Connect with us

Latest

News

Political correctness on the silver screen

When censorship becomes ridiculous.

Paul Kindlon

Published

on

994 Views

More and more people are using the term ‘whitewashing’ to describe the practice of casting white
actors as non-white characters. Initially the criticism made sense. For example, Othello really
should be a black actor not some bloke in dark face especially nowadays when there is an
excess of highly-gifted black actors.

Despite his brilliance, I was aghast years ago watching Sir Lawrence Olivier portray the bard’s character on film. It was a travesty and just plain wrong on so many levels. But there are many cases when it simply doesn’t matter what the ethnicity of the actor is because it is not relevant. Case in point… If you follow news about the entertainment industry or are simply a film buff you probably ran
across the following story recently:

“British actor Ed Skrein has pulled out of a role in the upcoming Hellboy reboot after a backlash
because he was cast as a character of Asian heritage.” This is courtesy of BBC. Just think about that for a minute. An actor has decided not to portray a character because he is not of the same ethnic heritage as a comic-book character. This is a slippery PC slope. Very slippery.

For if we are consistent in our belief (and logic) then it only follows that the role of Hamlet should never again be portrayed by a British actor because Hamlet was Danish. All of the historical plays and movies about the Romans must have Italians and not Shakespearean actors from Britain. Caesar must be Italian. Romeo and Juliet also. Nothing against Italian actors, but shouldn’t directors choose actors based upon talent and not ethnicity if the ethnicity is not an obvious requirement for the story?
This is PC overreach and it borders on outright lunacy.

Let’s be absolutely clear…

We are not talking about real-life people being portrayed here. The film Hellboy is based on a
fictional superhero created by writer-artist Mike Mignola. The characters in the film are simply
comic- book figures! Are we to ban further Star Trek re-makes until someone who is actually
half human and half Vulcan can be found to play the part of Spock?

Likewise no further movies about Superman should be produced until and when contact is made
with an alien civilization for as everyone knows “Clark Kent” was not a human being, but a
visitor from far away in the cosmos. Hopefully aliens will have developed their own civilization to the point where acting is an integral and advanced part of their culture.

Shall we ride this PC train all the way? Then the next time a film is made about Jesus Christ – as
a cultured man with modern sensibilities – I demand the real thing – the son of God Himself.
And when miracles are performed the studios won’t need any special effects. Think of the
money they’ll save.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Helga Fellay
Guest
Helga Fellay

what a silly article. The author seems to want to continue racism in Hollywood which runs rampant. The roles to play Black characters should go to Black actors, and the roles of Asian characters should go to Asian actors, and so forth. This is not over the top political correctness, it simply is the right thing to do. There are more than plenty of examples of ridiculous political correctness the author could have chosen, but this is not one of them.

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Why doesn’t this work the other way where you have white characters going to black actors, like in the many Marvel movies?

Why the double standard?

Helga Fellay
Guest
Helga Fellay

Actually there are a few enlightened and creative thinkers in Hollywood who have given roles written for men to women (if I recall correctly, Demi Moore’s role in A Few Good Men was actually written for a man). If it hasn’t happened yet, I am sure that eventually it will happen that a white character, unless race is of the essence for the plot, will be played by men of another ethnicity. Keep in mind that Hollywood is not leading in the Zeitgeist, and is lagging way behind the prevailing culture when it comes to enlightenment and creativity. Hollywood is… Read more »

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

It has happened to predominately and long established Caucasian characters in the Marvel Comics, now in the Marvel Movies, such as Col. Nick Fury, The Kingpin, Ned Leeds, etc.

And now it is not proper for a Caucasian to play an Asian American?

I wonder how you do not see the hypocrisy (and therefore an alternate agenda) in these actions.

