have, no meaning either at the national level or at the transnational level.
Thus, any attempt by European social democrats or globalist Leftists to
change the present institutional framework, in order to radically enhance
the states social role, or generally to expand national sovereignty, allowing
states to impose more social controls on markets than those based in the Far
East or the USA, would simply make European multinationals less
competitive than those based in the rest of the world and would result in a
mass exodus of European capital.
By the same token, a new, Europe-wide kind of Keynesianism is not feasible,
unless it is going to be combined with a self-reliant growth led by a highly
protected market economy. But, such a solution is in direct contradiction to
the NOWs logic and dynamics. It is exactly for this reason that the proposals
to re-negotiate the EU treaties, in order to introduce social-democratic aims
in the European Union, are equally utopian in the negative sense of the
word, if not totally disorienting, as is the case with Varoufakis DIEM25.[6] In
fact, the argument in favor of creating a European social market, which
todays globalist Left proposes within the framework of a supposedly
new movement like the aforementioned, is simply a repetition of the
same arguments proposed by the previous generation of social democrats
about 20 years ago. What differs is the packaging, as todays proposals are
presented in the form of a pseudo-direct democracy proposal which is
particularly fashionable nowadays, following the various indignados and
occupy movements of the last few years. Thus, Will Hutton, a major social
democrat thinker was arguing for a social market Europe more than 20
years ago:
The countries of EU together have the power to regulate the financial
markets and control capital flows, and to play a part in compelling the US
and Japan to regulate their relationship better, as part of a world deal ()
Europe can insist on common social rights across the continent so that
multinational corporations cannot play one state off against another in an
effort to bid down wages and working conditions. Europe can set common
environmental standards and common rules of corporate governance,
establishing the concept of the stakeholder company. Indeed social market
Europe can formalize its rules and codes so that () a co-operative, more
committed form of capitalism could be defended ()[7]
However, our experience of the last two decades had amply shown that
exactly the opposite was the case, following the higher integration achieved
within the EU in the 1990s. As I stressed at the time, much more is involved
in the financial crisis than the deregulation of the financial markets. In fact,
what is involved is the opening and deregulation of all markets, i.e., the

very essence of neoliberal globalization. [8] No wonder that despite the

catastrophic financial crisis in 2008, the liberalization of markets, including
the financial ones, continued unabated and many analysts already predict a
repetition of a similar crisis (only worse as far as its effects are concerned)
in the near future. Yet, even today, members of the globalist Left repeat
the same mantra, as if nothing happened in the last quarter of a century.
Thus, as Monbiot put it, in a supposedly objective article on Brexit:
By instinct, like many on the left, I am a European. I recognize that many
issues perhaps most can no longer be resolved only within our borders.
Among them are grave threats to our welfare and our lives: climate change
and the collapse of the living world; the spread of epidemics whose vectors
are corporations; the global wealth-grab by the very rich; antibiotic
resistance; terrorism and conflict. [9]

2. Why BREXIT now?

In view of the above, the answer to the question I raised at the beginning of
this article on what has changed since 1975, when the first British
referendum on EU membership took place, should be obvious. EU memberstates, following the economic integration achieved in the 1990s, have
lost most of their economic sovereignty if not all of it, in case they are
also members of the Eurozone. It is clear that if a country does not control
even its own currency it can hardly be called economically sovereign, as it is
at the mercy of the bureaucrats controlling the European Central Bank, who
in turn work at the behest of transnational corporations. As the examples of
Greece and Cyprus clearly showed, the Eurozone elites can at any moment
financially strangle any members that do not obey their instructions by
simply turning off the liquidity tap. Even more so when these countries, in
fact, do not control even their fiscal policies and have to obey the
catastrophic austerity policies imposed from above. That is the policies
Eurozone members have to follow in case they cannot improve their
competitiveness through alternative means (e.g. investment on research and
development and high technology industries) while at the same time they
are also pushed, directly or indirectly, to privatize their social wealth.
However, a country with no economic sovereignty does not enjoy also any
national sovereignty setting aside the disorienting distinction between
power and sovereignty that Eurofans make,[10] as if it is possible for any
country within the Eurozone to implement different economic policies from
those imposed by the Euro-elites! It is in this sense that nation-states have
only a formal existence today, given that their national sovereignty has
withered away within the EU. A clear indication of this is the fact that,
according to several studies on the matter, at least 65% of domestic
legislation of EU member states has its origin in Brussels. Thus, as a recent
definitive study on the British case study showed (a country which in fact
is much less dependent on the EU than most other member countries), 64.7
per cent of the laws introduced in the UK since 1993 either originated from

the European Union (EU) or are deemed to be EU influenced by the House of

Commons Library. [11]
Thus, as a British analyst aptly described the loss of sovereignty of EU
members within the framework of neoliberal globalization:
This is the crux of the matter, namely the sovereign right of European
nations to form their own policies for their own people and expect other
states to do the same within sovereign borders () The Euro-project is also a
study in the implementation of a Neo-Liberal Regime which benefits the
corporations and which has seen small businesses vaporize from the streets.
Gone is the butcher, gone is the baker, gone is the greengrocer selling local
produce and in come the Big Spaces which offer fabulous GM goods
smothered and charged with chemicals, deep-frozen meat products made in
Vietnam, and Japan and Peru and Nigeria, washed with ammonia,
compressed into blocks and frozen for years before being marketed as 100%
Prime British Beef! [12]
It is therefore the resentment of the British people at the loss of their
national sovereignty within the EU (despite the fact that the British elites
are a constituent part of the Transnational Elite), which has led to a growing
anti-EU movement in Britain that may well lead to a Brexit an event which
could have catalytic implications for the EU itself. This is particularly so
because, as the British elites themselves recognize, the anti-EU movement
in Britain is actually a movement against globalization (a fact that the
Globalist Left ignores!), which could also explain the rise of the
nationalist UKIP party:
The surge in support for UKIP is not simply a protest vote. The party has a
constituency among those left behind by globalization () the globalization
of the economy has produced losers as well as winners. As a rule the winners
are among the better off and the losers among the least affluent.[13]
A further confirmation of the lack of economic and national sovereignty even
in a country which is a member of the TE, Britain, was provided recently
with the closing of the steel industry by its Indian owner Tata, with the loss
of up to 40,000 jobs.
Clearly, in case Britain was a sovereign nation it could have imposed, long
ago, tariffs to protect its own industry from imported steel at an impossibly
low price because of the miserable wages being paid in countries such as
China. In fact, within the EU, steel production is impossible, even if the
Tories were prepared to nationalize it which is of course anathema not
only to them but even to left wingers like Corbyn and the rest of the
Labor party that did not even dare to raise the issue! As a British systemic
paper put it: Even if Whitehall was prepared to take control of Tatas UK
steel business, Europes strict rules on state aid could preclude it. Member

states are not

businesses.[14]

