Bernie Quigley: ‘Obama’s Brexit Hypocrisy Squanders ‘Anglosphere’ Moment A new U.S. president might see a chance to engage the world with fresh thinking’? A comment by Political Reporter

Mr. Quigley doesn’t quite write his essay, but stitches it together not with the aid of Mr. Stephens’ opinion pieces, but lets Mr. Stephens do the actual work. Stephens  and his fellow pundits are following the Financial Times Party Line of The Rebellion Against the Elites, it has been the rallying cry of those respectable Neo-Liberals for sometime. It is endlessly repeated, in its various iterations, as if it were  axiomatically true. That line of argument has become shopworn. Mr. Stephens does not represent a kind of political wisdom!

For an almost alternative view of the Brexiteers see Linda Colley’s essay at the FT:

The headline and sub-headline give the game away:

Brexiters are nostalgics in search of a lost empire.

It would be folly for Britain to leave the EU but national pride runs deep, writes Linda Colley

But read the  well written and argued essay as another iteration of that Rebellion posed as a political irrationalism of ‘nostalgia for a lost Empire’ . Ms. Colley is a more adept and fluent writer of Capitalist Apologetics in its Neo-Liberal incarnation. In the political world inhabited by Stephens, Colley, and most assuredly Obama, there can be no credible critique of the EU, a cartel with the thinnest veneer of democracy, or the looming victory of the Corporatism of the TPP and TTIP. Another headline/sub-headline from the FT is exemplary of the Obama position:

Obama gives powerful warning against Brexit

Barack Obama has delivered a stinging rebuke to supporters of a British exit from the EU, saying that if the UK left the 28-member bloc it would go “to the back of the queue” in seeking a trade deal with Washington.

Standing alongside David Cameron in Downing Street, the US president delivered a clear warning that Britain would be less secure, less influential and less prosperous if it votes to leave the EU on June 23.

Challenging Brexit campaigners who had told the US president to stay out of the debate, Mr Obama said: “I’ve not come here to fix a vote, I’m offering my opinion. You should not be afraid to hear an argument being made.”

 Or this bit of Neo-Liberal fear mongering from Obama:

Obama tells young British adults to reject isolationism and cynicism

Barack Obama has told an audience of young British adults to reject pessimism, isolationism and cynicism in what might be seen as a coded call to vote in the forthcoming EU referendum.

“I’m here to implore you to reject the instinct to pull back,” the US president told a town hall-style meeting in London.

 But read Mr. Johnson’s telling judgement of the EU, quoted at length by Quigley :

“This project is a million miles away from the Common Market that we signed up for in 1973,” Mr. Johnson wrote. “It is deeply anti-democratic—and much as I admire the United States, and much as I respect the President, I believe he must admit that his country would not dream of embroiling itself in anything of the kind. The U.S. guards its democracy with more hysterical jealousy than any other country on earth.” Mr. Johnson added: “For the United States to tell us in the U.K. that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy, it is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do.”

Cameron lacked the political integrity and acuity to make the referendum about a reformation of the EU, by making ‘staying’ conditional on convening a democratically elected  European Constitutional Convention. Whose charge would be to remake the EU  into an actual democracy.

Could the ‘fresh thinking’ advocated by Mr. Quigley be a sub rosa advocacy for a Trump presidency?

Political Reporter

Obama’s Brexit Hypocrisy Squanders ‘Anglosphere’ Moment


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.