Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_39

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
10
37.6k
The 89-unit development will feature 53 flats for first time buyers and 36 private flats - at a total value of £39.7m. It is due to be completed by 2018.
The homes are built for singles and couples with an average income of around £37,000. The block will be developed by Pocket, a company who intend to build more affordable housing for the public, providing them with a 20 per cent discount.
Wandsworth Council Leader Cllr Ravi Govindia hailed the innovation.
"These compact starter homes are a superb innovation and offer a new, affordable housing option in the heart of Wandsworth town centre," he said. "I’m sure they will be a popular choice with local residents and we hope to see more schemes like this developed in the years ahead."
The council is aiming to build 18,000 homes in Wandsworth during the next ten years, but many people can no longer afford to buy because of soaring house prices.
Pocket’s chief executive Marc Vlessing said: “If we’re able to scale up modular construction it has the potential to help solve London’s housing crisis. Factory built modular homes are quicker to build than conventional buildings and result in significantly less disruption to local residents - with 60 per cent fewer trucks coming to sites and 90 per cent less waste.
Good food and good prices. There are healthy alternatives and a lot to choose from. Everything tastes fresh and is just like a home cooked meal. The yogurt bar is amazing too!
Posted by Erin L. on August 25, 2015. Brought to you by yahoolocal.
Posted by Tayana C. on August 15, 2015. Brought to you by yahoolocal.
The Fish'n Chicken is located at 110 Willard St, Quincy, MA. This business specializes in Restaurants.
The Fish'n Chicken is located at 110 Willard St in Quincy and has been in the business of Retail - American Restaurant since 1994.
David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the writers who turned George R.R. Martin's fantasy novels into a television phenomenon, will be writing and producing a new series of Star Wars films.
If the mouthwatering scent wafting from Smoke Not Just BBQ does not draw shoppers in, the menu will.
Located at 631 Main St. in Manchester, Smoke's mission is to serve diners extremely delicious food and high quality beverages, using the very best ingredients available, whether in house or delivered to their home – and at an affordable price.
The collaboration of co-owners Fran DelMastro and Scott Kelley, Smoke opened on June 11, 2015.
"I've done just about everything in this business," DelMastro said.
Seasoned with 35 years of hospitality training, he commented on his simple beginnings.
"My father always said if you want to get to the highest level, you have to start from the bottom. I started as a dishwasher when I was 15, and here we are today," he said.
Maintaining an environment friendly workplace, Smoke strives to use ECO Products.
"Every last product we make is served in a container that falls into two categories," Kelley explained. "They are made from renewable resources (like corn, sugarcane, or plant starch) or made from recycled content (like RPET, PCF, or RPS). This way, when you throw your plate away, you can feel good about it."
Under the watchful eye of veteran chef Phil Conran, Smoke strives to satisfy all stomachs and make your dining experience the best it can be.
"The most popular items on the menu are the ribs, brisket, and pulled pork." Conran said. "My favorite is the meatloaf, but we do have seasonal items, most of which are the result of brainstorming sessions; it's a team effort."
Like the name says, Smoke is more than BBQ. Conran's inventive menu includes specials such as Guinness Stew and Brisket Barley Soup. In addition, patrons with diet restrictions are easily accommodated with gluten free and vegetarian options on request.
"Phil is extremely creative," DelMastro said. "He can pivot on a dime."
One look at the expansive menu and customers are assailed with choices. Juli Brenlohr, a member of the front of the house staff reviewed a few of the big sellers among first time customers.
"The 'What a Rookie' is good place to start. Its pulled pork, coleslaw, and our signature house sauce on a telera roll. Customers also like 'The Hitchhiker,' a quarter pound of sausage, pulled pork, or beef brisket, tossed in signature sauce, and a side of cornbread."
But no visit to Smoke is complete without a taste of 'The Quitter' – pulled pork, sausage, bacon, and Cheddar Jack cheese topped with an over easy egg and piled on focaccia bread.
Giving back to the community, and honoring those who serve it, plays a large part in Smoke's commitment to Manchester.