allowed

to

prop

up

or

subsidize

uncompetitive

Therefore, the jobs of tens of thousands of people are condemned to

oblivion, as it happened repeatedly in the recent past, as a result of
globalization and the consequent freeing and liberalizing of markets, as well
as the privatizations and general de-industrialization following the migration
of Transnational Corporations (TNCs) to cheap cost paradises. No wonder
Britain today is a service economy with three quarters of its national output
produced in the services sector. The result is that present growth is based
mainly on consumption, often on borrowed money, with official figures
showing Britain having now the highest current account deficit since modern
records began in 1948.[15]
This does not mean a capitalist crisis, as globalist Marxists believe. Profits of
TNCs thrive from transferring their production cost, including taxes, to
cheap labor and/or low-tax paradises. What it means is that neoliberal
globalization destroys the productive structure of countries like Britain, as
the steel industry case showed. As a very recent investigation by a think
tank reported, since 2000, the share of GDP accounted for by foundation
industries (i.e. industries supplying the basic goods such as metal and
chemicals used by other industries) has fallen by 43% in Britain vs. a fall by
21% across the rich nations. This could well explain the fact that whereas at
the end of the 1990s, imports accounted for 40% of UK demand for basic
metals, today they account for 90% of it![16] This is of course nothing new
within the EU marvellous world. A similar process has destroyed the Greek
economic structure since the country entered the Common Market in 1981,
leading to a consumer society funded by borrowing, which inevitably
collapsed thirty years later and led to the present informal bankruptcy and
the consequent Greek economic and social catastrophe.[17]
So, the main factor which created a movement from below for Brexit was
the growing realization by the British public that its national and economic
sovereignty has been decisively eroded within the EU, forcing the elites,
albeit reluctantly, to accept the demand for a referendum. Particularly so
when one takes into account that Britons used to live in one of the strongest
nation-states of the world and now are forced to watch powerless the
effective destruction of their industrial base, in the very place where
industrialization was born. Needless to add that the Left
academic/politicians supporters of the EU, such as Piketty and Varoufakis
(the two left-wing gurus who try to save Europe, according to another EU
acolyte[18]) have nothing to say about all this and the loss of national
sovereignty but talk instead about a mythical and disorienting European
sovereignty, which just suffers from the present lack of internal
democracy!

3. Brexit as a precondition for sovereignty

However, it is not only the Britons but also millions of other Europeans who
increasingly realize that true independence and self-reliance, the
preconditions of national and economic sovereignty, are impossible within
the NWO in general and the EU in particular, which has systematically
dismantled sovereignty in the last two decades or so. But is just an exit from
the EU a sufficient condition to restore sovereignty? Here is how a reader of
Guardian, the flagship of liberal (i.e. the globalist) Left, simply put it:
The Brexit buccaneers would suggest that an out vote would enable us to
regain our sovereignty. That is a fantasy. As a nation, with the
encouragement of successive governments, we have ceded sovereignty to a
variety of external powers, including the EU, over many years. Major,
foreign-owned multinationals determine levels of investment and jobs in this
country as a consequence of decades of British national institutions and
businesses being privatized or sold to the highest bidder. It is an illusion to
believe that leaving Europe will somehow restore national sovereignty when
our energy security is largely dependent on the French and Chinese
governments deciding whether or not Hinkley C is built; Canadian
multinationals decide how many aerospace jobs there will be in Northern
Ireland; and Indian entrepreneurs preside over the survival of our steel
industry. These same Indian entrepreneurs, and their German and Japanese
counterparts, will decide the long-term health of our automotive
manufacturing. Similarly, decades of privatization of the public sector has
seen outsourcing contracts (particularly in the NHS) let to US corporations,
among others. Brexit will not diminish the power and influence of these
institutions over our economic future and our elected representatives. Nor
will the government suddenly be in a stronger position to persuade them to
pay a fairer contribution towards our civil society through taxation.[19]
No wonder this is an argument supported also by the propagandists of
globalization and the EU, like Varoufakis, who stated the obvious when he
said that: its impossible to stay in the single market and keep your
sovereignty. However, for systemic writers, pretending to be radicals like
him, the implication of this fact was not the need to fight for national
sovereignty but, instead, exactly the opposite: to persuade people about the
necessity of the NWO on the basis of the famous Thatcherism principle TINA
There Is No Alternative (TINA). Thus, using the cheap trick of creating a
pseudo-dilemma in order to draw the right answer, the same author and
ex Finance Minister of Greece, (who took an effective part in the Greek
catastrophe last year) stressed that:
Neither withdrawing into the safe cocoon of the nation state, nor giving in
to the disintegrating and anti-democratic EU, represent good options for
Britain. So, instead of seeing the referendum as a vote between these two
options, and these two options alone, the UK needs a third option: to vote

to stay in the European Union so that it can fight tooth and nail against the
EUs anti-democratic institutions.[20]
Yet, both the first option as well as his own third option are, in fact, false
options. The first one because fighting for national sovereignty does not of
course means withdrawing into the safe cocoon of the nation state, as he
and some calamity Marxists suggest. It could well mean, instead, laying
the foundations for a new democratic world order of sovereign nations.
In fact, sovereignty is a necessary condition (though not a sufficient one) for
any radical social change, given that such a change is impossible within the
NWO of open and liberalized markets for commodities, capital and labor.
Therefore, those like Varoufakis, Zizek and the anarchist [21] Chomsky
(who just joined Varoufakis movement!), as well as the rest in the globalist
Left who talk today about open borders, are in fact deceiving the victims
of globalization. That is, they exploit the old libertarian ideal for no
borders in order to indirectly promote the NWO. Clearly, open borders in an
internationalized capitalist market economy simply mean that multinational
corporations will be absolutely free to exploit the productive resources of
any country in the world and particularly labor in order to maximize their
economic power at the expense of societies.
In other words, societies, in a state of open borders, will be unable to
impose any effective social controls to protect themselves from markets, as
Polanyi has aptly described the need for such social controls long ago.
[22] Furthermore, open borders, as regards the free movement of people in
general (rather than just labor), which was secured by the Shengen Treaty,
created the present huge migration problem, which the EU has temporarily
solved at the expense of the Greek people, through the conversion of
their country (with the connivance of Syriza) into a huge depository of
migrants. However, the migration of a huge number of people from Asia and
Africa is bound to create cultural problems among peoples with very
different cultures, unless the peoples themselves in each country decide the
number of migrants they wish to host, rather than leaving the economic
elites (as at present) to make this decision, according to their own economic
interests.
This is the reason why a huge resentment has been created among European
peoples at the moment against the uncontrolled migration, which is of
course another indication of the effective undermining of national
sovereignty. Thus, according to a very recent poll carried out by Frances
Institute for Opinion Research (IFOP), Europeans overwhelmingly would like
to see Shengen halted and the re-establishment of border controls between
neighbouring countries: 72 percent of French want their borders sealed,
while 66 percent of Germans and 60 percent of Italians want the same for
their own countries.[23]

