…and beyond: What could come next.
I was struck by the irony of the president threatening the nation against which we won a war for independence, and who used to be our strongest ally, to prevent them from declaring independence.
[Update a while later]
Why does Obama’s White House hate the UK?
I think there’s a lot to Dinesh D’Souza’s theory that it’s about Obama senior’s anti-colonialism.
There’s irony in Obama’s doing something stupid and malicious?
Being stupid and malicious doesn’t preclude it also being ironic.
BTW, OT, but there’s a possibility that we’ll be in south FL in May. Not looking forward to it, but we really have to unload the house.
It just shows how beholden Obama is to Goldman Sachs and the big banks. GS will lose big with a Brexit.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-14/guess-which-major-bank-loses-most-brexit
I think we should encourage the best part of “Europe” to leave the European union and join with the U.S..
UK is a good start and after that we should encourage France to leave. Yes, we want France in our “United Union” — their engineers are really good, and I have reason to know about this. And there is that nuclear power plant thing and their high-speed trains — all good.
If we “get” Britain and France, it is only natural to add Canada, both the English and French parts.
I think we should “get” Poland, Czech, and Hungary, while we are at it. Not so sure about Germany, though. I think we can leave them with Austria, Spain, Italy, Croatia, and Greece! Yes, Germany gets to keep Greece.
I don’t know, and if you are serious it would get my conservative’s best dubious distrust of a new idea, but I agree that somebody else gets to keep Greece. If push comes to shove, we’ll take Iceland in trade (wouldn’t be the first time after all) for strategic reasons.
The EU’s sole reason for being is to be a check on American power and prestige.
Little wonder Barak is against anything that might jeopardize it.
I was struck by the irony of the president threatening the nation against which we won a war for independence, and who used to be our strongest ally, to prevent them from declaring independence.
I’m struck by the irony of people who, in one short post, pivot so quickly from exalting the glorious memory of our anti-colonial war for independence to accusing Obama of a sinister anti-colonial outlook.
Obama thinks the U.S., U.K. and Europe are all better off with U.K. in the EU. No dime-store psychoanalysis necessary.
I’m struck by the irony of people who, in one short post, pivot so quickly from exalting the glorious memory of our anti-colonial war for independence to accusing Obama of a sinister anti-colonial outlook.
This is hardly the only evidence for it.
For a guy who didn’t want a Churchill bust, he suddenly “cares” about Britain’s fate?
Bingo!
(extra drivel to make comment long enough)
Yeah, he preferred having a bust of MLK Jr. in his office to one of Churchill. And that’s supposed to prove he doesn’t care about Britain?
Sure, just handing back gifts to our best friends is always a good idea.
Isn’t it curious how no one is talking about Obama interfering in other countries voting processes? It wasn’t so long ago when Obama and the Democrats said this type of behavior was the worst thing ever. Even contemplating it was a think beyond the pale and maybe even racist.
Of course, at the same time the Obama administration was running a clandestine campaign against the sitting Israeli government so it was hypocritical then but also now.
Good point on the finer points of when it’s acceptable to be anticolonial. For a lot of people, the time was the 1700’s and they don’t harbor a grudge, even if they do remember history. For other people, there is a grudge and it requires modern day punishment. This might surprise some Democrats but ethnographic hatred doesn’t have to span centuries.
Yeah thats pretty shocking. Maybe we should have done it the old fashioned way: invade the country, kill its leaders and install our allies in comtrol.
Wait we tried that under the Republicans. How did that work out? Not real well.
I’m a little unclear, here, on exactly what country we are supposed to invade as art of your Modest Proposal. Great Britain? One or more of our other allies? Oddly, Barack Obama would probably be easier to persuade on the Great Britain thing than he’s been on the ISIS thing.
As for the general efficacy of doing things “the old-fashioned way,” it worked pretty well with Germany and Japan. But, unlike in the case of our more recent involvements, we stuck around afterward in both those places and ran them ourselves for a decade before handing them back to their native populations.
A lesson there for whomever cares to profit from it. Barack Obama will not be among that number. Neither, sadly, are any of the people of either party now running to replace him.
Is it really a good idea to invade allies. Is it even a good idea to try regime change through other means with allies?
There is a real hypocrisy angle here if you followed the souring of the relationship between Obama and Israel.