"We are a perfect fit here and proud to be part of such a thriving neighborhood," DelMastro said. "We participate in dine in/out nights, with a portion of the night's proceeds going back to a specific school or organization, and we always offer a discount to our veterans and first responders."
For more information, visit www.SmokeNotJustBBQ.com.
We have always been pleased with HP Hood products, but I just purchased a new package of Hoodsies and when I opened one of the cups if was only half full?
Posted by MISS L M on June 11, 2015. Brought to you by yahoolocal.
Posted by by Edward Smith on May 14, 2010. Brought to you by openlist.
Posted by CitysearchUser 142f0f71198908 2 on April 06, 2010. Brought to you by rateitall.
Hendries Ice Cream in Milton Ma was a great ice cream company, then H P Hood toke it over and it hasn't been the same. I miss the old company.
Posted by by Charles Simpson on December 28, 2009. Brought to you by openlist.
Hendrie's Ice Cream is located at 63 Everett Ave, Chelsea, MA. This location is in the Broadway neighborhood. This business specializes in Ice Cream & Yogurt.
Hood H P Inc is located at 90 Everett Ave, Chelsea, MA..
It employs 2 employees and is generating approximately $170,000.00 in annual revenue.
Additional information is available at www.hphood.com or by contacting EARNIE DUSETT at (617) 887-3000.
14,123 Model S cars to be recalled over faulty airbag issue.
Tesla has issued a recall of over 14,000 Model S cars in China over faulty airbags issue as per a report by AFP news agency.
This complies with the ongoing recall involving Takata front passenger airbag inflators. This recall has affected virtually all major automakers, reports USA Today.
Takata is a Japanese automotive parts supplier who has been supplying airbags for major companies. However, recent issues such as shrapnel exploding from airbags has put the company in a crisis.
As per the US National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) reports, there have been at least 23 deaths and 300 injuries due to improperly inflated airbags.
Tesla’s official website says the front passenger airbags in certain 2014-2016 Model S vehicles are affected and Tesla will be replacing them.
A schedule previously determined by the NHTSA said that the recall of the front passenger airbags in 2012 Model S vehicles that began in January 2017, was extended to 2013 Model S vehicles in January 2018. It is now being extended to 2014-2016 Model S vehicles to January 2019 as well. The recall does not affect the Roadster, Model X, Model 3, or later Model S.
The Model S is an all-electric liftback car which was introduced in 2012.
National Grid , a utility outside Boston, controls 72,000 miles of distribution cables and another 9,000 miles of long distance transmission wires that stretch across the Northeast. This efficient company has continually bested its set regulatory return rates, and has split the profits with the consumers it serves. But many of the 3 million customers of this solid New England outfit might be surprised to know that this utility is a subsidiary of U.K.-based National Grid Transco.
Like National Grid Transco , the 10 other companies listed below are headquartered outside the U.S. but generate at least 15% of their revenues on our shores, which means that they are likely to benefit when the U.S. economy gets back on track. It is easy for Americans to invest in these companies because all of these issues are available as American Depositary Receipts (ADRs).
ADRs aren't immune from currency swings, but they facilitate the trading of foreign equity in the U.S. Such shares spare American investors the expense of trading on foreign exchanges or the hassle of converting currencies.
National Grid ADRs have a yield of 4% and trade at $33, or 12% below their 52-week high. You can also get a stake in National Grid via a mutual fund such as American Funds Capital World Growth & Income , which owns 440,000 shares. Capital World, which is rated by Forbes as "C" in up markets and "B" in down markets, has a five-year total return of 6%, better than the S&P's -1%.
In 2002 Nestle generated $14 billion in revenue from North American opertions--one quarter of its total $53 billion in revenue. Nestle shares trade for 14 times estimated 2003 earnings.
Eighty percent of Japan's Toyota Motor's profits come from the U.S. market. Toyota's current market capitalization, $104 billion, is greater than that of Ford , General Motors and DaimlerChrysler combined. One reason why Toyota is so highly valued: With net income of $8 billion, the firm is the world's most profitable automaker. Toyota, which is building its sixth vehicle assembly plant in North America, a truck factory in Texas, trades at 15 times estimated 2003 profits.