On the other hand, Varoufakis supposed third option, i.e. to fight tooth
and nail against the EUs anti-democratic institutions in order to
democratize the EU, is another pure deception, as I briefly explained above
and in more detail in a forthcoming book.[24] Therefore, a Brexit, by
itself, is not enough to restore sovereignty as long as a country is
integrated into the NWOand is subject to the regulations stipulated by the
TE and implemented through the transnational institutions it set up to
impose the free movement of capital, commodities and labor. That is such
institutions as the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and military institutions like
NATO.
So, the discussion in Britain today among supporters of Brexit on whether
the exit from the EU should be followed by the establishment of the
Canadian model, or the Norwegian model and similar models, is completely
disorienting. The Norwegian case is particularly illuminating since, unlike
Canada, which has always been a fortress of Anglo-American liberalism
(despite the introduction of some significant social democratic programs
during the post-war statist phase of capitalism), Norway has always been a
stronghold of social democracy. Norway is not a member of EU, as two
referendums on joining it failed, even if it was by narrow margins, in 1972
and 1994. However, the Norwegian elite decided to harmonize the countrys
policies with those of the EU anyway, while at the same time the country
has always been a member of WTO, IMF, as well as NATO. This meant that
despite Norways rich energy resources, Norwegians saw a massive retreat
from social democracy in their country during the NWO era!
Thus, despite the fact that social services are still supported in Norway,
social democrats participated enthusiastically not only in the brutal NATO
bombing of Libya, but also, in a continuous process of intensifying and
worsening working conditions. In other words, as Norwegian social
democrats, adopting their elites options, did not break with the NWO of
neoliberal globalization, they had to follow the policies imposed on them
directly, through the countrys participation in the transnational institutions
of globalization (WTO, IMF etc.) and, indirectly, through the harmonization
of Norways policies with those of the EU. As a result, Norwegian social
democrats, as Andreas Bieler rightly pointed out, are sliding gradually
toward more and more mainstream and soft neoliberal positions. [25]
Yet, although Brexit by itself is by no means a sufficient condition for
sovereignty, it definitely is a necessary condition for it. Not only because
sovereignty is a precondition for any radical social change today but also
because Brexit could really have catalytic effects on the NWO. The Italian
Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan, in an interview with The Guardian,
correctly described the possible domino effect of a Brexit, which terrorizes
the elites:

Brexit would be the demonstration that if you have an anti-European

program you can implement that programme () It would be a message sent
to many anti-European parties and to some anti-European governments. It
would have, especially in the medium term, quite dramatic implications. We
are already seeing a domino effect with anti-European parties gaining a lot
of support, starting in France.[26]
In fact, the possible domino effect is the main possible negative
consequence for the elites as a result of a Brexit, particularly at a moment
when the repeated terrorist attacks in Europe lately and the massive influx
of migrants are bound to boost the neo-nationalist and Eurosceptic parties in
general and the Brexit campaign in particular. Needless to add that the
bogey of recession following a Brexit and a decline in exports is just part of
the black propaganda of the elites. Clearly, the European elites are as keen
not to lose a big market like the British one, as the British elites are keen
not to lose an even bigger European market.

4. The entire Transnational and local Elites come out against Brexit
As soon as the June referendum was announced a formidable campaign
against Brexit was launched by the entire Transnational Elite as well as by
the largest part of the British elite in a huge effort to exorcise any idea of a
Brexit: from John Kerry, who stated that the US had a profound interest in a
strong UK staying in a strong European Union and Lord Bramall, former
chief of UKs general staff, who had no qualms about stating that a broken
and demoralized Europe just across the Channel () would constitute a far
greater threat to our future, indeed to the whole balance of power and
equilibrium of the western world,[27]up to the Chinese President Xi Jinping
who made the following memorable (for a communist) statement:
China hopes to see a prosperous Europe and a united EU, and hopes Britain,
as an important member of the EU, can play an even more positive and
constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU
ties.[28]
The last statement shows the degradation of present day so called
socialism with Chinese characteristics (something that Mao had accurately
predicted knowing the kind of party cadres that were going to succeed him)
which, however, as we shall see next, is reflected in almost the entire
Left today. In fact, the explanation given by Chinese diplomats for this
stand is revealing of the opportunism of Chinese communists. According to
these diplomats, Britains potential exit from the EU worries Beijing, which
believes free-market supporting Britain strengthens the EU which China sees
as an important ballast to American market dominance.[29]
Thus, not only these communists show complete ignorance of present
neoliberal globalization, as a new phase in the development of the capitalist
market economy, but they also imagine important differences between the

two blocs, i.e. the North American and the European capitalist blocs,
presumably seeing them as a kind of imperialist states in conflict between
them for the division of markets! However, Lenins theory of imperialism was
of course based on nation-states, even if such states consisted of empires,
such as the British Empire, which were in constant explicit or implicit
conflict between them for the division of markets a fact that led to two
world wars.
But todays blocs are by no means empires in this sense of the word, as they
consist of elites based on transnational corporations with overlapping
specific economic interests and a common general interest: the
reproduction of the NWO of neoliberal globalization. It is the protection of
this general interest that is the main function of the Transnational Elite (TE).
This is why any military conflict between the states on which the TE is based
(mainly the G7 states and its associates in Scandinavia, Australia etc) is
inconceivable today and any differences between them, like those that
arose in connection to the Iraq war or Syria, were purely tactical and never
reflected any antagonistic conflicts. On the other hand, Russia can hardly be
characterized as an imperialist power, as some calamity Marxists do, just
because the Russian people had created an informal patriotic front from
below (which includes from communists up to orthodox Christians) to fight
for their national sovereignty.[30]
The domestic front of the elites against Brexit was formidable. The entire
political elite, apart from a few exceptions, mainly in the Tory party, and of
course UKIP, was against Brexit. Particularly pro-EU was the entire
progressive part of this elite i.e. the Labor party, the Green Party, Social
Liberals and the rest. Thus, whereas the Tory party is more or less split with
about 45% of its Members of Parliament (MPs) being in favor of BREXIT and
55% against (although Cameron has selected a Cabinet which is
overwhelmingly pro-EU) in the Labor Party only 7 of its 222 MPs are in favor
of Brexit. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats and all the autonomist parties
(Scots, Welsh and Irish in Northern Ireland apart from pro-UK nationalists)
are 100 percent against Brexit![31] Given therefore the strong influence that
the Labor party still exerts on trade unionists, we can conclude that if the
Brexit proposal is thrown out this will be due mainly to the fact that the
British Left (as well of course as the globalist Left world-wide) is
completely integrated into the NOW the basic cause of its political
bankruptcy.
The economic elite almost unanimously came out against Brexit, if we
exclude from it the medium or small businesses or individual cases, with
some 250 of them coming out publicly in favor of Brexit.[32] Thus, the
economic elites and the financial elites in particular headed by the
financiers controlling central banks, hedge funds etc. (a prominent
constituent of the Transnational Elite) play a leading role in the Project