I though Democrats whole deal was that USA meddling in the affairs of other countries was our greatest sin? Unless its in Libya, Israel, or the UK…
“Obama thinks the U.S., U.K. and Europe are all better off with U.K. in the EU.” You made that up. Anyhow, I don’t know where you got it from. He likes the idea of the EU, so he wants it supported. It has nothing to do with anyone at all being better off.
A strong united Europe to serve as ally to the US has been the mainstay of American policy since Eisenhower was president. Why dont you look that up instead of accusing others of making things up?
You dont have to agree with that position but dont go blaming the policy on Obama.
A Europe at peace with itself that cooperates with other European countries doesn’t have to mean a European Union, especially one so divergent from our own views on governance, separation of powers, and accountability.
A strong united Europe to serve as ally to the US has been the mainstay of American policy since Eisenhower was president.
Yes, and without the EU.
I think it’s really time to think about an Anglosphere trading union. It’s not really about the language. The real thing that binds this group of countries is the emphasis on rule of law and that its fundamental basis is English Common Law. The key point is that this establishes rights of individuals (as opposed to the collective), which includes the right to hold property.
It’s no accident that most of the wealth of the world has been created by the Anglosphere. It would be like the Commonwealth with a few additions (USA + Ireland + Israel?) and some notable deletions. I would recommend that any country that embraced sharia would be fundamentally at odds with the spirit of the enterprise.
When you really look at the world, the oldest continuously self governing countries in the world that have not had major upheavals are all in the Anglosphere with the notable exceptions of Iceland and the Vatican. Compared to France (last “revolution” in the 1950s), Australia and Canada are positively ancient!
I also find it funny that a group of foreigners (however friendly and reliable, and they are) who applauded and urged (in the whole, or so we were told) the election (if not apotheosis) of BHO are appalled at his meddling in their own internal affairs.
😀
(more drivel to make comment long enough)
I think you’ll find that, with a few exceptions, those of us who are appalled at this were just as appalled at his election. His cheerleaders on this side of the Atlantic are still cheering. The scheduling of the referendum (which is awkward, since the campaign unnecessarily overlaps those of the Scottish, Welsh, and London elections) was no coincidence. They wanted him to stick his oar in.
I think there’s a lot to Dinesh D’Souza’s theory that it’s about Obama senior’s anti-colonialism.
Absent the ill influences of his father and other family members, Obama would likely have the same world view. His family might have acted like a gateway drug but the heavy lifting was done by the cultural marxists of critical theory and the aging socialist hippies that he encountered in formative academic years.
D’Souza’s second movie did a decent job on this point.
Oh, good grief. Anti-colonialism?
Here’s a much simpler answer. The U.S. sees the EU as an ally. It sees the EU as being a stronger ally with Britain in it. If Britain leaves the EU, it could result in other nations leaving as the union is increasingly dominated by an increasingly unpopular Germany. A weakened EU would not be in America’s best interest at a time when Russia is flexing its muscles.
This is very simple. Not a whole lot of additional analysis required.
Yes, anti-colonialism. Despite the name they have given themselves, “progressives” are not about progress, they’re about nostalgia. The blind hatred of automobiles, the bitter clinging to 19th-century mass transit modes, the constant romantic harkings back to the labor movement of the 1930’s and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, the idealization of Scandanavian “socialism” – which reached its high water mark sometime in the early 1960’s – and, yes, the anti-colonial period in Africa of the 1950’s and 60’s.
As to the European Union, it is weak regardless of the U.K.’s membership status. This is so because, to a greater and greater extent, it lacks Lockean legitimacy – i.e., the consent of the governed. The June 23 referendum in the U.K. will simply demonstrate this, unequivocally, within the territory of its largest constituent state.
Obama’s efforts on the EU’s behalf have been, as is utterly typical for him, both stupid and counterproductive. Someone once remarked that the only thing Obama has evidenced a genius for is finding the “sour spot” in any situation – the worst possible outcome. He has, for example, famously managed to get every side of every homicidal dispute in the Middle East united only in their loathing and disdain for him. After this latest bit of ham-fisted dimwittery in the U.K., I think Obama may be single-handedly responsible for raising the “Leave” margin of victory by at least five full percentage points.
