BREXIT: Cameron Announces Resignation As Brits Reject Obama’s Dire Warnings

England flagPrime Minister David Cameron has stated that he will step down after the historic vote yesterday for the UK voted to leave the European Union.  It is a blow for President Barack Obama who put everything on the line to push the British to stay in the EU, including seriously overplaying his hand (and role) in issuing dire warnings to the British people as did other world leaders. The warnings backfired and only reaffirmed the feeling that there is now a world order that will not tolerate traditional democratic controls over national policies and practices.

Boris Johnson is likely to be the next prime minister and heralded the ability of of Britain to now pass its own laws, set its own taxes and control its own borders.

I could see both sides of this argument.  I have long been uncomfortable with the shifting of governance powers to international organizations like the EU which are not subject to the same democratic pressures as a national government.  The proponents scored huge points by pointing out that few people could even name the top officials in the EU.

ClsGpOlVEAAfAe1I thought that President Obama was overbearing in his intervention in the debate, warnings that seemed to only harden the resolve of the independence movement.  I can see the economic benefits of being part of the EU, though it would seem clear that close trade would necessarily have to continue.  The Brits wanted control over their own laws and I am highly sympathetic to that desire.  EU countries are subject to edicts that seem to come from no where on everything from cheese preparation to taxes.  People felt that they no longer had a direct say on who was writing their laws and who was really leading their country.  Neither Cameron nor Obama seemed to get the movement.  They also continued to miss (as do the Democrats in this country) the strong sentiments over immigration.

What do you think?




126 thoughts on “BREXIT: Cameron Announces Resignation As Brits Reject Obama’s Dire Warnings”

  1. The Democrats need the Republicans and the Republicans need the Democrats. But they don’t need anyone else!

  2. Autumn…..IMO, if Dr.Stein has been unable to get much support in her own district, and her own state, it
    indicates that she’d likely be a very weak national candidate.
    For most of American history, most serious candidates had previous histories of winning earlier elections, often starting at the local or state level.
    And they usually had some experience in governing….often, many years of that experience.
    By the time they were candidates for president, they had a national profile, national name recognition.
    Recognition which had been established in the “lesser” offices they’d held.
    I think 1976 was the beginning of a trend where, post-Watergate, voters said they desired “outsiders”.
    An obscure governor with limited political and governing experience (Carter) won.
    In subsequent years, Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and others have fit that “outsider” profile to at least some degree.
    Trump’s casinos and reality show, and Ross Perot’s “crazy aunt in the attic” put them, nearly overnight, into the political limelight.
    People “want outsiders”, they got ’em. You can compare the pre-1976 resumes of the major candidates v. subsequent candidates, and there’s a big
    In Dr. Stein’s case, I think she’s handicapped by lopsided defeats in previous elections.
    And she doesn’t own casinos, or have a reality TV show, so those are addition handicaps.
    Her struggles to gain ballot access are, I think, largely a result of her inabilty to establish herself as a viable candidate even locally.
    There’s no real base of support, no real “launchpad” that advances her beyond the lost Massechusetts elections.
    Absent that base, or her name on the casinos, I don’t think she can capitalize on her outsider status.

    1. tnash wrties, “[Stein’s] struggles to gain ballot access are, I think, largely a result of her inabilty to establish herself as a viable candidate even locally.”

      Here struggles are due to her position outside the Establishment and not being a capiltalist. In other words, it’s money in a country that believes it is voice.

      1. Steve……to some degree, this is a “chicken/egg” problem.
        You can’t get the campaign funds without recognition, and you can’t get the recognition without the funds.
        What I think a political outsider CAN do is build a local/ statewide base by winning, or finishing strong, in an election.
        In numerous attempts, Dr.Stein has lost elections by huge margins.
        Dr. Stein and her husband are both fairly prominent MDs. With an annual income of $300,000+ based on the one tax return she did make public in 2009, I’d say that they are affluent.
        It’s likely that they have long-term associations with similarly affluent, well-connected collegues.
        What she does not have is success in any previous elections.
        I don’t think it’s realistic to expect campaign contribution for a presidential run when there’s a history of losing badly at small-ball.
        Her lack of funding, which you cited as a major roadblock to ballot access, is a result of her previous failures to gain any traction in MA elections.
        If I couldn’t manage to get elected to a state legislature, I would not have high expectations in a presidential election.
        Nor could I reasonably expect much in the way of campaign contributions for a presidential campaign.