Foreign Companies With U.S. Businesses Prices as of July 8. NA: Not available. *Annualized; projected over the next three to five years. Sources: FT Interactive, Multex and Thomson First Call via FactSet Research Systems.
If there’s a single takeaway from the final season premiere of Modern Family, it’s that kicking a season off with storytelling that’s built around actual actions and consequences is a smart choice. Too many seasons past have started off with lackluster episodes that have trouble situating the characters in any relevant time or place, be it emotionally or physically. “I Love A Parade” is a nice change of pace because it finds the time to push these characters in new directions, even if the show itself is still feeling a little stale as it heaves itself into its final season.
Essentially, so many other progressive sitcoms with a unique voice populate our TVs now, which means the ABC stalwart feels a little dated. It’s a time capsule of sorts, but that’s not always a bad thing. There are certain familiar rhythms to the show that, though worn, can be reliable when deployed in the right way. “I Love A Parade” isn’t a fantastic episode by any means, but in spite of the lack of truly meaningful storylines, it’s a solid season premiere that finds the show hitting a few good notes, even if there’s more than a few missed spots.
I mention Modern Family feeling dated; it’s almost as if the tenth season premiere knows it, because the episode takes place on the Fourth of July. It makes for a weird disconnect in the viewing experience, the patriotism and excitement at odds with the current season. But hey, these things happen, and all you can do is embrace the disconnect. Things pick up with Gloria and Jay singing their Red, White, and Blue hearts out while Joe laments that another year has passed, his trauma clear with each passing episode. They’re particularly excited about the annual parade, an excitement that reaches a fever pitch when Jay’s lifelong dream of being the Grand Marshal comes true.
Jay’s excitement is eventually tampered by that pesky thing called his wife’s happiness. She’s upset that Manny won’t be home for the holiday—the less said about Manny’s sudden fear of bridges the better—and therefore won’t be able to take part in their annual tradition of watching the fireworks while eating apple pie. You read that right, Modern Family isn’t afraid to go that American. Anyways, Gloria’s disappointment, and the feelings of uncertainty about the future, is really the defining feeling of the episode. Each plot in “I Love A Parade” in some way deals with the fear of failure and change.
That’s a good theme for the episode to hang its hat on. As these characters age, they’re facing new challenges, and that means a fair amount of uncertainty is waiting down the road. For Luke, that means worrying about heading off to community college. As he puts it, it’s the hardest thing he’s ever tried, and his anxiety about failing manifests itself in his indecisiveness about choosing classes and his halfhearted enthusiasm about competing in a hot dog eating contest with Phil. All those hot dogs are sitting right there in front of him, and there’s glory on the other side of the consumption, but it’s a daunting task. But Phil knows exactly what to say: take it one dog at a time. Fear of failure means Luke cares about something for once, and with any luck community college will result in some necessary character growth, because Luke has been stagnant for a very long time (though Manny retains his title as the character who has completely failed to adapt over the years).
There are certainly uninteresting or undercooked aspects of this episode that don’t tie into the theme in any elegant way. In particular, Claire’s vision of a future where she isn’t needed, where her advice isn’t sought out, is too underexplored to really make an impact. But outside of that misfire, “I Love A Parade” is largely a promising start to the season. I was wary of Cam and Mitchell taking on the responsibility of caring for Pam’s son Cal at the end of last season, but, at least in the premiere, it’s allowed the two characters to find their groove again. Those are characters that work best as anxious, complementary parents, and with Lily all grown up—into quite the dictator, apparently—Cal presents the show with an opportunity to reset Cam and Mitchell to their most interesting versions. Watching them navigate the renewed pressures of parenthood is the best part of the episode, finding a balance between good comedy and some heartfelt emotional beats.