“A weakened EU would not be in America’s best interest.”
You think Bambi has our best interest at heart?
What color is the sky on your planet?
Great response there, Barbara. You really know how to maater complex political arguments.
“The U.S. sees the EU as an ally. It sees the EU as being a stronger ally with Britain in it…” As I said above, this is all imaginary. “The U.S.” doesn’t see EU as an ally, leftists do. They support it because it is on their side in their struggle against traditional values. England is trying to move away from that side; leftists are trying to stop it.
Russia has nothing to do with this, and the United States has or should have little reason to take sides there.
You dont have to agree with this view. My point is the view exists andbeen a mainstay of US policy since Eisenhower who envisioned a United States of Europe.
The point is that ascribing anti colonialism on the part of Obama in this case is psychobabble BS.
Yes, but the EU has only been around since 1993. We want Europe as our allies and that doesn’t have to happen through only the EU.
There are a lot of problems with how the EU governs, why can’t member states decide whether or not they want to belong?
Besides the Cold War is over. Russia hasn’t been a problem since the 1980’s, if it ever was. The Red Scare was just a tactic in the strategy of fear based politics and to marginalize socialists in the USA.
The U.S. sees the EU as an ally. It sees the EU as being a stronger ally with Britain in it. If Britain leaves the EU, it could result in other nations leaving as the union is increasingly dominated by an increasingly unpopular Germany. A weakened EU would not be in America’s best interest at a time when Russia is flexing its muscles.
The Russian “muscle” that you’re worried about is her military, the EU is not a military alliance, the alliance to oppose a Russian military threat is NATO, which will remain, and if the NATO member nations are economically stronger through derailing the Brussels gravy train NATO will be better off.
There is a divide and conquer approach in Putin’s treatment of Europe. You see that in neo authoritarian states like Hungary. Is it better to have Britain in the EU to counteract than outside it? Thats the question.
The EU has strenghs orher than military power. A weaker and divided EU wouldbe lessof a counter weight.
What non-military strengths would those be, exactly? I don’t see any.
Russia is certainly trying to nibble away at Europe again, but the central pillars of the EU on the Continent, France and Germany, seem very disinclined to draw any lines or even express much in the way of pro forma concern. Of course the Germans buy a lot of gas from Russia and they need it more than ever now that they’ve done as their Greens demanded and third-world-ized their power grid with a lot of high-priced and unreliable wind and solar projects.
In truth, the only parts of Europe actually willing to do anything about Russia are their former client states in the ex-Warsaw Pact. The United States simply needs to close down its major military facilities in Germany, Belgium and the rest of the squishy states and move everything into Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and wherever else the locals would like us to show up. We didn’t apologize for leading a defense alliance that nosed its tanks right up to the Warsaw Pact border during Cold War times. If Russia wants to play hardball again, we should respond as we did then and for the same reasons.
Economic power? Do i really have to explain that to this group?
The EU isn’t particularly interested in using its economic power against Russia. How many countries does Russia have to invade before the EU shows its strength?
The EU has hardly been a boon to aggregate European economic power. Excluding the U.K., the performance of the major European economies, and most of the minor ones for that matter, has been pretty dismal since the EU’s formation. The Euro has been a non-trivial contributing factor to this in many cases. European unemployment rates have been consistently higher than those in the U.S., even during Great Depression 2.0, the Obama Years. If it wasn’t for the fact that European populations are also shrinking, the unemployment would be even worse.
The rate of company formation in most of Europe – again, excepting the U.K. – has been miserable. Most Western European nations already had a lot of statist barriers to enterprise formation before the EU. Since the EU’s formation, the EU itself has piled on an additional shoal of obstacles would be entrepreneurs must traverse. This has not, to put it mildly, been helpful.
And, as I already noted, Germany has been on a bit of an ideology-driven self-destruction kick where its energy infrastructure is concerned. This has resulted in, among other things, Russia gaining even greater economic leverage over the Germans than they already had.
So, no, you cannot rationally defend the EU by using its allegedly tonic effect on European economic power as an argument. The reality is that the EU has frequently harmed European economic power and, in no case of which I am aware, can it be shown to have improved it.
increasingly dominated by an increasingly unpopular Germany.
Why is Germany unpopular?