  3. @tnash80hoI I appeciae very much your insights on Jill Stein – I may as well out myself as a Gen Xer who only became seriously involved through this primary – you stated she did’nt carry her home state? And how would that affect her in the GE? I have gone to the Johson platform and am not on board for the future of my niece and nephews and otherslll the way forward is Bernie/Stein, Bernie/Gabbard, Stein/BERNIE

  4. Oh wow – the proverbial Sh*& it hitting the fan as a second referendum is being evaluated. Right now on The Guardian’s site over 23,000 comments!

  5. @tnash80hotmailcom

    Maybe I should have qualified my statement – in that legitimate candidates should be given a voice – those who have an actual platform and have a certain number of supporters. Otherwise we might have “uncle Joe-Bob” or “Auntie Stella” who simply want attention.

    1. Autumn…..Weld/Johnson have a real shot at meeting the thresholds to be included in debates.
      The fact that they won gubernatorial races in their states, and are likely to be on the ballot in all 50, indicates that they might get
      a meaningful % of the popular vote.
      I don’t see their candidacy affecting the ultimate outcome, but 2016 could be “their year” as far as going well beyond a c.1% showing.
      By contrast, Dr. Stein has been repeatedly, and badly, defeated in virtually every campaign in her home state.
      It’s possible that she’ll get some leftover Bernie supporters, but I think her past election results show that she’s got bigger problems than a “2-Party stacked deck”.
      My comments here are about what I perceive to be political realities, and not an indication of who I might support.
      I was mostly joking about paying to see all 1500-2000 candidates being given equal time, and I knew you were not suggesting that.
      But if a declared candidate has historically blown out of the water multiple times in her home state, I can’t see that she meets a reasonable threshold of support to expect inclusion in debates, etc.

  6. “..if things were fair, then all candidates would be given equal time”.
    Autumn ( and Steve) there are between 1500 and 2000 registered (FEC) 2016 presidential candidates.
    But I still find myself in basic agreement with Autumn’s statement…..I would pay to see a campaign where 1500-2000 candidates are all given equal time in debates, for interviews, etc.

  7. I used to listen to Nominally Public Radio for news but became so irritated this last year with their bias now I only listen to their marvelous features – World Music Cafe, Car Talk, This American Life, Terry Gross, Walter Edgars, etc. I do not watch TV either. I skim the headlines on Google and pull up clips that may be of interest. I do watch Democracy Now sometimes and – their bias is obvious – Putin’s answer to Voice of America – but it’s easy to spot and I like the fact when they do interviews it’s not about the interviewer rather the subject matter presented by the interviewee(s). Thom Hartman being an annoying exception. The Young Turks has some good coverage too – Cenk’s fame has gone to his head, but Ana, John, Jimmy and Jordan keep it real. Also, I listen to BBC4 and some German news sources.

    I think that’s where a lot of us are – thanks to the internet we have so many more options – and people who rely on the mainstream media steered by corporate interests are unaware that millions are in a parallel universe. I see it as MSM being the tip of the iceberg – very visible and the people who get their information from alternate sources make up a large invisible portion. I don’t know of anyone under 40 who watches TV anymore except for SNL, Jimmy Fallon, Bill Maher, John Oliver, etc. clips on YouTube. That’s probably why Jimmy Fallon had to have Obama on there slow talking the news shillin’ for the TPP. That was pathetic – nothing against Jimmy – I understand that ABC is under the Walt Disney umbrella and they are the bosses.

    I try to make sure I am not creating my own little bubble so I also read/watch stuff from Right Wing / Libertarian sites. Lets me know what other people think and often I learn things.