Fear. The Canadian governor of the BoE and former Goldman Sacks
employee, i.e. a man with impeccable links to the financial constituent of
the TE which plays a crucial role in the exercise of economic violence
against the victims of globalization all over the world came out first to
declare that the prospect of leaving is the biggest domestic risk to financial
stability because, in part, of the issues around uncertainty, adding that
some City companies would leave the UK in the event of Brexit.[33] This
forced even Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, to say to the BBC that it
was quite wrong for a governor of the Bank of England to enter the political
fray in this way. I believe he is talking nonsense and if I may say so he was
doing it for political reasons, he said adding I think it would please the
Chancellor of the Exchequer who appointed him.[34] In fact, the governor
of the Bank of England was more interested in pleasing his former employer,
Goldman Sachs, rather than his political appointer (who is also controlled by
the same economic elites). Naturally, Carney could defend himself that he
simply expressed the views of the Bank, which is true, although he omitted
mentioning that several key senior positions within the Bank of England are
also held by former Goldman officials![35] Needless to add that, following
Carney, HSBC also said publicly that it might move thousands of jobs from
London in the event of Brexit, while Morgan Stanley has warned that leaving
the EU would trigger a significant backlash against London as a financial
centre, and Goldman Sachs itself (rightly described by Boris Johnson as
the people who engineered the biggest financial disaster of the last
century) warned as far back as 2013 that if Britain left the EU every
European firm [of investment banks] would be gone in very short
order.[36] Similarly, the rating agency Moodys took immediately part in the
Project Fear by declaring that Britains biggest companies could face a
credit downgrade potentially forcing up their borrowing costs should the
UK vote to leave the EU in June.[37] Needless to add that the City (i.e. the
British financial centre in London) came out in full support of the EU. Thus,
TheCityUK, the financial services lobby group, declared on February 20th:
Membership of a reformed EU and continued access to the single market is
vital () It is also the preferred outcome for the majority of our
members.[38]
Of course, the campaign of the economic elites against Brexit has not been
only rhetorical. They have also used their economic power in order to
blackmail their working force. This method was particularly used by major
TNCs like BMW. As it was reported, the chief executive of Rolls-Royce Motor
Cars, which is owned by BMW, has written to all its workers in Britain to
warn that exit from the European Union would drive up costs and prices and
could affect the companys employment base. The letter is one of six sent
by bosses of each of BMWs British companies, including Mini, to their staff
warning of the dangers of UK withdrawal. Both Rolls-Royce and BMW
admitted that emails and letters had been sent out to 8,000 employees,
including workers at car plants in Goodwood, West Sussex, and Oxford and,

of course, BMW was among the signatories of a business letter organized by

the government backing EU membership.[39] Paul Stephenson, a Vote
Leave spokesman gave an insightful explanation about this industrial
blackmail:
Big foreign multinational companies like the EU because they spend
millions lobbying it in order to stitch up the rules in their favor forcing
smaller players out of business.[40]
Needless to add that the campaign against Brexit has been fully using the
state mechanism to promote its stand, creating a scandal when it was
announced that 9m would be spend on leaflets to be sent to every UK home
to promote the EU case. Cameron had of course no qualms about doing this,
as he knows very well that a victory for Brexit will cost him his premiership,
although this makes a mockery of the referendum. As if it was not enough
that the elite-controlled media (particularly the TV channels, with BBC
playing as always its role of the systemic medium par excellence) clearly
discriminate against the Brexit, Cameron and the elites behind him decided
that every home in the country will get an official leaflet. That is, a leaflet
bearing the official HM government stamp, which supposedly is telling the
facts (i.e. the truth) about the EU but in fact, repeating the EU black
propaganda. Here is how the BBC described its contents:
The leaflet claims that a vote to leave the EU would cause an economic
shock that would risk higher prices of some household goods and damage
living standards. It further claims that the only way to protect jobs,
provide security, and strengthen the UKs economy is by staying in the EU,
arguing that leaving would create risk and uncertainty.[41]
As regards the BBC role in particular, recent research by a media-monitoring
group showed the shamelessly biased practice of this supposedly objective
medium on the referendum. As the report mentioned, one of the BBCs
flagship news programs has shown a strong bias towards Britain staying in
the European Union (EU). From the 13th of January to the 11th of March
2016, News-watch analyzed 40 editions of the popular current affairs
program Newsnight. News-watch noted that 25 of the guests who appeared
on the program were in favor of Britain staying in the EU, compared to only
14 who advocated the UK leaving the union.[42]
Taking into account that several polls at the moment show a clear majority
for Brexit it is obvious that the pro-EU elite uses every trick in the book to
avert a victory for it (at the expense of course of the taxpayer). This is
Western democracy in action!
Moving now to the Brexit campaign, the supporters of it inevitably are
much more divided than their opponents. Inevitably, because supporters of
Brexit range from conservatives and nationalists up to genuine
antiglobalists, from the Left or the Right. The main demand of conservatives

and nationalists is the strict control of borders but only as far as it concerns
the movement of people and not also as regards the much more important
movement of capital and commodities through the activities of TNCs. On the
other hand, the real anti-globalists fight for genuine national sovereignty,
which is incompatible with globalization and the integration of the country
into the NWO and its institutions, such as the EU, the WTO, the IMF and the
World Bank, which preclude any policy of self-reliance that is the sufficient
condition for national sovereignty.

5. What will happen after Brexit?

I will not discuss here the possible economic effects of Brexit, as the media
and experts supporting the elites amply do in their effort to terrorize the
British people by enhancing the usual fear that many people feel when faced
with a possible radical change affecting their lives (the Project Fear). No
wonder that even a well known member of the globalist Left (heavily
promoted by its flagship, The Guardian), who moved from an opposition to
the EU to one supporting it once the referendum was announced, had to
exclaim: I reject the use of Project Fear by the government to frighten
people into staying within the EU, backed by corporate titans warning of
economic apocalypse if the vote swings the wrong way.[43] Yet, the elites,
despite the sensitivities of their supporters in the globalist Left, know
well their job and they have no reason to abandon a highly successful
technique that was tested again lately in Greece, in order to dissuade the
victims of globalization (the vast majority of the Greek people) from leaving
the Eurozone (EU was not even on the agenda).
I think it makes little sense to discuss the possible economic effects of
Brexit on jobs, incomes, prices and growth in general, unless one knows
exactly what sort of economic framework will be created in the
referendums aftermath. As no one knows at the moment the exact answer
to this question, it is clear that the predictions made on what will follow
Brexit amount to pure speculation, which is inspired by the motives (i.e. the
stand on Brexit) taken by the experts. However, the fact that most socalled experts (mainly academic economists) are strongly against Brexit is
far from surprising, particularly if one takes into account, apart from their
class position which classifies them beyond the victims of globalization,
their vested interests in the EU (e.g. the various EU programs financing their
research and their trips all over the globe well appreciated by them to
participate in conferences, seminars etc).
Clearly, what will follow a Brexit vote depends not only on what the British
government will or will not do, following such a radical decision by the
British people, but also on how the EU, as well as the other economic blocs,
will react and, most important, on how the TNCs themselves will react.
Obviously, their decisions on whether to stay in Britain or not will be
decisive in determining the new economic landscape. I therefore think that