Haley’s storyline doesn’t quite find that same balance, as Arvin takes off for Switzerland, which leaves her to think about her future with the legitimate genius. Much like Cal, I’m always wary of Dylan’s presence on Modern Family, especially in these later seasons, but his return here is used in a way that feels meaningful. It allows for Haley to experience doubt about her relationship, and not in a way that’s juvenile. Rather, she’s experiencing something more grown up, as Dylan’s vague romantic feelings serve to have her questioning her own complacency, and what she might feel for him.
Who knows where these stories are headed, or if Modern Family will follow through with them at all. For now though, they’re solid building blocks, in terms of both narrative and emotional storytelling.
Modern Family reviews are back for one last season, because I’m determined to see this through and earn some sort of medal. And to get ahead of a few comments: yes, this show is still on, and yes, I know that your favorite show’s recaps were cut at some point and these are still hanging around, but there’s nothing I can do about that, and I also like to work for a paycheck.
I laughed at Cam throwing the ball right in Cal’s face. I am a man of simple pleasures. It’s the “Football in the Groin had a football in the groin” theory of comedy.
Haley: “I can’t believe Dylan got into my head.” Claire: “I can’t believe he got into nursing school.” To be fair, I bet he knows a thing or too about injuries and head trauma.
After former DePaul forward Cleveland Melvin was no longer enrolled at DePaul, his future was uncertain.
Melvin was suspended indefinitely Jan. 25 for violation of an unspecified team rule. On Feb. 10, DePaul announced that Melvin would not be returning to the university.
While the details around Melvin’s departure still remain fuzzy, Melvin’s life moved forward. Nearly a month later, Melvin got an opportunity to play professional basketball – being claimed by the Erie BayHawks of the NBA’s Development-League (D-League) March 6.
Melvin hired Bill McCandless and Daniel Curtin as his agents to secure a chance to play in the D-League.
Melvin joined the BayHawks, a New York Knicks-affiliated team, as he replaced guard Chris Smith, the brother of Knicks guard JR Smith. The BayHawks were 13-28 when Melvin joined the team. Melvin appeared in 10 games. He averaged 21 minutes a game, averaging 11.2 points per game and 4.1 rebounds per game.
“My expectations were to go in there and prove I could compete at the next level against anybody,” Melvin said. “I’ve always had the heart since I was young. I came in there, trying to work on my game and prove I could compete at the next level.
“I played really well for the time I was there,” he said.
There were plenty of adjustments Melvin had to make. From a personal standpoint, Melvin missed the birth of his first child and was away from his family and former teammates.
On the court, the pace of the D-League is a lot different. Melvin said that the spacing of the game caused for more isolation opportunities and the amount of set plays took time getting used to.
Melvin found his way. In his professional debut against Fort Wayne, Melvin scored 10 points in 12 minutes of action. That performance led to an increase in minutes.
Three games later, Melvin would have the best performance of his D-League stint. He logged 35 minutes off the bench and had a double-double, scoring 18 points and grabbing 10 rebounds in a losing performance against Maine. He also had four assists.
It would solidify Melvin’s new role on the team as the sixth man, coming off the bench to provide useful minutes and energy.
The BayHawks went 3-7 with Melvin on the team. Now with his stint in the D-League over, Melvin will shift his eyes towards the NBA draft. The 6-foot- 8 forward isn’t sure if he’ll get drafted. Sites like DraftExpress.com and ESPN’s Chad Ford don’t have him being selected. It doesn’t help that this upcoming draft class is the best it has been in a decade.
Before the 2013-2014 season, DraftExpress’ Matt Kamalsky told The DePaulia that Melvin would have to improve on his ability to play as a stretchfour, a power-forward who can spread the floor and shoot from the outside, to be drafted. Melvin played more of this role with the Blue Demons this season and with the BayHawks.
Melvin said he has to improve his ball-handling skills and his consistency with his shot. He also mentioned that he has to be more aggressive to play in the NBA.
National sovereignty: for what purpose?
The defence of national sovereignty, like its critique, leads to serious misunderstandings once one detaches it from the social class content of the the strategy in which it is embedded. The leading social bloc in capitalist societies always conceives sovereignty as a necessary instrument for the promotion of its own interests based on both capitalist exploitation of labour and the consolidation of its international positions.
