Wednesday, June 29, 2016

"Women's Movie"Carol , Joy, Shoshana and Racheli

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Hey Ho UK.... how many Great Recessions have you started today.


The Brexit crisis is a huge blow to Obama’s legacy


Barack Obama (R) and David Cameron (L). REUTERS/Andrew Winning
The financial and political fallout from Britain's vote to leave the European Union has added to a string of setbacks for President Barack Obama as he works to burnish his legacy before his presidency ends in January 2017.

The Brexit decision came after a deadlock in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday effectively ended Obama's push to overhaul immigration rules, and the week after the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

For Obama, the reversals heighten pressure on him and fellow Democrats to work harder for the Nov. 8 elections - particularly for the party's presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who represents his best shot at making sure more of his policies are not rolled back.

Speaking at two fundraising events in Seattle on Friday night, at the end of an arduous day that saw global markets plunge after the Brexit vote, Obama acknowledged the shifting political winds four months from the vote.

"If you didn't think the stakes were high before, you should think the stakes are pretty high right now," Obama said at an intimate fundraising dinner at the home of tech executive Steve Singh. Guests, arranged in two long tables, paid $10,000 to $66,800 per couple.

Obama has argued technology and globalization can increase opportunities for all, but conceded that recent events show many people are frightened by global competition and feel left behind.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and political novice, has tapped into those concerns about the economy, trade and immigration - fears that also figured into the UK campaign to leave the EU.

"Unfortunately, when people are anxious and scared, there are going to be politicians out there who try to prey on that frustration to get themselves headlines and to get themselves votes," Obama told about 3,000 people who paid $250 and up to attend a campaign-style event on Friday for Washington State's Democratic Governor Jay Inslee.

Clinton regained a double-digit lead over Trump this week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday that showed 46.6 percent of likely American voters supported Clinton while 33.3 percent backed Trump.
'The ninth inning'

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama attend a press conference at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in central London Thomson Reuters

In April, Obama had taken the unusual step of traveling to London to help the "Remain" camp of the referendum for his friend and ally, Prime Minister David Cameron, who will now leave office before Obama does.

The financial uncertainty from Brexit threatens to weigh on the strong U.S. economy and undo some of the recovery seen since Obama took office in early 2009 at the height of the financial crisis.

Earlier this week, Obama's plan to remove the specter of deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants was quashed when the Supreme Court deadlocked over lifting a hold on the action.

And two weeks ago, the nation's worst mass shooting in modern history, at a gay nightclub in Orlando, raised questions about how Obama is dealing with home-grown extremism - and served as a reminder of his failure to convince the U.S. Congress to tighten gun laws.

The setbacks show the limits of action that any president can take unilaterally, said Justin Vaughn, a political scientist at Boise State University.

"I don't think Obama's legacy has taken a hit so much as it came back to earth," Vaughn said.

Still, the impression that his administration is unable to control its own political destiny could weigh on how history views Obama's time at the White House, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at University of Houston.

"Presidents are often judged by what happens in the ninth inning, so President Obama's last few months in office are important to cementing and enhancing his legacy," Rottinghaus said.

Sunday, June 19, 2016



Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Donald Trump Will Be Buried in an Electoral Avalanche
Recent presidential elections have been close, but this is the man to lose bigly.

BY JEET HEER
June 17, 2016


Over the last two decades, American presidential elections have all been relatively close. But with Donald Trump at the helm, the Republican Party faces the prospect of a historic landslide closer to the creamings received by Barry Goldwater in 1964 (who lost by 23.6 points), George McGovern in 1972 (24.2 percentage points), and Walter Mondale in 1984 (19.4 percentage points). At this point, the only real question appears to be how huge (or beautiful—pick your Trumpian adjective) the margin will be.

MOST POPULAR
American Horror Story
The Hypermasculine Violence of Omar Mateen and Brock Turner
The Courage of Being Queer
The Split
Orlando Has Exposed Islam’s Huge Homophobia Problem

To lose by more than 10 percent in 2016, as Trump could easily do, would be a remarkable achievement of sorts, given how evenly split Americans have been in recent years and how reluctant they are to leave their preferred parties. The last election even approaching a landslide was in 1996, when Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole by an eight-point margin. Since then, elections have been tight. Even in 2008, when the Democrats should by all rights have won massively—with Republicans dragged down by an unpopular war and the start of the biggest economic recession since 1929, and with John McCain facing the most talented politician of the last generation—Barack Obama’s victory was only by a 7-percent margin, which narrowed to four in 2012.