drawing conclusions on what will follow Brexit is meaningful only with

respect to two extreme cases: the case in which the rejection of Brexit will
be followed by a continuation of the present model and, alternatively, the
case in which a real anti-globalization strategy would be adopted.
There is not much to be said about the former case, as the rejection of
Brexit will simply mean the continuation of present policies within the EU,
although a problem might be created in case the EU proceeds to an
integrated political union, i.e. the full integration of member states.
Although Britain has the option not to accept such a radical decision, it is
clear that in case all other member states decide to abandon even the
present remnants of their national sovereignty Britain may indeed end up
politically isolated from the rest of the Union, although one of the
advantages of Britain staying in Europe is supposed to be that this is the best
way to avoid isolation.
As regards the economic (as well as the social, cultural and ecological
effects) of a Brexit, they would obviously be radically different in case
Britain adopts a real anti-globalization policy than in the case a Brexit is
followed by the introduction of a variation of the present model, e.g. in the
form of the Canadian or the Norwegian model and the likes. The former case
implies a break not only with the EU but also with the other transnational
institutions of the NWO (WTO, IMF, NATO and so on), whereas the latter
implies a continuation of the present reliance on TNCs, which of course aim
to determine economic growth according to their own objectives of profit
maximization. However, any variation of the present model, even if it
involves a Brexit, is highly unlikely that it will involve any significantly
different economic effects compared to the present situation. Particularly
so if a Brexit is accompanied by a new agreement with the EU as regards
trade (which anyway even after Brexit will still be ruled by the WTO
regulations) and the re-confirmation of the other treaties on the movement
of capital and labor, which most likely will remain unchanged apart
perhaps from the present British obligations as regards the movement of
labor. Therefore, as we shall see in the last section, Brexit makes sense only
if it signals a complete break with the NWO of neoliberal globalization.
However, apart from the economic arguments about Brexit one has to
consider also the political arguments involved and particularly the
propaganda about peace supposedly secured by the EU. Thus, Gideon
Rachman, the well known Zionist chief foreign affairs commentator of the
Financial Times, (who in a well-known 2008 article entitled And now for a
world government[44] provided the ideological background for global
governance), aptly put this case for Brexit:
But, perhaps paradoxically, the fact Europe is in crisis actually strengthens
my own resolve to vote for Britain to stay inside the EU. For all its faults,
the EU champions ideas that are crucial to peace and freedom in Europe.

These include co-operation between nations, the rule of law, the protection
of human rights and the promotion of free trade. Nationalist political forces
that challenge all of these ideas are growing in strength across Europe, from
France to Poland, and they are united by their hostility to the supranational
EU. Outside the EU, a hostile and freshly aggressive Russia is cheering on the
possible collapse of the European project and is probably funding some of
its most ardent internal opponents. Given Europes bloody past and troubled
present, helping to destroy the major vehicle for European co-operation
cannot be a good idea. It is true that the crisis within the EU may soon
require a fundamental rethink of the organizations aims and methods, well
beyond the minor changes that Mr. Cameron is able to negotiate. () It
would be a serious mistake for the UK to undermine an organization that,
whether we realize it or not, is crucial to Britains own security. [45]
I reproduced at length this view as, to my mind, it is in fact a monument of
misinformation and distortion of truth, endemic among the practitioners of
the Project Fear. Of course the EU is as much a champion of peace and
freedom as the US and the other members of the TE are, which instigated or
carried out all the bloody wars of the last quarter of a century or so not just
on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria but even in Europe itself (Yugoslavia).
[46] In fact, the only reason that wars among major capitalist countries are
inconceivable today is the high degree of economic interdependence
between the TNCs based in these countries, which globalization itself
created. It is this reason alone that precludes any wars between members of
the TE and not the economic unions such as EU and Nafta etc, which have
simply been created to complete the opening and liberalization of markets
that globalization requires in the process leading to a globalized world, as
envisaged by Rachman himself!
Therefore, the values mentioned by Rachman (co-operation between nations
etc.) refer only to the TE and its associate states and not to any states
questioning its hegemony in any way, such as Russia, China and the Arab
states based on national liberation movements (e.g. Baathism). With all
these states peace and co-operation is impossible unless they submit to the
TEs authority. These are not of course intra-imperialist conflicts, as
globalist Marxists describe them confusing and disorienting the victims of
globalization, but simply conflicts between those controlling the NWO and
those refusing to be controlled by the TE. This applies also to the case when
a state (e.g. Russia), aspires to join as an equal member the TE, not
realizing that the only position offered to them in the NWO is one of a
subordinate member. Finally, it is not surprising at all that Rachman adopts
the misleading and disorienting ideology of globalist Left (Varoufakis and
his mentor Soros, Piketty and the rest) that the way out of the present crisis
is not a break with the globalization institutions like EU but, instead, an
attempt to democratize it from inside!

6. The stand of the globalist Left on Brexit

The result of the referendum in the Netherlands is very indicative of the
explicitly anti-EU and implicitly anti-globalization wind blowing all over
Europe and beyond at the moment. The way in which a conservative
newspaper like the London Times described it is highly significant: In 2005
the Dutch voted against an EU constitution and were dismayed when the
Lisbon treaty, in effect, introduced one by the back door. Many other EU
countries share this suspicion that the integration process has become
automatic and unquestioning.[47] In other words, the Dutch simply
expressed their indignation for the loss of any national sovereignty that
became particularly evident in the last ten years or so. When they found out
that their elite (as also the elites of all other EU countries, without asking
them, decided to have an EU association Treaty with the protectorate
created in Ukraine by the TE coup of 2014,[48] they presumably concluded
enough is enough. A clear movement from below was set in motion
when an Internet petition demanding a referendum on the issue (using a new
Dutch law designed to promote democracy) attracted more than 400,000
signatures (significantly more than the 300,000 required by the law). As even
the full pro-EU BBC had to admit, from the start activists said this was a
chance for Dutch voters to express frustration at the EU, in particular what
they see as its desire to expand despite democratic shortcomings. Yet, the
Dutch voters completely ignored the stern warning by EU Commission
President Jean-Claude Juncker, who had described the stakes in the run-up
to the vote as being high, warning that a No vote could trigger a wider
crisis in the 28-member bloc.[49] Thus, the No campaign won with 61.1

per cent, against 38.2 per cent for the Yes group, despite the latter
being backed by all mainstream Dutch political parties. As The Times
reported about the low turnout (which was well over the minimum
required 30%), this was a miraculous expression of popular will against
all the odds:

The result is a major blow for the EU at a time when Euroscepticism is

growing across the continent () Campaigners for No accused the
government of trying to keep the turnout low by providing only half the
normal number of polling stations used in a national election. It is
outrageous, Harry Van Bommel, an MP for the Eurosceptic Socialist party,
said.[50]
This, despite the fact that during a lacklustre but ill-tempered campaign,
Dutch ministers and Yes campaigners warned that a No vote would signal
support for President Putin, Russias aggression and annexation of Ukrainian
territory. As part of the same campaign, the infamous Panama papers
were published at the same time with the obvious aim to target Putin and
Russia, as Wikileaks revealed, given that the Putin attack was funded by
the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and American hedge