Helga Fellay
Guest
Helga Fellay

I have never read comics in my life and have no idea to what you are referring. Highly talented Asian actors are sitting around unemployed in Hollywood, and when the very rare opportunity of playing an Asian character comes along, that character should be played by one of the many underemployed or unemployed Asian actors. That’s the right thing to do. Your own personal sentimental fantasy attachments of white guys playing Asians in comics are your own personal issues – adjustments you have to make – grow up and deal with it!

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

I listed the names, that you can simply google, instead of having no idea to what I am referring to.

According to you, proving hypocrisy by pointing out specific double standards is an adjustment that I need to make, by growing up and dealing with it.

Hmm? I didn’t know that hypocrisy by employing double standards can be cured that way? Thank you for that:)

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

A movie isn’t a piece of socially responsible equal rights activity. It’s to make money in the first instance, and to mind manipulate via CIA and Pentagon operatives, in the second. There should be total freedom to cast whomever the director wants. If he wants to cast a blackened white man to play a leader of black uprising in Hawaii, he should be able to. The fact that everyone will laugh at the movie, give it a thumbs down, and he’ll lose money and status will be his just reward!!! And if he doesn’t, and it’s a success, well, it… Read more »

Seán Murphy
Guest
Seán Murphy

I always laugh when I see obviously Caucasian actors playing “Indians” in Western movies. Most of these old Westerns, up until the sixties, featured white actors in such roles. One badly miscast was Burt Lancaster as an “Indian Chief”. And can anyone forget John Wayne as the Roman centurion, with his drawling American accent saying, “He was truly the son of gad”. Before any pedant attacks me, I know this latter was not a Western.

Manimal
Guest
Manimal

And John Wayne in “The conqueror”? 🙂

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Why?
Marlon Brando playing a Japanese in “The Teahouse of the August Moon” was quite a performance. Couldn’t recognize him almost to the movie’s end.comment imagecomment image

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

We have to remember that much of Hollywood casting is done purely with an eye to the box office. Simply put, if you can get Tom Cruise – who will pull in a huge audience, thus increase your ratings and takings – why would you give his part to someone who is, yes, more “racially” appropriate, but perhaps lacking his high name and presence. Even perhaps a racially appropriate someone never heard of – knowing it will lose you audience appeal and thus money?? Hollywood is all about CIA and Pentagon propaganda, and money, and mind manipulation. Racism has nothing… Read more »

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“Othello really should be a black actor” Why? William Shakespeare’s character Othello is described as “Moor”. The Moors or Berbers were the ancient population of the actual Morocco, who were not black. Peter Ackroyd, author of Shakespeare’ Biography, wrote, “It is a mistake to consider Othello to be of African or West Indian origin. He was of Moorish stock, olive-skinned, and Shakespeare portrays him as ‘black’ or “swarthy” for the purposes of theatrical emphasis and symbolism.” It is believed that the ambassador ben Messaoud of the Moroccan king at the court of Queen Elisabeth I of England, inspired the character… Read more »

Helga Fellay
Guest
Helga Fellay

You are absolutely correct. Othello was a North African, Arab or Berber, of olive complexion, and probably very handsome. As the English of Shakespeare’s time favored fair skin over darker tones, they would have considered him less handsome. But in order for the plot to make sense, Othello had to be perceived as ugly, so they decided to make him coal black. Othello doubted Desdemona’s love for him because how could such a beautiful woman love him, the ugly Moor? The concept of racism did not as yet exist at that time. That’s why the play Othello is somewhat problematic… Read more »

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

I don’ recall from Shakespeare’s play that Othello was described as ugly. On the contrary, as a very manly, proud and victorious general, fighting for the glory of Venice. From my childhood favorite book, ‘Tales from Shakespeare’, by Charles and Mary Lamb: “the noble Moor wanted nothing which might recommend him to the affections of the greatest lady. He was a soldier, and a brave one; and by his conduct in bloody wars against the Turks, had risen to the rank of general in the Venetian service, and was esteemed and trusted by the state.” Her father loved me; oft… Read more »

Helga Fellay
Guest
Helga Fellay

Of course Othello was not described as “ugly.” I think he was described as dark and swarthy, which translates to the audience of the time as not attractive. The entire plot makes no sense if you can’t accept that basic premise. Othello would never had doubted his devoted and loving wife unless he had accepted that he, a dark and swarthy man, could never really be loved by that beautiful woman. Don’t you get that?