Trump seems destined to break this pattern—and if his campaign continues on its current trajectory, it’s not inconceivable that he could tally less that 40 percent of the vote, which no candidate has managed since George H.W Bush in 1992, 24 years ago, in a three-person race. This is only partially because Trump’s polling numbers have taken a dive recently; a recent Bloomberg poll shows Clinton enjoying a double-digit lead over Trump, getting 49 percent to his 37 percent. But the Bloomberg poll is only a snapshot of a moment, and poll numbers are likely to fluctuate as the race proceeds. The real reason to think Trump will tank in an historical way on election day has to do with the essential nature of the unorthodox campaign Trump is running, as against Clinton’s more traditional effort.

Clinton, whatever her flaws, is a mainstream politician who has a proven ability to raise huge amounts of money and enjoys broad support within her party. Despite the lingering frustrations of many Bernie Sanders’s supporters being reluctant to support her, Clinton’s recent upsurge in polling shows that she is already consolidating Democrats behind her.



Trump won’t have a solid Republican coalition behind him. When he became the presumptive Republican nominee six weeks ago, he briefly began consolidating Republican support, but that effort has now stalled and indeed is fraying, with two major party figures—Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin—backtracking from their earlier endorsements. As Kirk tweeted on June 7, “Given my military experience, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal.”

Far from pivoting to the center and uniting the party around him as a normal candidate would do, Trump has spent the first big sprint of his campaign alienating the Republican elite by continuing with his overt racism (as in his attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel and renewed calls to ban Muslim immigrants), and engaging in conspiracy-mongering (suggesting that President Obama is asympathizer of Islamic terrorism).

Trump has the awesome task of running a national campaign with nothing more than his own political instincts and small staff of bootlickers who have shown no ability to reign in his worst tendencies.

Trump’s manic, narcissistic, and immature response to the Orlando massacre has been a key turning point—or, looked at another way, a final straw. Just as Republican elites were learning to live with Trump, so long as he kept his promise to act more “presidential,” he’s now made it clear that he’ll continue to be the same old Trump the world has known for decades. The result is that elected Republican officials are starting to un-endorse Trump or say they won’t back his presidential bid. Republican governors in Maryland, Michigan, and Massachusetts have all said they won’t vote for Trump.

Unable to work with the RNC and most elected officials, barely on speaking terms with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the country’s most powerful Republican office-holder, Trump has to face the awesome task of running a national campaign with nothing more than his own political instincts and small staff of bootlickers who have shown no ability to rein in his worst tendencies. The results have been chaotic, in terms well described by Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo:


There’s a Politico story out today about how the RNC gave him the names of twenty big GOP donors to call. He got bored or frustrated and stopped after calling three. And this comes after deciding that he actually doesn’t need to raise a billion dollars.

Almost every day since he clinched the nomination almost six weeks ago has been a surreal tour through Trump’s damaged psyche—the insecurities, silly feuds, the mix of self-serving lies and attacks on people he’s supposed to be courting or justifying a supposed refusal to do things he finds himself actually unable to do(raise a billion dollars). More than anything he’s attacking almost everyone but the person he’s running against—and that, not terribly effectively.

The sheer shambles of Trump’s campaign is difficult to overstate, and stands in sharp relief to the professionalism of the Clinton team. It’s not just that Trump has no ground game or data analysis, but that he doesn’t even see the need for them. Clinton, on the other hand, has inherited the legendary Obama team of 2008 and 2012, the undisputed modern masters of national campaigning. As Karl Rove wrote on Thursday, Trump doesn’t even have an ad strategy, while Clinton is already hammering away at him with ad buys in swing states.

Trump was able to wing it during the GOP primaries, where he faced a crowded field of opponents and a conservative base that responded to his ravings. But his shambolic, careening campaign is already alienating the general electorate like no other politician ever has.

According to a Washington Post poll, Trump has startlingly high negatives, being viewed unfavorably by 77 percent of women, 89 percent of Hispanics and 94 percent of African-Americans. It’s true that Clinton also has high negatives, but they aren’t in Trump’s league. Nobody’s are. As Greg Sergeant noted in The Washington Post, “there’s no real equivalence between the negative views of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While Clinton certainly has problems in this regard, Trump fares far, far worse.”