fund billionaire (sponsor of many NGOs) George Soros.[51] Not accidentally,

again at the same time, Western papers reported a new flare-up in
Ukraine! [52]
As regards the British Left, particularly damaging to the Brexit campaign
although far from surprising is the stand of the Labor Party. Whereas in
the 1975 referendum the Party was split on the Common Market issue
despite the fact that at that time the issue of sovereignty was far less
significant than today today, it is unanimous in supporting the EU. Thus,
apart from a few exceptions, the Labor party is united against Brexit,
including its progressive leadership under Corbyn, who in the past was
against both the EU and, perhaps aspiring to play the dishonest role of
Tsipras, in abandoning all his pre-election commitments. The very fact that
he appointed the highly connected with the elites Varoufakis as one of the
Partys economic advisers is highly significant. However, the Labor Partys
stand is far from surprising since it has abandoned long ago (since Tony Blair,
another political crook, took it over) its close links to workers and the
victims of globalization and became a party expressing the middle class (or
rather that part of it that did not suffer from globalization). Similarly, trade
unionists linked to Labor also stand against Brexit, supposedly to protect
jobs! No wonder the blue-collar working class, the unemployed and those
paying the consequences of globalization have moved towards neonationalist parties and in Britain towards UKIP. This is another indication of
the total political bankruptcy of todays Left.
However, what many people in the Green Left find difficult to understand is
the stand of the British Green Party, which is also opposed to Brexit. Thus,
its single MP, Caroline Lucas, using effectively the same argument as Gideon
Rachman we examined above, had no qualms about supporting the myth of a
peaceful EU. So, in a recent lecture at the London School of Economics she
used the peace argument against Brexit today, warning that EU
membership is Britains best defence against the risk of Europe descending
into war:
Europe is not, historically, a very peaceful place. It would be sheer folly to
think that armed conflict cannot return. We cannot know what dangers lie
ahead. But we can be sure that a strong and stable European Union, with
Britain as an active and positive participant, provides the surest guarantee
of our national security.[53]
Needless to add that she also is a supporter of Varoufakis DIEM25
movement! But, although this stand may be surprising to some Greens, it
is in fact far from unexpected following the full integration of the European
Greens into the NWO since the taking over of the German Green Party by the
realos of the despicable Kohn-Bendit kind, who enthusiastically supported
every single war of the TE in the last quarter of a century or so.

Moving further to the Left, a number of communists, Trotskyites, trade

unionists and others signed a common declaration published in the flagship
of globalist Left under the title EU is now a profoundly anti-democratic
institution and concluding with the following statement:
We stand for a positive vision of a future Europe based on democracy,
social justice and ecological sustainability, not the profit-making interests of
a tiny elite. For these reasons we are committed to pressing for a vote to
leave the EU in the forthcoming referendum on UK membership.[54]
As it is obvious from the text the issue of globalization and of economic and
national sovereignty is not even mentioned in it, despite a passing reference
to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which is mentioned
as just a bad Treaty that has to be abandoned. Instead, the non-democratic
character of the EU is emphasized (exactly as Varoufakis and the rest of the
globalist Left do), the only difference being that this declaration asks also
for a Brexit, presumably in the hope that a new proper EU will emerge out
of this, i.e. a new good capitalism in place of the present bad neoliberal
one.
Further to the Left, the Socialist Workers party (which supported the
Libyan and Syrian revolutionaries, and up to a point even the Ukrainian
ones!) took a stand, which can be well summarized by the following extract
of an article in their theoretical organ:
[Socialists] shouldnt feel compelled to back the austerity-driven, racist EU
project simply because the leave camp is led by such hateful figures as Nigel
Farage, Michael Gove and Boris. In fact, it is important to note the racism
and pro-business arguments dominating both camps. Socialists have a
responsibility to put a principled internationalist, anti-racist, anti-austerity
case for a left exit. Neither should we be afraid that if Britain left the EU it
would automatically benefit only the right. () Crucially, a vote to leave
would destroy David Cameron, tear apart the Tory party, weaken the EU
project and throw all kinds of questions up for debate. We vote to leave in
solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Greece suffering under the EU
institutions as well as those risking death in the Med to reach Fortress
Europes shores as well as those risking death in the Med to reach Fortress
Europes shores.[55]
The purely tactical stand adopted on such a crucial issue (to destroy
Cameron, tear apart the Tory party, etc) is fully explained by the fact that
this Trotskyite party, far from understanding the significance of globalization
and national sovereignty, in fact adopts also the ideology of globalization of
open borders (promoted by Soros and the likes) in blissful ignorance (?) of
the significance of open borders in an internationalized capitalist market
economy on unemployment, wages, the (remnants of) the welfare state etc.

However, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British left in
general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free
trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) Left does (see
for instance Jean Bricmont[56]and Larry Elliott [57] of the Guardian). The
point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass
economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the
accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these trends hide
is that globalization is a class issue.
This is the essence of the bankruptcy of the Left, which is reflected in
the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the
Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized
form, while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty
bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that todays
bankrupt Left promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as
racist, if not fascist and neonazis, siding fully with the EUs black
propaganda against the rising movement for national sovereignty. This is
obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of Left as the millions of
European voters who turn their back towards this degraded Left are far
from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather
than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and
commodities as the various Soroses and Varoufakises of this world demand!
Needless to add that the capitalist system as such is taken for granted by
almost everybody, even by todays working class (particularly in countries
like China and India where capitalist industry has moved in the era of
globalization), as todays workers feel more like consumers rather than like
workers, with the corresponding class consciousness. No wonder that there
has been not a single pan-European strike against the systematic demolition
of workers rights in the era of globalization. Therefore, following the
collapse of the soviet bloc, there is no conceivable threat against capitalism
as a system, in any foreseeable future. This is why the only real threat that
the elites see today is the one arising by the struggle of the victims of
globalization against it, which increasingly takes the form of a mass struggle
all over Europe, even in the USA where a rudimentary (and sometimes
distorted) form of an anti-globalization front has been developing around
Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, against whom the entire US
establishment has turned.
Finally, the argument that a Brexit followed by a break with the NWO will
lead Britain to political isolation, particularly if it is accompanied with an
exit from NATO as well, is baseless and promoted by the elites for well
understood reasons. Participation in NATO as participation in the NWO
required led Britain to a series of wars in the last quarter of a century or
so (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) for the sake of the transnational
elites interests and those of its members based in Britain. If we take into

account that during the same period, as a direct result of the opening and
liberalization of markets imposed by the NWO through the EU, the welfare
state has been systematically dismantled, while the flexibility of labor
introduced meant the effective abolition of full time jobs and their
replacement by part-time jobs, zero contract hours and so on, then it
becomes obvious that membership of the EU and of the NWO in general has
hardly helped the victims of globalization in Britain or anywhere else. No
wonder that on the average, according to the latest Eurostat data, well over
20 percent of EU citizens are at risk of poverty or social exclusion (in
Portugal this percentage is close to 30%, while in Greece it is close to 40%!).
[58] It is therefore clear that the question of Brexit is indeed a class issue,
although we have to re-define class to give it a broader sense than the
traditional Marxist sense, more appropriate to the globalization era, as I
tried to do elsewhere.[59]
Therefore, leaving EU and the NWO will indeed lead to isolation but only
if by this we mean isolation from the elites who rule the world today. It will
mean far from isolation as far as the vast majority of the world population
who are the victims of globalization. Indeed Brexit will be harmful to the
transnational elites and the British elites but it will be very beneficial to the
victims of globalization all over the world. In fact, a radical change in
Britain could function as the catalyst for the creation of a new democratic
order of sovereign nations, an aim also pursued by the Russian people and its
leadership, which, exactly for this reason, are subject to an unprecedented
attack by the TE that aims for yet another regime change, this time the
definitive regime change, which will determine the future of the present
NWO. However, in both the British and the Russian cases, unless the victims
of globalization unite and fight the economic elites and the associated
political and media elites, then the TE will come out of this Titanic conflict
victorious and the present criminal world order will be strengthened
perhaps through the formalization of the power of the TE as a global
leadership for many years to come. And it is a criminal world order since
its dominant characteristic is the economic and military violence, which
exercises over the vast majority of the world population.