Odidi
Guest
Odidi

LOL this buffoonery continues I am in stitches! You all think you are so intellectual but this says intellectually challenged,

englishvinal
Guest
englishvinal

Go away! You are ill educated and arrogant…what a disgusting combination.
Take a hike, read a book, educate yourself.

Edmund burke326
Guest
Edmund burke326

The original inhabitants of northern Africa looked as the Tawergha and other native tribes today in Libya and throughout the north of Africa, they were not Arabs (who are invaders to Africa). Berbers and other tribes, after the invasions by the Arabs, either moved down to eastern Africa (though not entirely) or were wiped out or enslaved. The west has always supported the narrative that northern Africa is Arab territory. Theresa May can’t get enough Arab money. The West Indies is a colonial creation populated by people of various ethnicities including African, British, European and Asian on numerous islands, it’s… Read more »

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

Morocco Ambassador to Great Britain in the 17th century:comment image

Odidi
Guest
Odidi

No they were not. You are imaging your entire ignorant racist rant. Why people like you even dare to humiliate yourself by actually making it public is beyond me. The Duran is not a space for this kind of juvenile stupidity. Use the internet for more than propagating your hate and actually research and learn something besides affirming duplicitous inferiority complex. Clearly Africans are only the colour black to you. LOL what buffoonery, I’d be embarrassed

englishvinal
Guest
englishvinal

Good heavens Odidi… You wouldn’t have some kind of “dark skin” would you?…’
Read some history just for the fun of it…Daisy is correct, regarding Shakespeare writing about Othello…. You have just made a racist fool of yourself!

Punisher 1
Guest
Punisher 1

They did something like that in the Hollow Crown. Where they had black actors play a Queen of England. And a high noble warrior relative of a King.They did a great job in acting the parts.No complaints about that. But it was so historically inaccurate that it badly deflected from those parts in the movie. But there is another point involved. That is done for PC reasons involving European or European American people. It would never be turned around. Can anyone imagine the horror and fury unleashed if a studio was to announce a movie on the life of Mandela… Read more »

Aleksandar Tomić
Guest
Aleksandar Tomić

Alright then, i want for Idris Elba to stop playing Heimdall in MCU.

Christinamellis
Guest
Christinamellis

Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!!!
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
>>>http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash320TopValue/GetPay$97/Hour………

Manimal
Guest
Manimal

Why? Just a Norse guy who spent too much time in the sun… 😉

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Don’t you dare joke about it:) Those indoctrinated the West take things literally and do not seem to understand the concept of irony.

Manimal
Guest
Manimal

Good :-).
I like them pissed off.

Le Ruse
Guest
Le Ruse

Political correctness, is virus, that’s killing the mankind &… Womankind as well, of course ??..comment image

Odidi
Guest
Odidi

This article/opinion is amateurish and juvenile. The Duran can and does do so much better than this waste of space. There are far too many Asian actors were overlooked for the role and smacks of laziness, ignorance just bigotry. Don’t claim authenticity and professional standards if every role is gonna be played by a Caucasian Anglo-Saxon including female roles! Yes its a whitewash and to Le Ruse. I’d like to see the day you conceive and give birth to life. Womankind is the only reason there is mankind. The Duran can do so much better than this please!

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

The Duran are doing better since inception, and continue to do so.

Odidi
Guest
Odidi

Thats is what I said in my first dentence
But this article is racist buffoonery, in my opinion, an error.Mistakes happen even to the. Best intentioned. Ye of blind faith “Question More”

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Member
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Uhh, no.

englishvinal
Guest
englishvinal

Go away!

Odidi
Guest
Odidi

Not a chance!
The Duran is of a better pedigree than this and I am a loyal follower who does not take to juvenile petulance as expressed by you. You stand down!