Trump is viewed negatively by every major demographic group except non-college educated white men (who view him favorably, 56-42). This means that even groups that have voted Republican in most post-1964 elections—white women, college-educated whites—are hostile to Trump. By contrast, Clinton is viewed favorably by many groups, including women overall, non-whites, and Hispanics. Her negatives, unlike Trump’s, are offset by groups that actually like her.

Further boosting Clinton’s chances of a romp in November is the fact that pollsters may well be under-counting a key demographic that is strongly anti-Trump and pro-Clinton: Latinos. Because they have trouble canvassing Spanish-speaking households, pollsters tend to have trouble capturing the Latino vote. If this is true in this election as previously, then it’s likely that Clinton’s current lead is being underestimated by as much as 3 percent. Clinton was running about even with Bernie Sanders in the polls in California but ended up winning by 13 percent, thanks in large part to Latinos who went undetected by pollsters. Of course California is a special case, but Latinos are projected to rise to 17 percent of the electorate in 2016—and Trump couldn’t be doing more to mobilize them against him.

The reality of modern American politics is that it’s actually very difficult for ordinary Republicans or Democrats to lose by a landslide in national elections. A generic Republican would be running neck-in-neck with Clinton. (It’s hard to imagine any Republican who ran for president this year faring worse than Trump, except, perhaps, Ben Carson.) But Trump is no ordinary politician. He is running a train wreck of a campaign, has little patience for fund-raising, and can’t stop picking fights with leaders in his own party. He is loathed by a vast swath of the American people, and loved only by one faction of his own party. There’s every reason to think that Trump can pull off the near-impossible task of losing by more than 10 percent and possibly by much more. Moreover, as he continues to feud with members of his own party, he’ll drive down the value of the Republican brand so the party could end up losing both the Senate and the House. If he manages this feat, Trump will truly have left his mark on American politics.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, Saba and Safta x two. Mazal Tov from the Citizen's of Zion.

Reprinted with permission of the Blogger Anneta Konstantinides 


Beaming Bill and Hillary leave $1,700-a-night hospital and daughter Chelsea after meeting grandson Aidan for the first time .Bill and Hillary Clinton met their new grandson for the first time Hillary Clinton's first grandson has been named Aidan Clinton Mezvinsky.Chelsea tweeted the news on Saturday morning 

  • Said she and husband Marc were 'overwhelmed with gratitude and love' 
  • Bill and Hillary said they are 'overjoyed' to be grandparents again
Surrounded by their Secret Service detail, the Clintons walked out of Lenox Hill Hospital in tandem early on Saturday evening, where daughter Chelsea had given birth to their first grandson, Aidan.
Appearing to be in fine spirits, the Clintons earlier issued a statement saying that they were 'overjoyed' to be grandparents again as Chelsea and her husband Marc Mezvinsky declared themselves, 'overwhelmed with gratitude and love'.
Chelsea, 36, first tweeted the news of the birth of Aidan Clinton Mezvinsky on Saturday morning. Their daughter and first child Charlotte was born in September of 2014.


Proud grandparents: Hillary and Bill Clinton leave the Lennox Hospital where their daughter Chelsea clinton just announced had her second baby in New York City
Second time around: Hillary Clinton is flanked by an agent of her Secret Service detail as she departs Lenox Hill Hospital on the Upper East Side of New York City
Second time around: Hillary Clinton is flanked by an agent of her Secret Service detail as she departs Lenox Hill Hospital on the Upper East Side of New York City