7. A radical proposal for Brexit and beyond

The maximization of the positive effects of Brexit for the vast majority of
the population, who are the victims of globalization, are intrinsically linked
to a complete break with the NWO of neoliberal globalization, which would
lead to a real economic, as well as national sovereignty. Only this way the
peoples themselves, instead of the economic and political elites as at
present, will be able to take the fundamental economic decisions concerning
what, how and for whom to produce.
Under the present conditions, i.e. the formidable campaign of the elites
against Brexit and the despicable stand of the globalist Left, only the full

mobilization of a social movement fully conscious of its aims and the

strategies to achieve them would be able to succeed. The social subject in
this movement would be the victims of neoliberal globalization and the
consequent de-industrialization, i.e. the unemployed, involuntary parttimers, or casual employees and zero-hour contract workers on barely
survival wages and the likes. In other words, all those who often have
abstained from the electoral game all these years, as they found themselves
with no political representation in Westminster, following the effective
institutionalization of neoliberal policies imposed by the transnational
corporations controlling the economic policies of Thatcherites first, and then
the Blairites, Brownites and the likes, who still dominate the Labor party.
But it is not only the victims of economic violence exercised by the NWO,
through the opening and liberalization of markets (particularly the labor
markets) and of the opening of the borders, who are the victims of
globalization. Similar victims are in other countries those subjected to
military violence, through the aggressive policies of the TE (of which the UK
was a prominent member) against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
and now possibly even Russia. It is this combination of military and economic
violence, which has convinced the victims of globalization everywhere to
turn against the NWO of neoliberal globalization.
Such a full mobilization of the victims of globalization never took place in
the past, even on the occasion of the Scottish independence referendum.
Instead, there was a full mobilization of those who benefit from
globalization and the TEs aggressive policies. This is why the independence
movement was defeated, as the victims of globalization were never fully
mobilized by a movement, which was just a nationalist one. No wonder
today not only the Scottish nationalists but also the Welsh and Irish
nationalists (Sinn Fein) are against Brexit, playing exactly the game of the
establishment (i.e. the English elites as part of the TE) on this crucial
referendum. In other words, unless the victims of globalization in Scotland,
Ireland and Wales realize that no real political independence (i.e. political
sovereignty) can be materialized without economic independence and
sovereignty, they will continue to be the victims of globalization, either
under the British flag, or under their own national flags.
At the same time in England, not only a very significant part of the working
class (at work or not) but also part of the middle class as well, which is also
squeezed at present as a result of globalization, have realized that without
economic self-reliance, any political independence and self determination is
impossible in the era of neoliberal globalization. It is because of this real
danger that the elites and those benefiting from globalization face in the UK
that the TE has mobilized all its supporters in the country (the Labor Party,
most of the Conservative Party, the Liberals, the Greens, the Scots and the
Welsh nationalist parties) to avert any possibility of British exit from the EU.
But exit from the EU is, as I already stressed, only a necessary condition

(although not a sufficient one as well) for any political and economic
independence. In fact, the reason why Nigel Farages (UKIP) social policies
do not significantly differ from those of the Tories is exactly because he, like
Salmond (the leader of the Scottish nationalist party during the Scottish
referendum), represents much more the nationalist part of the bourgeoisie
rather than the victims of globalization as a whole. This, unlike the
economic program for instance of the National Front in France, which is
much more to the Left than Syrizas or Podemos Left! Yet, due to the very
fact that significant parts of the working class in Britain have moved to UKIP
lately, mainly because they bore the brunt of globalization (unemployment,
austerity policies, degradation of the welfare state and so on), one could
hope that this party will introduce more radical social policies in the future,
particularly if Brexit prevails in the referendum.
As far as the political subject of this movement is concerned, it is obvious
that only if the present informal front which fights for a Brexit is formalized
after Brexit into a Front for National and Social Liberation (FNSL) it could
achieve the required huge mobilization, so that the aim of national
sovereignty leads to self-reliance. Such a front can be achieved from
below or from above. The preferred option is of course the former, but in
case this becomes unfeasible because the level of political consciousness of
the victims of globalization and their will to fight is inadequate for this huge
task, then the only other possibility is for existing political forces to take
over the task of achieving sovereignty and self-reliance.
A FNSL from below could be organized from among local assemblies,
committees, groups and initiatives consisting of the victims of globalization
(namely, the vast majority of the population) who ought to join as ordinary
citizens, irrespective of party affiliations and ideologies or religious and
other differences, as long as they share the ultimate aim of national and
economic sovereignty. The intermediate target should be the break with all
the transnational economic and political institutions of the NWO such as
WTO, IMF and NATO, so that the victims of globalization could escape the
present process of economic catastrophe.
Initially, the political-economic framework within which these decisions will
be taken should be determined democratically by the people themselves,
within the framework of a strong democratic state. The aim would be at this
stage to impose adequate social controls on markets, so that society and
particularly labor, as well as the environment, are protected from them.
This is only feasible (as has always been the case in the past) at the national
level at which real sovereignty of a people is only possible. Needless to add
that the nation could consist of a confederation of communities bound
together by a common culture.
Then, at a later stage, the people could decide, through a definitive
referendum, the form that a future society would take, following a thorough

discussion, which, to be meaningful, presupposes a democratic control of

the media (e.g. by committees representing the main options under
discussion), instead of the present system of media control by the political
and economic elites. The main possible options to be discussed at this stage
could include the Inclusive Democracy project as I described it elsewhere,
which implies that productive resources will be communally owned and
controlled, so that an allocation of resources that transcends the limitations
of both the market mechanism and central planning could develop. An
alternative option might be a kind of a socialist planning based on social
ownership of resources, or even a social democratic model as it was
originally designed, rather than as it developed in the hands of social-liberal
crooks pretending to be social democrats.
Finally, once the people of a particular country have broken with the
present NWO of neoliberal globalization, which is based on economic and
military violence, they should join forces with peoples from other countries,
also fighting for the same aims, to form new political and economic unions
of sovereign Nations and the corresponding democratically-organized
international institutions. This will be a new international community of
sovereign and self-reliant nations based on the principle of mutual aid rather
than competitiveness the guiding principle behind the present criminal
NWO. As long as the member countries share complementary production
structures, the possibility of an involuntary transfer of economic surplus
from some countries (usually the weaker ones, as is the case in the EU) to
other countries in the Union can be ruled out. Therefore, a collective kind of
self-reliance could be achieved within the economic area covered by such a
union, which should be based on the sovereignty of each participating
country.
In other words, a FNSL would function as a catalyst for fundamental political
and economic change, which is the only kind of change that could get us out
of the current mire, while creating also the basis of a new true
internationalism based on the self-determination of each nation.