Today, in the globalized neoliberal system (which I prefer to call ordo-liberal, borrowing this excellent term from Bruno Ogent) dominated by financialised monopolies of the imperialist triad (United States, Europe, Japan), the political authorities in charge of the management of the system for the exclusive benefit of the monopolies in question conceive national sovereignty as an instrument enabling them to improve their “competitive” positions in the global system. The economic and social means of the State (submission of work to employer requirements, organisation of unemployment and job insecurity, segmentation of the labour market) and policy interventions (including military interventions) are associated and combined in the pursuit of one sole objective: maximising the volume of rent captured by their “national” monopolies.
The ordo-liberal ideological discourse claims to establish an order based solely on the generalised market, where mechanisms are supposed to be self-regulatory and productive of social optimum (which is obviously false), provided that competition is free and transparent (that it never is and can not be in the era of monopolies), as it claims that the state has no role to play beyond the guarantee of the running of the competition in question (which is contrary to facts: it requires the state’s active intervention in its favour; ordo-liberalism is a state policy). This narrative – expression of the ideology of the “liberal virus” – prevents all understanding of the actual functioning of the system as well as the functions the state and national sovereignty fulfill in it. The US gives the example of a decided and continuous practical implementation of sovereignty understood in this “bourgeois” meaning, that is to say today in the service of the capital of financialised monopolies. The “national” right benefits in the United States of its affirmed and reconfirmed supremacy over “international law”. It was the same in the imperialist countries of Europe of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Did things change with the construction of the European Union? European discourse claims and legitimates submission of national sovereignty to “European law”, expressed through the decisions of Brussels and the ECB, under the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The freedom of choice of voters is itself limited by the apparent supranational requirements of ordo-liberalism. As Ms. Merkel said: “This choice must be compatible with market requirements”; beyond them it loses its legitimacy. However, in counterpoint to this discourse, Germany argues for policies that implement the exercise of its national sovereignty and seeks to submit its European partners to respect its requirements. Germany has used European ordo-liberalism to establish its hegemony, particularly in the euro zone. Britain – by its Brexit choice – in turn decided to implement the benefits of exercising its national sovereignty.
We can understand then that “nationalist discourse” and the endlessly praised virtues of national sovereignty, understood in this way (bourgeois-capitalist sovereignty) without the class content of the interests that it serves being mentioned, has always been subject to reservations, to put it mildly, from currents of the left in broad meaning, that is to say, all those who have the desire to defend the interests of the working classes. However, let us be wary of reducing the defense of national sovereignty to the simple terms of “bourgeois nationalism”. This defence is as necessary to serve other social interests as the ruling capitalist bloc. It will be closely associated with the deployment of capitalist exit strategies and commitment on the long road to socialism. It is a prerequisite of possible progress in this direction. The reason is that the effective reconsideration of global (and European) ordo-liberalism will never be anything but the product of uneven advances from one country to another, from one moment to another. The global system (and the European subsystem) has never been transformed “from above”, by means of collective decisions of the “international (or “European”) community”. The developments of these systems have never been other than the product of changes imposed within the states that compose them, and what results concerning the evolution of power relations between them. The framework defined by the (“nation”) State remains one in which decisive struggles that transform the world unfold.
The peoples of the peripheries of the global system, polarised by nature, have a long experience of this positive nationalism, that is to say anti-imperialist nationalism (expressing the refusal of the imposed world order) and potentially anti-capitalist. I only say this because potentially nationalism may also be carrying the illusion of building a national capitalism managing to “catch up” with the national construction of dominant centres. The nationalism of the peoples of the peripheries is progressive only on this condition: that it be anti-imperialist, breaking with global ordo-liberalism. In counterpoint a “nationalism” (while only apparent) that fits in with globalised ordo-liberalism, and therefore does not affect subordinate positions of the concerned nation in the system, becomes the instrument of the dominant local classes keen to participate in the exploitation of their people and possibly weaker peripheral partner towards which it acts as a “sub-imperialism”.