You clearly missed the Merkel as Hitler drawings thatcropped up in Greece andelsewhere during the financial crisis rhat hit Europe. The balance between Germany and France that lay at heart of EU stability is badly frayed. Without Britain to balance things out the EU could go into a death spiral.
Profligate wastrels are always inclined toward strong resentment of whomever it is who finally cuts off the “free” money. The reason the EU is fundamentally unstable is its inclusion of nations with fundamentally different cultural and historical outlooks on matters like paying one’s debts. The “financial crisis that hit Europe” was not some natural disaster that struck out of the blue, it was entirely man-made, by the Leviathan uberstate in Brussels and it had been gathering steam for decades. The old Common Market was a fundamentally good idea. The EU was the left’s way of leveraging a free market success into a bloated, dysfunctional statist failure, i.e., another typical leftist project. The EU and the Euro have both been egregious failures. At least the Brits had the good sense to have nothing to do with the latter and are now about to correct their lapse in judgement in getting involved with the former.
Economic power? Do i really have to explain that to this group?
The euro was a monumental error. I dont see the EU in the same way.
With the current invasion ongoing, open borders is starting to look like a very bad idea for places like Austria and Sweden (and to many Germans as well).
So Germany is unpopular because of the Greek bailout. They are also unpopular for the migratory invasion of Europe.
They are unpopular because they support the decisions of the EU and the global leftists, including Obama.
Do the people in the individual countries have much of a say in how Brussels runs things? Nope. People are not happy with how the EU is operating, how it governs, and with the way it is structured.
I don’t see why countries should be forced to stay in an organization that doesn’t represent the people or is unaccountable to voters.
Maybe Obama should be putting pressure on the EU to reform itself so that countries want to be in it. He thinks ISIS in Iraq is a problem of political representation that can be solved by concessions in Baghdad and not military action, yes we all know this is stupid. But why not use diplomacy to enact reform in places where it would actually make a difference?
Why are we to suppose that the EU is valuable to the US as is? The EU has a number of problems associated with it that should give us pause such as its undemocratic institutions (eg, bullying of smaller states like Iceland, Greece, and Cyprus), its remarkably sluggish and infectious bureaucracies (forcing much of global industry to adopt pointless ISO standards on business process), and its grotesque mishandling of economic matters. I think much of this could be fixed either by a hard reset or by a chastened EU willing to court the UK on better terms.
I agree with the Brexit and Beyond article, and think the UK “at the back of the queue” argument is just silly, The US and EU couldn’t organize a true free trade agreement between them – ever, the Brits would get one sorted eventually, though even they’d take a decade.
Interesting that all the CANZUK countries are all in the top ten in the Economic Freedom Index, with the US now at 11, Ireland is 8th, Singapore 2nd.
Anyway, getting out of Europe would certainly open up the opportunities for Britain to get herself partnered up in true free trade agreements with a huge number of countries, both inside and outside the Commonwealth.
And the US was number 5 in 2008.
What a surprise. This shows the democrats are all about stifling of economic liberty for (name your poison: equality, fairness, social justice, ad nauseum.)
The United States simply needs to close down its major military facilities in Germany, Belgium and the rest of the squishy states and move everything into Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and wherever else the locals would like us to show up.
Big picture is for all to take national responsibility for their own defense, but keeping in mind this would be a gradual process for weaker nations. An aggressor should not just have to calculate American involvement, but have to deal with real local strength as well.
I think it’s obscene how we lead Georgia to believe we had their back, then pretty much abandoned them to Russian aggression and propaganda.
I thought when Russia went into Ukraine we should have immediately strengthened Poland, but I was wrong in thinking the Ukraine lost. They’ve shown the backbone to defend themselves and we should be supporting them more.
Ultimately, every country should be able to defend itself with some provision for emergency relief like lend lease in WW2.
I don’t disagree with any of that. The Eastern Europeans are quite willing to step up to the bar in their own defense. But none of these nations is equipped to wrestle Russia on its own or even in combination unless America actually has their back. The Obama administration has definitely not had anyone’s back, but he’ll be gone in a few months and there is some hope for a successor with a better grasp of geopolitical realities. NATO has always been a coalition of the willing. We need to base in Eastern Europe so we can train and maneuver with the various local armed forces and get them interoperable with us.