* This article was also published in Global Research on 8/4/2016. The

original source of this article is Global Research.
[1] The present analysis of the historical background is based on Takis
Fotopoulos, Towards An Inclusive Democracy (London/NY, Cassel/Continuum,
1997/98), ch. 2.
[2] See Takis Fotopoulos, Globalisation, the reformist Left and the AntiGlobalisation Movement, Democracy & Nature, vol.7, no.2 (July 2001).
[3] See e.g. the best-seller (heavily promoted by the TEs media), by Naomi
Klein, The Shock Doctrine (Penguin, 2007).
[4] P. Ceccini, The European Challenge (London, Wildwood House, 1988)
[5] See e.g. James Petras, Global Economic, Political and Military
Configurations, Global Research (8/3/2016). <>
[6] Y. Varoufakis, A Manifesto for democratising Europe (February 2016).
[7] Will Hutton, The State Were In (London, Jonathan Cape,1995), pp.315-16.
[8] Takis Fotopoulos, The myths about the economic crisis, the reformist Left and
economic democracy, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 4,
No. 4 (October 2008).
[9] George Monbiot, Im starting to hate the EU. But I will vote to stay in, The
Guardian (10/2/2016).
[10] Yanis Varoufakis, Why we must save the EU, The Guardian (5/4/2016).
[11] Definitive study reveals EU rules account for 65% of UK law, Business for
Britain (2/3/2015).
[12] Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, UK-EU: IN or OUT? There is no "no", English
Pravda.Ru (19/2/2016).
[13] Editorial, The Peoples Revolt, The Times (11/10/2014).
[14] John Collingridge, Sunset on steel: is there any hope for Tatas
workers?, The Sunday Times (3/4/2016).
[15] Larry Elliott, Britains low grade free-market model is bust, The
Guardian (4/4/2016).
[16] ibid.
[17] Takis Fotopoulos, The real causes of the catastrophic crisis in Greece and the
Left, Global Research (16/1/2014). & The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy, Vol. 9, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2013).
[18] Paul Mason, Can two leftwing gurus save Europe?, The Guardian (1/4/2016).
[19] Mark Dodd, The Guardian, 24/2/2016 (comment under the general heading,
Sovereignty, autonomy and Britains relationship with Europe)
[20] Yanis Varoufakis, The UK should Stay in the EU to Fight Tooth and Nail against
the EUs Anti-democratic Institutions, Global Research(22/2/2016).
[21] Chomsky, according to Murray Bookchin, the doyen of post-war anarchism, has
very little, if any, relation to anarchism; see Murray Bookchins interview in Janet
Biehls The Politics of Social Ecology (Black Rose Books, 1998), pp.148-149.
[22] Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation (Beacon Press, 1944), chs 5-6.
[23] French, Germans & Italians overwhelmingly in favor of abandoning borderfree Europe poll, RT (7/4/2016).

[24] Takis Fotopoulos, The New World Order in Action: Middle East, Greece,
Ukraine. Towards a Democratic Community of Sovereign Nations, ch 18.
[25] Andreas Bieler, Norway: What Future for Social Democracy?, Global
Research (11/10/2013). <>
[26] Patrick Wintour Rajeev Syal, British EU exit could spark domino
effect, The Guardian (7/3/2016).
[27] George Parker, Brexit could destabilise Europe amid populist upsurge and
damage UKs biggest export market, Financial Times(18/2/2016).
[28] Xi Jinping urges Britain to stay in EU as ballast to US market dominance, RT
(23/10/2015). <>
[29] ibid
[30] see Takis Fotopoulos, Russia, the Eurasian Union and the Transnational
Elite, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2
(Winter-Summer 2014).
[31] BBC, EU vote: Where the cabinet and other MPs stand, BBC
News (24/3/2016).
[32] EU referendum: 250 business leaders sign up as backers of Vote Leave, The
Guardian (26/3/2016).
[33] Chris Giles and Emily Cadman, Carney supports Camerons deal with
Brussels, Financial Times, 9/3/2016
[34] ibid.
[35] Prof Michel Chossudovsky Who Controls the Central Banks? Mark Carney,
Governor of the Bank of Goldman Sachs, Global Research(9/3/2016).
[36] Jim Pickard and Laura Noonan, Boris Johnson hits out at pro-EU stance of
City, Financial Times (6/3/2016).
[37] Phillip Inman, Brexit could trigger credit threat for UK firms, The
Guardian (22/3/2016).
[38] Patrick Jenkins, Brexit is the last thing City banks need, Financial
Times (22/2/2016).
[39]See the report by Anushka Asthana and Heather Stewart on this interference by
a German multinational, Rolls-Royce warns its staff of Brexit risks, The
Guardian (3/3/2016).
[40] ibid.
[41] BBC News, EU referendum: PM 'makes no apology' for 9m EU leaflets, BBC
(7/4/2016).
[42] Steven MacMillan, BBC Bias, Brexit, the EU, Bilderberg and Global
Government, Global Research (6/4/2016).
[43] Owen Jones, To leave the EU over Isis would be a victory for terror, The
Guardian (25/3/2016).
[44] Gideon Rachman, And now for a world government, Financial
Times (8/12/2008).
[45] Gideon Rachman, Brexit is no way out of a Europe in crisis, Financial
Times (1/2/2016).
[46] Takis Fotopoulos, New World Order and NATOs war against Yugoslavia, New
Political Science, vol. 24, no.1 (March 2002), pp. 73-104.
[47] Editorial, Dutch Torpor, The Times (7/4/2016).
[48] . Takis Fotopoulos, The New World Order In Action: Middle East, Greece,
Ukraine. Towards a Democratic Community of Sovereign Nations.
[49] Alex Forsyth Analysis on Netherlands rejects EU-Ukraine partnership deal,
BBC News (7/4/2016).

[50] Bruno Waterfield, Boost for Brexit campaign as Dutch voters reject EU
deal, The Times (7/4/2016).
[51] US government, Soros funded Panama Papers to attack Putin WikiLeaks, RT
(6/4/2016). <>
[52] Jack Losh, Ukraine clashes shatter ceasefire, The Times (6/4/2016).
[53] Cf. Bruno Waterfield, Boost for Brexit campaign as Dutch voters reject EU
deal
[54] Mick Cash et al, EU is now a profoundly anti-democratic institution, The
Guardian (17/2/2016).
[55] Sally Campbell, The bosses Europe is not for us, Socialist Review (March
2016). <>
[56]Jean Bricmont, Trump and the Liberal Intelligentsia: a view from
Europe, Counterpunch (30/3/2016). <>
[57] See for instance Larry Elliott, How free trade became the hot topic vexing
voters and politicians in Europe and the US, The Guardian(28/3/2016).
[58] Valentina Romei, Over 71 per cent of non-EU citizens in Belgium are at risk of
poverty, Financial Times (23/3/2016).
[59] Takis Fotopoulos, Class Divisions Today: The Inclusive Democracy
approach, Democracy & Nature, vol.6, no.2 (July 2000).

source: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol12/vol12_no1_
%20Brexit_Globalization_Bankruptcy_Globalist_Left.html
The International Journal of Inclusive
Democracy: http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/