Today advances – audacious or restricted – allowing us to escape from ordo-liberalism are necessary and possible in all parts of the world, North and South. The crisis of capitalism created a breeding ground for the maturation of revolutionary circumstances. I express this requirement that is objective, necessary and possible, in a short sentence: “escape from the crisis of capitalism or escape from capitalism in crisis?” (The title of one of my recent books). Escaping the crisis is not our problem, it is that of the capitalist rulers. Whether they succeed (and in my opinion they are not engaged in ways that would allow it) or not is not our problem. What have we to gain by partnering with our adversaries to revive broken-down ordo-liberalism? This crisis created opportunities for consistent advances, more or less bold, provided that the fighting movements adopt goal-led strategies. The affirmation of national sovereignty is then required to enable these advances that are necessarily uneven from one country to another, but always in conflict with the logic of ordo-liberalism. The sovereign national project that is popular, social and democratic proposed in this paper is designed with this in mind. The concept of sovereignty implemented here is not that of bourgeois-capitalist sovereignty; it differs from it and for this reason must be qualified as popular sovereignty.
The confusion between these two contradictory concepts, and from there the rapid rejection of any “nationalism” without more precision, destroys any possibility of escaping ordo-liberalism. Unfortunately in Europe – and beyond – the contemporary left engaged in struggles often practices this amalgam.
Defending national sovereignty does not mean simply to want “another, multipolar globalisation” (in counterpoint to the current model of globalisation), based on the idea that international order must be negotiated among sovereign national partners, equal in rights, and not unilaterally imposed by the powerful – the imperialist triad, United States at the head – as it is in ordo-liberalism. Still we have to answer the question: why a multipolar world? Because it can be designed as still governed by the competition between systems accepting ordo-liberalism; or, in counterpoint, as an opening frame giving leeway to people who want to escape this ordo-liberalism. We must therefore specify the nature of the objective pursued under the proposed multi-polar system. As always in history a national project can be hybrid, crossed with contradictions between trends therein deployed, some in favour of a capitalist nation and others who give themselves other goals beyond their progressive social content. China’s sovereign project provides a good example; semi sovereign projects in India and Brazil (before the rightist coup) provide others.
Although the collapse of the European project (and in particular the subsystem of the Euro) has already been underway for years (Ref. Samir Amin, The implosion of contemporary capitalism), Brexit evidently constitutes a major expression of it.
The European project was conceived from the outset in 1957 as an instrument implemented by the partners’ – France and Germany in particular – capitalist monopolies with the support of the United States, to defuse the risk of socialist, radical or moderate take-overs. The Rome treaty, by signing in stone the sanctity of private property, outlawed any aspiration to socialism, as Giscard d’Estaing said at the time. Subsequently and gradually this character was reinforced by European building up, a reinforced concrete one since the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. The argument orchestrated by propaganda for the acceptance of the project was that it finally abolished the national sovereignty of the states of the Union, these sovereignties (in their bourgeois/imperialist form) that had been at the origin of the unprecedented massacres of the two great wars of the twentieth century. Therefore this project has received a favourable response from the younger generations, by dangling a democratic and pacifist European sovereignty, taking the place of the war-mongering national sovereignties of the past. In fact sovereignty of States was never abolished, but mobilised to accept ordo-liberalism, and become the necessary framework to ensure to now financialised monopolies the monopoly of the economic, social and political management of European societies; and that whatever the possible developments of opinions. The European project is based on an absolute denial of democracy (understood as the exercise of choice between alternative social projects) that goes well beyond the “democratic deficit” argued against the Brussels bureaucracy. It has given repeated evidence; and has de facto annihilated the credibilityof elections whose results are legitimate only insofar as they comply with the requirements of ordo-liberalism.
Germany has been able, in the context of this European construction, to assert its hegemony. Thus German (bourgeois/capitalist) sovereignty was erected as a substitute for a nonexistent European sovereignty. European partners are invited to align with the requirements of this sovereignty superior to that of others. Europe has become the German Europe, particularly in the Eurozone where Berlin manages the finances with preferential benefit to the German Konzerns. Important politicians like Finance Minister Schäuble, indulge in a permanent blackmail and threaten the European partners with a “German exit” (Gexit) in case they call into question Berlins hegemony.
