President Obama has weighed in on the debate in the U.K. concerning its popular referendum on the question of whether to stay in or break with the E.U. on a significant basis. President Obama's case for telling U.K. to remain in the E.U. hinges on his claim of U.S.'s entitlement to cast its vote due to its assistance to Europe during and after two world wars of the 20th century. I think this could set an interesting international precedent.
Perhaps the head of the Chinese government should weigh in on U.S. policy since they have lent us the money to keep our economy from collapse. Perhaps the king of Saudi Arabia is justified in threatening to gut the U.S. economy if the Saudi involvement in the 9-11 attacks on Manhattan, which has been previously buried for obvious reasons, effect U.S.-Saudi-Arabian relations. Perhaps Indian government officials should weigh in on labor policy in the U.S. since their citizens have propped up the U.S. medical establishment and also provided cheaper labor to the tech industry.
The quid pro quo of Obama's pressing his Presidential position on the U.K. referendum is indicative of the old corrupt politics of The West. It reveals the fallacy of true democracy in the U.S., U.K. and E.U.. It appears the real reason that Obama has stepped in is the assertion of control by politicians who are in the pockets of financiers, who have assumed the role of aristocratic puppet masters of global governance.