Latest

Fake news media FREAK OUT over Trump and NATO (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 172.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the media meltdown over remarks that U.S. President Trump may have made with regard to NATO, and how neo-liberal war hawks championing the alliance as some sort of foreign policy projection of peace and democracy, are really just supporting aggression, war, and the eventual weakening of the United States.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO, Authored by David Swanson:


The New York Times loves NATO, but should you?

Judging by comments in social media and the real world, millions of people in the United States have gone from having little or no opinion on NATO, or from opposing NATO as the world’s biggest military force responsible for disastrous wars in places like Afghanistan (for Democrats) or Libya (for Republicans), to believing NATO to be a tremendous force for good in the world.

I believe this notion to be propped up by a series of misconceptions that stand in dire need of correction.

1. NATO is not a war-legalizing body, quite the opposite. NATO, like the United Nations, is an international institution that has something or other to do with war, but transferring the UN’s claimed authority to legalize a war to NATO has no support whatsoever in reality. The crime of attacking another nation maintains an absolutely unaltered legal status whether or not NATO is involved. Yet NATO is used within the U.S. and by other NATO members as cover to wage wars under the pretense that they are somehow more legal or acceptable. This misconception is not the only way in which NATO works against the rule of law. Placing a primarily-U.S. war under the banner of NATO also helps to prevent Congressional oversight of that war. Placing nuclear weapons in “non-nuclear” nations, in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, is also excused with the claim that the nations are NATO members (so what?). And NATO, of course, assigns nations the responsibility to go to war if other nations go to war — a responsibility that requires them to be prepared for war, with all the damage such preparation does.

2. NATO is not a defensive institution. According to the New York Times, NATO has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is an article of faith, based on the unsubstantiated belief that Soviet and Russian aggression toward NATO members has existed for 70 years and that NATO has deterred it rather than provoked it. In violation of a promise made, NATO has expanded eastward, right up to the border of Russia, and installed missiles there. Russia has not done the reverse. The Soviet Union has, of course, ended. NATO has waged aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic, bombing Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. NATO has added a partnership with Colombia, abandoning all pretense of its purpose being in the North Atlantic. No NATO member has been attacked or credibly threatened with attack, apart from small-scale non-state blowback from NATO’s wars of aggression.

3. Trump is not trying to destroy NATO. Donald Trump, as a candidate and as U.S. President, has wondered aloud and even promised all kinds of things and, in many cases, the exact opposite as well. When it comes to actions, Trump has not taken any actions to limit or end or withdraw from NATO. He has demanded that NATO members buy more weapons, which is of course a horrible idea. Even in the realm of rhetoric, when European officials have discussed creating a European military, independent of the United States, Trump has replied by demanding that they instead support NATO.

4. If Trump were trying to destroy NATO, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Trump has claimed to want to destroy lots of things, good and bad. Should I support NAFTA or corporate media or the Cold War or the F35 or anything at all, simply because some negative comment about it escapes Trump’s mouth? Should I cheer for every abuse ever committed by the CIA or the FBI because they investigate Trump? Should I long for hostility between nuclear-armed governments because Democrats claim Trump is a Russian agent? When Trump defies Russia to expand NATO, or to withdraw from a disarmament treaty or from an agreement with Iran, or to ship weapons to Ukraine, or to try to block Russian energy deals in Europe, or to oppose Russian initiatives on banning cyber-war or weapons in space, should I cheer for such consistent defiance of Trump’s Russian master, and do so simply because Russia is, so implausibly, his so-inept master? Or should I form my own opinion of things, including of NATO?