Pleased: Former President Bill Clinton prepares to get into his car and be driven away after seeing his daughter after she had given birth to her second child, a son
Chelsea Clinton (pictured earlier this month) has given birth to a baby boy named Aidan Clinton Mezvinsky
Chelsea Clinton (pictured earlier this month) has given birth to a baby boy named Aidan Clinton Mezvinsky
Clinton, who announced she was expecting in December, tweeted news of the birth on Saturday morning
Clinton, who announced she was expecting in December, tweeted news of the birth on Saturday morning
The Lenox hospital is famed for its exlusive and elegant maternity suite. 
A concierge can accommodate any whim the family has, and a 24-hour food service reportedly will whip up everything from lobster to cheesecake, delivered straight to the suite’s kitchen.
The cost per night is upwards of $2,000.
Chelsea isn’t the only new celebrity mom to have stayed at Lenox Hill’s maternity ward dedicated solely to the rich and famous. 
In January 2012, Beyonce and Jay-Z welcomed their daughter Blue Ivy on the same floor. The couple occupied a double room that has since become known informally as the ‘Beyonce Suite.’
And Simon Cowell’s girlfriend, Lauren Silverman, gave birth to their son, Eric, at the hospital in February 2013
Earlier, the Clintons released a statement, saying they were 'overjoyed to be grandparents again'.
'We are all over the moon as Chelsea and Marc welcome Charlotte's little brother to the world and grateful for our many blessings,' Hillary and Bill said. 
'Chelsea and Aidan are both doing well and enjoying this very special time together.'   
Luxury: The Lenox hospital on the Upper East Side of Manhattan is where the city's rich and famous choose to give birth 
Luxury: The Lenox hospital on the Upper East Side of Manhattan is where the city's rich and famous choose to give birth 
Aidan is the second child for Chelsea, 36, and her husband Marc Mezvinsky. The couple's daughter Charlotte was born in September 2014
Aidan is the second child for Chelsea, 36, and her husband Marc Mezvinsky. The couple's daughter Charlotte was born in September 2014
Chelsea, 36, announced in December 2015 that she was expecting her second child with hedge fund manager Marc.
'Next summer, Charlotte is going to be a big sister! Feeling very blessed & grateful this holiday season,' she tweeted, keeping the baby's gender under wraps. 
Hillary Clinton often brings up her 20-month-old granddaughter, who was born in September 2014, on the campaign trail.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has said being a grandmother is like 'falling in love all over again'. 
'It's transformational and until you did it, it is hard to know,' she continued. 'And it has for me been an absolutely life-changing experience.'   
Hillary has said in the past she was curious to see how Charlotte would handle being a big sister.
'We are wondering how this very independent, very assertive little girl, Charlotte, how she's going to adjust to the new baby,' Clinton said during a campaign event earlier this month. 
Chelsea Clinton leaves hospital with baby Charlotte in 2014

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Play
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time1:09
Fullscreen
Need Text
Hillary Clinton often brings up her 20-month-old granddaughter Charlotte on the campaign trail
Both of Charlotte and Aidan's grandparents have deep political ties. Mezvinsky is the son of former US Rep Edward Mezvinsky and former US Rep Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky
Bill and Hillary were doting grandparents the minute Charlotte was born, pictured here leaving Lenox Hill Hospital with Chelsea and Marc after her birth 
Bill and Hillary were doting grandparents the minute Charlotte was born, pictured here leaving Lenox Hill Hospital with Chelsea and Marc after her birth 
'That will be our next adventure,' Clinton said. 
'We talk to her about it. She seems to be less interested in that than she does in Elmo and other games and toys.' 
Chelsea and Mezvinsky, who wed in 2010, both appeared on stage with her mother earlier this month to celebrate her presumptive presidential nomination for the Democratic party.
Clinton said that night she wished her mother Dorothy Howell Rodham, who passed away in 2011, could be there that night to watch her make history. 
'I wish she could see what a wonderful mother Chelsea could become and meet her beautiful granddaughter Charlotte,' Clinton added. 
'I wish she could see her daughter become the Democratic Party's nominee.'  
Hillary Clinton talks about watching Chelsea become a mother

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
Play
Mute
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time1:14
Fullscreen
Need Text
This is Chelsea Clinton's second child with hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky (pictured together with their 20-month-old daughter Charlotte)
This is Chelsea Clinton's second child with hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky (pictured together with their 20-month-old daughter Charlotte)
Chelsea and Mezvinsky, who wed in 2010, both appeared on stage with her mother earlier this month to celebrate her presumptive presidential nomination for the Democratic party 
Chelsea and Mezvinsky, who wed in 2010, both appeared on stage with her mother earlier this month to celebrate her presumptive presidential nomination for the Democratic party 

Friday, June 17, 2016

From the Almighty United Kingdom of Great Britain to Little Good Old England . Britains Vote their decline on Super Thursday



It was Queen Elizabeth’s official 90th birthday celebration last Sunday, and tables for 10,000 guests were set along the Mall in central London. Steadily the rain fell, dripping out of the tubas of the bands and softening the sandwiches, but Her Majesty’s subjects munched on with stoic British spirit, standing up to cheer as she passed.

In her fuchsia coat and matching hat, she waved and grinned as if nothing had changed and never would. But next week, a very great change may come.

On Thursday, Britons will vote in a referendum on whether their country should stay in the European Union or leave it. If a majority opts for “Brexit,” a long earthquake begins. It will topple the old facade of Britishness. It will disrupt, perhaps mortally, the foundations of European unity. The sense of a fateful moment suddenly peaked on Thursday, when, the police say, a young Labour member of Parliament named Jo Cox was shot to death in her West Yorkshire district by a man who is said to have shouted, “Put Britain first!” and to have been involved in the white-supremacist National Alliance in the United States.