It should not be avoided to conclude from the obvious facts: the German model poisons Europe, Germany included. Ordo-liberalism is the source of the persistent stagnation of the continent, coupled with ongoing austerity policies. So ordo-liberalism is an irrational system when it is in the perspective of protecting the interests of popular majorities in all EU countries, including Germany, as in the prospect of long-term defence of ecological conditions of reproduction of economic and social life. Furthermore ordo-liberalism leads to endless aggravation of inequality between partners; it is the origin of the trade surpluses of Germany and symmetrical deficits of others. But ordo-liberalism is a perfectly rational option from the perspective of financial monopolies of which it ensures the continued growth of their monopoly rents. This system is not viable. Not because it faces the growing resistance of its victims (ineffective to date), but because of its own internal contradiction: the growth of rent monopolies impose stagnation and the continually worsened status of fragile partners (Greece and others).
The captain at the helm is leading the European ship straight towards visible reefs. Passengers implore him to change course; to no avail. The captain, protected by a praetorian guard (Brussels, ECB) remains invulnerable. It only remains to throw the life boats out to sea. It is certainly dangerous, but a lesser danger than the certain shipwreck in sight. The image will help to understand the nature of the two options between which the critics of the European system in place are hesitant to choose. Some argue that we must stay on board; evolve the European construction in new directions, respecting the interests of popular majorities.They persist despite the repeated failures of the struggles involved in this strategy. Others call to leave the ship, as evidenced by the choice of the English. Leaving Europe; but for what? Disinformation campaigns orchestrated by the media clergy in the service of ordo-liberalism contribute to scrambling the cards. An amalgam is maintained between all possible forms of use of national sovereignty, all presented as demagogic, “populist”, unrealistic, chauvinistic, out-of-date, nauseating. The public is pummeled by the discourse on security and immigration, while highlighting the responsibilities of ordo-liberalism in worsening conditions of workers is avoided. Unfortunately whole segments of the left involve themselves with this game.
For my part, I say that there is nothing to expect from the European project, which can not be transformed from within; we must deconstruct and eventually rebuild later from different foundations. Because they refuse to reach this conclusion, many of the movements in conflict with ordo-liberalism remain hesitant regarding the strategic objectives of their struggles: to leave Europe or remain in it (and keep the Euro or not)? In these circumstances the arguments raised by both sides are different in the extreme, often on trivial issues, sometimes about false issues orchestrated by the media (security, immigrants), resulting in nauseous choices, rarely about the real challenges. An exit from NATO for example, is rarely invoked. Nevertheless, the rising tide that is expressed in the rejection of Europe (like with Brexit) reflects the destruction of illusions about the possibility of reform.
Nevertheless, confusion scares. Great Britain certainly did not intend to implement its sovereignty to engage in a way that deviates from ordo-liberalism. Rather London wants to further open towards the US (Great Britain does not retain the reluctance of some Europeans towards the transatlantic free trade agreement), the Commonwealth countries and the emerging countries of the South, replacing the European priority. Nothing else; and certainly not a better social program. In addition for the British, German hegemony is less acceptable than it appears to be for others, in France and Italy.
National sovereignty is the indispensable instrument of social improvements and progress of democratisation, in the North as in the South of the planet. These advances are controlled by a logic that lies beyond capitalism, in a favourable prospect for the emergence of a polycentric world and consolidation of internationalism of peoples.
(i) engage itself in the construction of a self-centered and integrated industrial system in which the different branches of production become suppliers and outlets of each other. Ordo-liberalism does not allow this construction. It indeed conceives “competitiveness” as that of each industrial establishment considered by itself. The implementation of this principle then gives priority to exports and reduced the industries of the Southern countries to the status of subcontractors dominated by monopolies of the imperialist centres, which appropriate by this means a large part of the value created there and transform it into imperialist monopoly rent. In counterpoint the construction of an industrial system requires planning of state and national ownership of currency, the tax system, and foreign trade.