5. Trump is not working for, and was not elected by, Russia.According to the New York Times, “Russia’s meddling in American elections and its efforts to prevent former satellite states from joining the alliance have aimed to weaken what it views as an enemy next door, the American officials said.” But are anonymous “American officials” really needed to acquire Russia’s openly expressed opinion that NATO is a threatening military alliance that has moved weapons and troops to states on Russia’s border? And has anyone produced the slightest documentation of the Russian government’s aims in an activity it has never admitted to, namely “meddling in American elections,” — an activity the United States has of course openly admitted to in regard to Russian elections? We have yet to see any evidence that Russia stole or otherwise acquired any of the Democratic Party emails that documented that party’s rigging of its primary elections in favor of Clinton over Sanders, or even any claim that the tiny amount of weird Facebook ads purchased by Russians could possibly have influenced the outcome of anything. Supposedly Trump is even serving Russia by demanding that Turkey not attack Kurds. But is using non-military means to discourage Turkish war-making necessarily the worst thing? Would it be if your favorite party or politician did it? If Trump encouraged a Turkish war, would that also be a bad thing because Trump did it, or would it be a bad thing for substantive reasons?

6. If Trump were elected by and working for Russia, that would tell us nothing about NATO. Imagine if Boris Yeltsin were indebted to the United States and ended the Soviet Union. Would that tell us whether ending the Soviet Union was a good thing, or whether the Soviet Union was obsolete for serious reasons? If Trump were a Russian pawn and began reversing all of his policies on Russia to match that status, including restoring his support for the INF Treaty and engaging in major disarmament negotiations, and we ended up with a world of dramatically reduced military spending and nuclear armaments, with the possibility of all dying in a nuclear apocalypse significantly lowered, would that too simply be a bad thing because Trump?

7. Russia is not a military threat to the world. That Russia would cheer NATO’s demise tells us nothing about whether we should cheer too. Numerous individuals and entities who indisputably helped to put Trump in the White House would dramatically oppose and others support NATO’s demise. We can’t go by their opinions either, since they don’t all agree. We really are obliged to think for ourselves. Russia is a heavily armed militarized nation that commits the crime of war not infrequently. Russia is a top weapons supplier to the world. All of that should be denounced for what it is, not because of who Russia is or who Trump is. But Russia spends a tiny fraction of what the United States does on militarism. Russia has been reducing its military spending each year, while the United States has been increasing its military spending. U.S. annual increases have sometimes exceeded Russia’s entire military budget. The United States has bombed nine nations in the past year, Russia one. The United States has troops in 175 nations, Russia in 3. Gallup and Pew find populations around the world viewing the United States, not Russia, as the top threat to peace in the world. Russia has asked to join NATO and the EU and been rejected, NATO members placing more value on Russia as an enemy. Anonymous U.S. military officials describe the current cold war as driven by weapons profits. Those profits are massive, and NATO now accounts for about three-quarters of military spending and weapons dealing on the globe.

8. Crimea has not been seized. According to the New York Times, “American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.” Again we have an anonymous claim as to a goal of a government in committing an action that never occurred. We can be fairly certain such things are simply made up. The vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia is commonly called the Seizure of Crimea. This infamous seizure is hard to grasp. It involved a grand total of zero casualties. The vote itself has never been re-done. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single believer in the Seizure of Crimea has ever advocated for re-doing the vote. Coincidentally, polling has repeatedly found the people of Crimea to be happy with their vote. I’ve not seen any written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence in Crimea. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 4 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course, a U.S.-backed coup had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea — just like a Honduran immigrant — was voting to secede from a coup government, by no means an action consistently frowned upon by the United States.

9. NATO is not an engaged alternative to isolationism. The notion that supporting NATO is a way to cooperate with the world ignores superior non-deadly ways to cooperate with the world. A nonviolent, cooperative, treaty-joining, law-enforcing alternative to the imperialism-or-isolationism trap is no more difficult to think of or to act on than treating drug addiction or crime or poverty as reason to help people rather than to punish them. The opposite of bombing people is not ignoring them. The opposite of bombing people is embracing them. By the standards of the U.S. communications corporations Switzerland must be the most isolationist land because it doesn’t join in bombing anyone. The fact that it supports the rule of law and global cooperation, and hosts gatherings of nations seeking to work together is simply not relevant.