All campaigning was suspended for a day of appalled mourning, amid fears that widespread anxiety about European immigration was being inflamed into violent racialism. Ms. Cox was a rising star, admired in and outside Parliament for her selfless energy on behalf of refugees and the poor. Her friends hope her death may cool referendum passions, reminding sullen voters that “not all politicians are in it for themselves.”

Royal ceremonies offer a brief, reassuring illusion of continuity, but at the back of many minds on the Mall was this thought: Could we be saying goodbye not just to this beloved old lady, but to a certain idea of nationhood? An outward-looking, world-involved Great Britain may soon shrink into a Little England.

As the queen’s guests finished their tea in sight of the familiar gray mass of Buckingham Palace, opinion polls showed the Brexit vote surging. The early lead for the Remain campaign has melted away. In less than a week, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could be tearing up its European treaties and backing into Atlantic isolation.

The slogan “Take back control!” has been showing up everywhere in the last two weeks. It’s about sovereignty: the idea that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, not the Westminster Parliament, make the laws of England. Above all, it means taking control of the country’s frontiers. This would break decisively with a sacred principle of the European Union: the free movement of people, which, for more than 20 years under the Schengen Agreement, has allowed Europeans to travel among member states without passport checks, and live and work in those countries with no visa requirements.

With fateful timing, the latest official figures for net migration to Britain,published at the end of May, showed the second-highest annual number on record, 333,000 in 2015; European Union nations accounted for more than half of that figure. This was far higher than government targets, and played directly into the Leave campaign’s refrain about “uncontrolled immigration.”

Is it a baseless panic? Many European countries tolerate far higher levels of immigration. Scotland, with a new community of some 55,000 Poles, actively encourages it. In England, support for Brexit and for the xenophobic U.K. Independence Party is often in inverse proportion to the scale of the problem: The fewer immigrants there are in a town, the louder the outcry against foreigners. In contrast, polling in inner London, where about four out of 10 inhabitants are now foreign-born, shows a clear preference for staying in Europe. By chance, Ms. Cox’s killing fell on the same day that UKIP unveiled a poster titled “Breaking Point?” It shows a mass of black and brown refugees pouring toward a frontier. With grief still raw, there has been widespread revulsion at the poster, now reported to the police on grounds of “incitement to racial hatred.”

The English, normally skeptical about politics, have grown gullible. Both sides pelt the voters with forecasts of doom should the other side win. None are reliable, and the Leave figures have been especially deceitful. Remainers predict an economic armageddon of lost growth, a devalued pound and withered City of London. The Leavers’ Conservative leaders, assuming the mantle of a government in waiting, promise that “their” Britain could cover all the lost European subsidies and grants to farmers, poor regions, universities and schools. Evidence that they could find these additional billions is scant.

But there are deeper motives here than anxiety about the exchange rate or banks in London decamping to Frankfurt. Behind Brexit stalks the ghost of imperial exception, the feeling that Great Britain can never be just another nation to be outvoted by France or Slovakia. There’s still a providential feeling about Shakespeare’s “sceptred isle” as “this fortress built by Nature.” Or as an old Royal Marines veteran said to me, “God dug the bloody Channel for us, so why do we keep trying to fill it in?”

But in a Britain after Brexit, there will be internal border issues to worry about. London politicians look nervously north toward Scotland. Home to less than 10 percent of Britain’s population, Scotland has enjoyed a high degree of self-government since 1999. The pro-independence Scottish National Party dominates the country’s politics, consolidating its grip after losing a close-fought independence referendum in 2014.

Most Scots insist that they want to stay in the European Union. So what happens if a British majority says Leave and Scotland is dragged out of Europe against its will?

Many nationalists will demand an immediate new independence referendum. But Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s shrewd and popular first minister, will want to wait until polls show a settled majority of Scottish voters in favor of leaving the British state. It’s Ms. Sturgeon’s gamble that an economic downturn following Brexit, combined with the loss of European Union guarantees for workers’ rights and European subsidies for Scotland’s farmers and infrastructure projects, will deliver that support soon enough.

If Ms. Sturgeon’s strategy works out, Brexit could hasten the breakup of Britain. The constitutional fallout extends to Northern Ireland. A Leave vote would turn the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic into a guarded frontier with Europe, since Ireland would remain a member in the union. This would undermine a major provision of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, the peace deal that ended three decades of the Troubles.