    And being able to comment is valuable – to share one’s opinions, read other people’s opinions and engage respectfully. It’s like a virtual town hall space now that we don’t meet for discussion at our local diners.


  8. Steve,
    I agree — if things were fair than all candidates would be given equal time – exposure so the public knows about them and can make up their minds accordingly. But this primary season in particular has exposed the venal corporate slanted side of the MSM. I only read the NY Times, Guardian, etc. now just to see what their preferred POV is. And forget the WashPost – it is a joke.

    And the fact that Jill Stein (like Nader) can be blocked from debating — why are debates held on corporate owned media
    sites anyway? Shouldn’t they be on PBS (although given their problems with Jon Ralston’s totally false reporting on the chair throwing incident in Vegas during the caucus which never happened maybe we cannot trust them either!

    When the January DNC debate was held in Charleston I went to a rally and was surrounded by a contingent of young, hip blacks. I was shocked as most blacks I know here are all about Clinton. When I asked “why are y’all feelin’ the Bern” they said “because we found out about him” So if they knew about Jill Stein I surmise that she would have a much higher level of support.

    Also, Will and Mike just posted their take on Brexit:

    1. NPR, rather than PBS, is where I normally get the day’s first information blast while I’m out exercising my dog. I don’t watch normal TV anymore, so if I don’t see it on YouTube, I don’t see it. (I know, a sad statement). I assume PBS has gone the same route as NPR by highlighting Clinton’s lead, Hillary this, Hillary that, the incredulity of Bernie’s refusal to roll over even though Clinton does not have the delegate-count threshold satisfied yet, and a near complete failure to address voting irregularities. It’s certainly a neo-lib-directed message. Radio-free USA at its finest.

      As for Brexit, I think it was better to work for economic change from within the EU. Nobody has said it yet, but I think, rather than cooperating under a federalized partnership, pitting the UK (and its tag team partner, USA) against the FRG in a flawed economic system that requires growth and new resources to sustain itself is a mistake. It means a continued capitalist war economy. Iran may be the excuse, but it won’t be the catalyst for WWIII.

  9. Steve….what are the barriers to getting on the ballot in the other 30 states?
    I recently checked the state-by-state number of signatures required to get on the ballots….in most cases, the required numbers are surprizingly low.
    Time/ filing deadlines are another requirement, and vary from state to state.
    So proper filing and notification that one intends to be a presidential candidate is required, (to varying degrees) in advance.
    Overall, ballot access looks relatively easy in most states. Do you know of additional, more onerous requirements blocking ballot access?

  10. Steve,

    To be sure the complexities of the fallout from Brexit IMO will yet be revealed. Just read an article on the sociology of Brexit ( which seems to indicate the “rubes” thought they were voting in their best interests, but nothing will improve for them and then I hear of Farage/Johnson back pedaling on NHS funding which surely drew many elderly voters.

    I guess from my POV having spent a major portion of my life in what was then West Germany (with the Iron Curtain firmly intact) I have viewed the EU as an authoritative body with great suspicion. I grew up in Germany and traveled often and rather enjoyed the fact that each country was distinctive and had its own way of doing business – some places I found to be inefficient and irritating but it was up to me to adjust to their culture or move on. I was in favor of the EU as far as peaceful relations and economic trade but when a common currency was created which increased daily expenses for citizens and the bureaucrats in Brussels started to interfere with states regulations – one example – mozzarella cheese –imposing their standardization norms for bella Italia which arguably has some of the finest cuisine on the continent! There was also the matter of buying politicians – it is easier to buy the pols in Brussels than having to approach the various party members in each separate state.

    It is very complicated…and can be harnessed by the far Right or far Left with the citizens somewhere in between trying to figure out their best longterm interests

    1. Autumn, I just read the Will Davies “Thoughts” article. Lots in it and I like his writing. Of that which I understood, the fact-finding given over to sentiment-checking leading up to the referendum, rang true as did his last section regarding the UK being the best off of all the EU members who’d be much more justified in exiting.

      Thanks for sharing it. I like the site, too.

  11. Steve,

    Out of curiosity I checked to see if Jill is on my state’s ballot (SC) — and much to my astonishment she is! She is not on the ballot in AK, AL, CT, DE, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, OK, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WY. I am going to ask my “peeps” who live in TN, NV and KY to get involved to get her on their state ballots.

    Latest on the DNC – they have refused major parts of Bernie’s progressive platform which I am hoping will allow (push him?) to join Jill and run with the Green Party…

    1. Autumn, that’s good news that Jill’s on the ballot in So. Carolina. I can’t believe how difficult it is to get on the ballot in the other 30. Apparently, her main focus is the Illinois deadline for signatures in two days.

      Just think if she’d had media coverage in a fashion similar to the two major blowhards.

    2. Autumn, thanks for the link to the article about the DNC rejecting Sanders’ advisors’ proposals. Cornell West walks the walk:

      “If we can’t say a word about TPP, if we can’t talk about Medicare-for-All explicitly, if they [sic] greatest prophetic voice dealing with pending ecologically catastrophe can hardly win a vote, and if we can’t even acknowledge occupation… it seems there is no way in good conscience I can say, ‘Take it to the next stage,'” West declared before the assembly.

      “I wasn’t raised like that,” he said. “I have to abstain. I have no other moral option, it would be a violation of my own limited sense of moral integrity and spiritual conscience,” adding, “That’s how I roll.”

  12. @Steve Groen
    1, June 25, 2016 at 9:48 am

    “Ken Rogers quotes David Stockman: ‘They have created a tissue of financial lies; an affront to the very laws of markets, sound money and capitalist prosperity.’

    “Stockman’s operating under the misguided notion that capitalism works. In fact, it divides people, not only financially but socially. It’s inherently counterproductive and we see this regularly in the US. It’s the same everywhere. So, I say to you, ‘whose prosperity?’ ”

    If you haven’t watched the 2010 film “Inside Job,” documenting the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, I can’t recommend it too highly to you (and everyone else).

    It is finance capitalism, of which corporatism and its CEO-Employee income disparity is an off-shoot, that is the problem, as “Inside Job” amply documents.

    It also illuminates and excoriates the conflicts of interest of academic “experts” in economics:

    1. Ken Rogers: Thanks for the link to “Inside Job.” I finished watching it over the weekend and hadn’t seen it before.

      If people weren’t convinced that we’re living in a plutocratic oligarchy, all they have to do is watch this video to perceive how not credible the unscathed banks and financial services industry leaders have been in manipulating welfare when they commit crimes.

      Prof. Turley speaks of unethical conduct when J. Ginsburg calls trump a “faker.” How about betting against your own clients along with misrepresentation by omission, conspiracy, securities-rating agencies impliedly asserting that traders shouldn’t rely on their opinions, banks that lose mortgage security instruments so they hire people to sign as if they’re the original bank loan officer, undersecretaries acting like used-car salesmen, and on and on?

      And nobody commits a crime or loses anything except Elliot Spitzer.

      What a joke, but, hey, that’s capitalism.

      Thanks again.

  13. Isn’t she AMAZING? I first saw her do her “Moby Dick” performance – I was an usher and was assigned to do the show – had no idea of who she was. I sat there totally captivated and left wondering how on earth could she have pulled all that out the novel? I have since seen her twice and each time it was a life altering experience.

  14. I was thinking about the technocrats aka experts and Laurie Anderson came to mind – I saw her amazing “Homeland” performance some years ago:

    “Only An Expert”

  15. Hi Swarthmoremom,

    thanks for your response. Certainly my posts are my opinions cobbled together as best I can with the information I have seen or read. This is why such a venue like this one is so important – different POVs and we can certainly learn from each other. I have several good friends in the UK and have been reading The Guardian daily for the last two years and so I think I have a pretty idea of how Progressives there think. They were fully aware that they would have to deal with uncertainty and even some hardship yet they could no longer endure the failed policies of Blair and Cameron so they voted Leave.

    IMO The Guardian has become another MSM outlet for the elites — they were reined in after Snowden, yet it still offers some really great articles on subjects not related to politics – and most importantly generally leaves the comment sections open unlike the NYTimes for example. WashPost I don’t even bother with anymore. Bezos has ruined its legitimacy as a serious newspaper. I also check out Alex Jones and the National Review to see what they are on about.

    Regarding Trump – to be sure he offers “walls and bans” but he also offers a vision – “make America great again” is a powerful meme as he talks about the lingering horrors of NAFTA, killing the TPP, job creation and restoring infrastructure, closing bases, etc.

    Sanders offers a vision as well which is inclusive.

    Both Trump and Sanders come across as authentic which is why they generate enthusiasm from voters.

    IMO if Jill Stein was given equal coverage by the MSM her numbers would be higher – Johnson has been given attention because they hope he will draw disaffected Trumpsters and Berniebots and his message is resonating well.

    HRC on the other hand sparks 0 enthusiasm.

    There is an excellent book by Thomas Frank called “Listen Liberal: What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?” He also has numerous interviews on YouTube in which he explains how the DNC changed to benefit the “credentialed and elites) — much as he did in his previous book “What’s Wrong with Kansas” when studied the changes in the RNC.

    The message being sent out is the people are tired of the Establishment whether it be RNC or DNC. To paraphrase Bill Clinton: “it’s the Zeitgeist, stupid”

    But they are not listening….

  16. I wish people would be more consistant in who they vote for. Jill Stein is ready to step aside for Bernie. Bernie stands for the right of the executive to kill anyone, anywhere on her or his say so. I ask, what part of the Green Party platform includes the divine right of kings to murder anyone as they see fit? This is as lawless as it gets.

    Right now, this nation is harmed by citizens who will vote for candidates who do not support our Constitution and the rule of law. If we don’t stop idolizing and voting for people who are lawless we aren’t going to get anywhere.

    You can’t stop the evils of society by hanging around with dictators who are on the right or “left”. We need the rule of law to redress grievances and great harm being done to our society.

    Under Bush, Democrats sceamed so loudly about how we should not allow a lawless president to do as he pleases. As a former Green party member, I agreed with that. Once Democrats got “their” president, they no longer cared about presidential lawlessness to include murder and torure. Now the Green party thinks its membership will ignore the same thing. They are likely correct in this ananlysis.

    I wish instead that people would have a real set of ethical values. If it is wrong for Bush or Trump it is still wrong under Bernie, Clinton or Stein.

    1. Jill: Regarding Bernie as a killer, I would have to agree that his position on Gaza wasn’t strong enough, and he actually defended without limitation retaliation for rockets entering Israel. He should have thumbed his nose at mowing the lawn, the settlements, and the wall, but to my knowledge he hasn’t. In this, I agree that his foreign policy may not be what it could be and he should have been much more outspoken against crimes against humanity. I fault him for it.

      For this reason I never supported him. As for Bernie being Stein’s running mate, if he’s independent of the Democratic Party, perhaps he’ll have more leeway to speak his peace regarding Israel. I hope that’s what prevented him from doing so, and I can only hope.

      Jill Stein, however, has always spoken her mind in favor of peace and people everywhere. Her humanity is unmatched in these elections. I have no criticism of her for thinking of stepping aside in favor of Bernie (apparently the party rules would have to be modified to do so). I think that’s as selfless and noble an act as we could ever see, considering what she’s gone through for this society for the past two election cycles and the agendas of the other parties’ candidates. She’s got my vote. Here’s hoping it’s counted.

  17. “I” agree that Brexit is in part fueled by nationalism, however, it was also supported by Progressives who are tired of neo liberalism policy. Folks are fed up – the tipping point has been reached.” Autumn” Yes, a few rprogressives did vote for this. Neo liberalism is not working for many. that I will agree with but I think Trumpsim will fail because it really offers nothing but walls and bans. The folks in GB will have an unelected president for 3 or 4 years, So much for democracy……

Comments are closed.