10. April 4 belongs to Martin Luther King, Jr., not militarism. War is a leading contributor to the growing global refugee and climate crises, the basis for the militarization of the police, a top cause of the erosion of civil liberties, and a catalyst for racism and bigotry. A growing coalition is calling for the abolition of NATO, the promotion of peace, the redirection of resources to human and environmental needs, and the demilitarization of our cultures. Instead of celebrating NATO’s 70thanniversary, we’re celebrating peace on April 4, in commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech against war on April 4, 1967, as well as his assassination on April 4, 1968.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Turkey prepared to take Syria’s Manbij, won’t let it turn into ‘swamp’ like N. Iraq

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Ankara has “almost completed” preparations for another military operation in Syria and will launch it if “promises” made by other parties about the protection of its borders are not kept, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.

Turkey still hopes that talks with the US, Russia and “other parties” will allow it to ensure its security without resorting to force but it is still ready to proceed with a military option and will not “wait forever,” Erdogan said. He was referring to Ankara’s plans for the northern Syrian territories east of the Euphrates River, which it seeks to turn into a “security zone”free of any Kurdish militias.

“We are on our border with our forces and following developments closely. If promises made to us are kept and the process goes on, that’s fine. Otherwise, we inform that we have almost completed our preparations and will take steps in line with our own strategy,” the president said, addressing a group of businessmen in Ankara on Monday.

He did not elaborate on the promises made. However, they are apparently linked to the withdrawal of the Kurdish YPG militia from the Manbij area and the regions along the border with Turkey. “We will never allow a safe zone to turn into a new swamp,” Erdogan said, referring to the northern Syrian territories and comparing them to the northern Iraq, where the militants from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – an organization that Ankara considers a terrorist group – have been entrenched for decades.

Turkey sees the US-backed Kurdish YPG militias, which form the backbone of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as an extension of the PKK and considers them terrorists as well. “Our proposal for a security zone under Turkey’s control aims to keep terror organizations away from our borders,” the Turkish president said.

He went on to explain that Ankara does not seek any territorial gains in its military campaigns in Syria but merely seeks to restore order in the war-ravaged country. “We will provide security for Manbij and then we will hand over the city to its real owners,” Erdogan said. “Syria belongs to Syrians.”

Turkey also seeks to establish a “security zone 20 miles [32 kilometers] deep” into Syria, Erdogan said, adding that he already discussed this issue with the US President Donald Trump. “Those who insistently want to keep us away from these regions are seeking to strengthen terror organizations,” he added.

Ankara has been long planning to push YPG units out of the area east of the Euphrates River. Its operation was delayed by the US withdrawal from Syria. However, Erdogan repeatedly hinted that his patience is wearing thin and he is not ready to wait much longer. He warned Trump against backtracking on his pledge to withdraw some 2,000 US forces out of Syria following a suicide attack in Manbij that killed four Americans. If the US president halted the withdrawal, it would mean that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) had won, Erdogan argued.

He has also reiterated that Turkey is ready to take over Manbij “without delay.” The US military is currently working on security arrangements with the Turkish forces to create a buffer zone between Turkey and the Kurdish fighters. The Kurds, meanwhile, invited the Syrian government to take over the city and have reportedly begun to leave the area. Turkey has dismissed the reports saying its a “psyop”.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Political Knives Dull Themselves on the Rock of Brexit Article 50

The invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

Strategic Culture Foundation

Published

on

Authored Tom Luongo via Strategic Culture Foundation:


Theresa “The Gypsum Lady” May went through an extraordinary twenty-four hours. First, seeing her truly horrific Brexit deal go down in historic defeat and then, somehow, surviving a ‘No-Confidence’ vote which left her in a stronger position than before it.

It looks like May rightly calculated that the twenty or so Tory Remainers would put party before the European Union as their personal political positions would be terminally weakened if they voted her out of office.