Her Britannic Majesty would then be left with a simmering Ulster, the potential for resurgent nationalism in Wales, and a dominant population of 54 million English people. There is a logic to that, for Brexit is overwhelmingly an English, not a British, idea.

English nationalism, though inchoate, is spreading. For older generations, it was cloaked in British patriotism. But now, having watched the Scots and the Welsh win their own parliaments, England — with no less than 84 percent of Britain’s population — feels aggrieved and unrepresented. And so the English have gone in search of their own identity politics, finding common cause with the general impatience with old political elites that is flaming up all over Europe.

For now, their angry sense of powerlessness is aimed at the European Union. But the truth is that it’s from bloated, privileged London, not Brussels, that the English need to take back control. The Brexit campaign orators, themselves members of that metropolitan elite, have carefully diverted English fury into empty foreigner-baiting. In France this month, English soccer hooligans’ chant was “We’re all voting Out!” as they beat up fans from other nations.Continue reading the main story


A rump Britain that quits the European Union would not be the same country back in its old familiar place. It would be a new, strange country in an unfamiliar place.

For foreigners, it would be less easygoing, more suspicious and more bureaucratic for work and travel. For its own citizens, it would become a less regulated, more unequal society. For the young, as European color drained away, it could come to seem a dim and stifling place that anyone with imagination would want to escape.

A Leave victory in the referendum is expected to topple Prime Minister David Cameron, and replace him with a radically right-wing Conservative team, which the impetuous former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is eager to lead. The new government would immediately have to face the problems of disengaging from Europe, and possibly from Scotland. Negotiating new treaties with European trading partners would take many years. And Germany is warning that Britain will no longer have access to the European Union’s single market.

That would knock the bottom out of the Leave campaign’s central promise: that Britain could have its cake and eat it, too — retaining full access to 500 million European customers while clamping controls on immigration from the union. Cynics predict that Britain will spend five years trying to get out, and the next five trying to get back in.

Then come the constitutional nightmares. Most lawmakers in Britain’s Parliament are pro-Europe. Can they be forced to vote for legislation to leave the union? What happens if the government loses an election and a pro-European administration — say, a Labour-led coalition — takes power?

And who is supreme here, anyway? The British people, who will have expressed their will in a binding referendum? Or Parliament, which by convention is sovereign and cannot be overruled? In a kingdom with no written constitution, nobody knows the answer.

It is certain that Brexit would do gross damage to both Europe and America. For the United States, it would mean the failure of many years of diplomacy. Britain would become at once less useful as an ally and less predictable. Washington would turn increasingly from London to Berlin.

For Europe, Britain’s departure would be like a first brick pulled from a flimsy wall. The union is already fragile. Its mismanagement of the eurozone debt crisis after the 2008 crash was followed by its mismanagement of the refugee crisis. No wonder a recent Pew Research Center poll showed plummeting approval ratings for the union in key European countries.

British withdrawal isn’t likely to be followed instantly by that of other member states. But nationalist governments like those in Poland and Hungary, and others besides, will be encouraged to defy European rules from trade regulations to human rights, until the whole structure disintegrates. Disputes once soothed by multinational bargaining in Strasbourg or Brussels may grow toxic.

And Europe, though often vexed by London’s halfheartedness, will miss the sheer negotiating skill of British diplomacy: its genius for avoiding confrontations and inventing compromises. As more countries strike mutinous attitudes, those skills have never been more needed.

“For 70 years, my Foreign Service has been Britain’s rear guard,” a British ambassador told me. “We have prevented its orderly retreat from world greatness turning into a rout.” But Brexit now seems to propose a final retreat across the English Channel to the white cliffs of Dover.

Isolation brings out the worst in Britain. And it never works. In the 1930s, a complacent Britain refused to help Spain fight fascism, appeased Hitler and Mussolini, and for too long turned away refugees fleeing persecution. As Czechoslovakia cried out for help, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain dismissed “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.” Will a British leader soon speak again about faraway Europe in the same tones?

When Britain did admit that it belonged to Europe, after all, it was at the 11th hour. In 1940, isolation ended in a fight for survival, and complacency gave way to five years of grim determination. During those war years, the Continent was devastated and its nation-states discredited.

Thanks to that harsh experience, the British after the war recognized their share of responsibility by supporting the vision of a united Europe. Must Britain learn that painful, costly lesson all over again?