While there is little stomach in the British Parliament for a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, there is less for allowing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister. And that is the crux of why the incessant calls to delay Brexit, call for a ‘people’s vote’ or, in Corbyn’s case, “take a no-deal Brexit off the table,’ ultimately lead to a whole lot of political knife-fighting and very little substantive action.

The day-to-day headline spam is designed to wear down people’s resistance and make it feel like Brexit getting betrayed is inevitable. That has been the British Deep State’s and EU’s game plan all along and they hoped they could arm-twist enough people in parliament to succeed.

But the problem for them now, since the clock has nearly run out, is the invocation of Article 50 was undertaken by an act of Parliament. And it will take another act of Parliament to undo it.

And I don’t see anyone on the Remainer side working towards that end. That should be your clue as to what happens next.

Why? Because they know they don’t have the time to get that act past Parliament. So, the rest of this is simply a PR campaign to push public opinion far enough to allow for an illegal canceling or postponing of Brexit.

But it’s not working.

According to the latest polls, Brits overwhelmingly want the original Brexit vote respectedLeave even has a 5-6 point lead over Remain.

And, I think Theresa May now realizes this. It is why she invited the no-confidence vote against her. She knew she had the votes and it would give her the ammunition to ignore Corbyn’s hysterical ranting about taking a no-deal Brexit off the table.

Whether she realizes that the only negotiating tool she has with the EU is the threat of a No-Deal Brexit, exactly like Nigel Farage and those committed to Brexit have been telling her for two years is still, however, up in the air.

It looks like she’s finally starting to get it.

The net result is we are seeing a similar outing of the nefarious, behind-the-scenes, power brokers in the public eye similar to what’s been happening in the US with Donald Trump and Russiagate.

May has been singularly unimpressive in her handling of Brexit. I’ve been convinced from the beginning that betraying Brexit was always her goal. Negotiating a deal unacceptable to anyone was meant to exhaust everyone into the position to just throwing up their hands and canceling the whole thing.

The EU has been in the driver’s seat the entire time because most of the British establishment has been on their side and it was only the people who needed to be disrespected.

So, after all of these shananigans we are back to where we were last week. May has cut off all avenues of discussion. She won’t commit to taking ‘no-deal’ off the table to tweak Corbyn. She won’t substantively move on any other issue. This is likely to push her deal through as a last-minute panic move.

Corbyn is still hoping to get new elections to take power, and the majority of MP’s who don’t want to leave the EU keep fighting among themselves to cock up the entire works.

All they are doing is expending pound after pound of political capital beating themselves against their own act of Parliament which goes into effect on March 29th.

By the time that date comes around the frustration, shame and humiliation of how Parliament has mishandled Brexit will make it difficult for a lot of Remainers to hold together their majority as public opinion has decidedly turned against them.

In the past the EU has had that façade of democratic support undermining any change at the political level. With Brexit (and with budget talks in Italy) that is not the case. The people are angry.

The peak moment for Remainers to stage a bipartisan political coup against May should have been the most recent no-confidence vote.

With May surviving that it implies that Remainers are not willing to die politically for their cause.

This should begin to see defectors over the next couple of weeks as they realize they don’t have a hand to play either.

And by May refusing to rule out a ‘no-deal’ Brexit it has finally brought the EU around to throw a bone towards the British. Their admitting they would extend Article 50 is just that. But they know that’s a non-starter as that is the one thing May has been steadfast in holding to.

On March 29th with or without a deal the U.K. is out of the EU. Because despite the European Court of Justice’s decision, Britain’s parliament can only cancel Article 50 at this point by acting illegally.

Not that I would put that past these people, but then that opens up a can of worms that most British MP’s will not go along with. The personal stakes are simply too high.

When dealing with politicians, never bet against their vanity or their pocketbook. In May’s case she may finally have realized she could have the legacy of getting Britain out of the EU just before it collapses.

And all she has to do between now and the end of March is, precisely, nothing.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending