United Kingdom

924 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

epaulo13 wrote:

B) It seemed to me that most of the push for trying to stay in the EU after all was from the antisocialist, anti-worker, anti-Corbyn wing of Labour-who were pushing that mainly to sabotage his chances of unifying the party-from the LibDems, who can now fairly be called a party of the right on economic issues(on those, I think they are basically on the same wavelength as the FPD in Germany), and from the corporate sector in Britain.  It's genuinely difficult for me to even imagine a socialist case for trying to reverse Brexit.

 ..this is not how i see it. a large portion of the labour party rank and file have been pushing it. the first suggestion of a vote came from progressive folks re may's brexit. inspite of the anticorbyns trying to use it to fuck with corbyn you can't say this isn't what the population wants looking at the polls.

..and there is a socialist/militant perspective that has the joining up with others in the eu to press for change a different europe. that is thought to be a better way to move forward than from a disconnected uk. look at what happened to greece or even more recently venezuela. how easily it was for capital to isolate these countries and do real damage at a sustained level. the uk politicians are not prepared for brexit nor is the population. not today maybe in the future. which is why the right introduced brexit in the first place.

..a couple months ago the tories began working on changing how people voted. like in the us they are looking at the need for an id card for starters. there need to be an understanding of what this all means. thus my asking for proof by those who want brexit that the uk isn't just jumping into a pot of boiling water. 

eta..in any case ken it is up to those in the uk. and it looks to me like one of those rare moments in time where there seems to be a participitory thing going on. everyone gets a voice.

Agreed that it's up to them.  And I always learn from your posts, so thank you for continuing to teach.

josh

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

The best path is to do what the people voted to do:  Leave.  And on March 29.

The people never voted for a no-deal Brexit. The majority never supported a no-deal Brexit.

They voted to leave.  Leave means leave.  If they can’t get a deal, that doesn’t nullify the vote to leave.

josh

voice of the damned wrote:

NDPP:

This has nothing to do with Bill Browder, the Russians, or Hillary Clinton's ill-advsed insults. It's got to do with the fact that most of the brexiteers I've heard, from Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson down to Pat Condell ranting on You Tube, are racists who sell brexit as a way of curbing immigration and freeing Britain from supposedly tyrannical government regulations.

FWIW, I suspect that Putin and his RT/Sputnik hacks like Brexit, but I don't think they're a significant reason why it passed in 2016, or maintains whatever popularity it still does.

The tradition of left opposition to European economic integration stretches back some 50 years.  In the 70s, the racist Enoch Powell opposed it for the wrong reasons.  That didn’t stop the left from opposing it for the right reasons.

NDPP

"Parliament is in open betrayal of the Referendum results, of the 2017 general election manifestos and the overwhelming majority to trigger Article 50. The people and democracy itself have been betrayed."

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1105962791112978444

 

'The way the EU treats Britain is a disgrace'

https://twitter.com/LeaveMnsLeave/status/1105876499004039168

"...So the bill will be, to put it a bit crudely, very hefty..." Jean Claude Juncker, EU

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

B) It seemed to me that most of the push for trying to stay in the EU after all was from the antisocialist, anti-worker, anti-Corbyn wing of Labour-who were pushing that mainly to sabotage his chances of unifying the party-from the LibDems, who can now fairly be called a party of the right on economic issues(on those, I think they are basically on the same wavelength as the FPD in Germany), and from the corporate sector in Britain.  It's genuinely difficult for me to even imagine a socialist case for trying to reverse Brexit.

 ..this is not how i see it. a large portion of the labour party rank and file have been pushing it. the first suggestion of a vote came from progressive folks re may's brexit. inspite of the anticorbyns trying to use it to fuck with corbyn you can't say this isn't what the population wants looking at the polls.

..and there is a socialist/militant perspective that has the joining up with others in the eu to press for change a different europe. that is thought to be a better way to move forward than from a disconnected uk. look at what happened to greece or even more recently venezuela. how easily it was for capital to isolate these countries and do real damage at a sustained level. the uk politicians are not prepared for brexit nor is the population. not today maybe in the future. which is why the right introduced brexit in the first place.

..a couple months ago the tories began working on changing how people voted. like in the us they are looking at the need for an id card for starters. there need to be an understanding of what this all means. thus my asking for proof by those who want brexit that the uk isn't just jumping into a pot of boiling water. 

eta..in any case ken it is up to those in the uk. and it looks to me like one of those rare moments in time where there seems to be a participitory thing going on. everyone gets a voice.

Agreed that it's up to them.  And I always learn from your posts, so thank you for continuing to teach.

..txs for your kind words ken.

..one more point. i understand that the uk has been one of the strongest/harshest neoliberal voices in the eu. and the uk/london represents the financial arm of the neoliberal eu (vs germany the manufacturing). change the role the uk plays in the eu and you begin to change the eu. 

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:
'The way the EU treats Britain is a disgrace'

https://twitter.com/LeaveMnsLeave/status/1105876499004039168

"...So the bill will be, to put it a bit crudely, very hefty..." Jean Claude Juncker, EU

Is this meant to prove my argument that brexit is dominated by a bunch of right-wing loonies?

From the leavemeansleave "Who We Are" page...

VICE-CHAIRMEN

Richard Tice

Nigel Farage MEP

https://tinyurl.com/yxtay63w

 

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Another defeat for May. Now parliament could take back control with ‘indicative’ votes

Another night of Brexit votes, another significant defeat for Theresa May. Last night, Yvette Cooper moved the motion that its main signatory, Tory Caroline Spelman, had unsuccessfully tried to withdraw. The Prime Minister had tabled a ‘no deal’ motion, but it wasn’t the straightforward rejection that the Commons wanted to express, so the Spelman-turned-Cooper amendment passed against the wishes of the government. Chaotic scenes. Cabinet ministers defied the Tory whip to abstain, and their defiance was ignored in the clearest evidence yet of May being ‘in office but not in power’. (If you missed all the action, read this run-through of what happened, with vote results, lists of Labour rebels and Jeremy Corbyn’s response at the despatch box.)

After trying to sneak through a ‘no deal’ motion that actually repeated her ‘my deal or no deal’ refrain, May is now attempting a similar trick with the Article 50 extension vote tonight. The Commons was appalled when Speaker Bercow revealed that the motion tabled by the government was not a clear-cut proposal for delaying Brexit, but a barely veiled threat. On the basis of MPs rejecting both May’s deal and no deal, the PM says at least a short extension will be sought, i.e. we’re definitely not leaving on 29th March. The motion goes on to explain that if MPs fail to agree a deal by Wednesday 20th, the extension length would be decided by the EU and possibly much longer. So unfolds what Olly Robbins said at that Parisian bar last month: ‘my deal or no deal’ has become ‘my deal or no Brexit’. That’s how she hopes to drive her deal through, with the votes of Brexiteers, at the third meaningful vote next week.

What happens now? The ERG are split: Jacob Rees-Mogg is making positive noises; Steve Baker remained defiant in the chamber. As usual, a lot depends on the DUP. Will Labour Leave seat representatives be pushed into rebelling? How many? Too early to tell, but it’s true that they are highly uncomfortable with a long extension. Most of that group said they would only vote to delay Brexit tonight if it were short and for a specific reason (approving a deal with a different future relationship).....

JKR

josh wrote:

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

The best path is to do what the people voted to do:  Leave.  And on March 29.

The people never voted for a no-deal Brexit. The majority never supported a no-deal Brexit.

They voted to leave.  Leave means leave.  If they can’t get a deal, that doesn’t nullify the vote to leave.

The referendum doesn’t nullify the primacy of the UK Parliament.

NDPP

Brrr-Exit Cold Shoulder

https://youtu.be/q-XknFBt-jA

Economics Prof Richard Wolff on the money behind Brexit and 'the endless struggle about something that doesn't matter."

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

The best path is to do what the people voted to do:  Leave.  And on March 29.

The people never voted for a no-deal Brexit. The majority never supported a no-deal Brexit.

They voted to leave.  Leave means leave.  If they can’t get a deal, that doesn’t nullify the vote to leave.

The referendum doesn’t nullify the primacy of the UK Parliament.

I find it difficult to accept the premice of leave means leave after two years. It is actually a part of propaganda that is very insulting to voters while pretending to honour them.

Power to the people is not a quesiton of getting a vote by hook or crook and running with it even with those voters screaming in remorse or if the conditions of the support have changed.

Democracy is not based on a presumption that voters do not ahve a right to change their minds. It is not based on a presumption that if you can fool the people once they will sign a binding contract that you can hold over their heads forever - even if in legal terms the contract becomes what is called a "frustrated contract" invalidated by terms that have altered the reality so much that the contract cannot be delivered or ought not to be expected to be.

The proble  with the leave means leave is the presumption by many that leave would lose now. There is tremendous value in, once things have changed asking for a new mandate. Governments always have this option for good reason with their own mandates. In negotiation a renewed support from the people proving the support recognizes and supports the changes strengthens the hand in negotiation. If it cannot be renewed, there is no shame in the people having changed their minds. Power to the people means they should be able to do so.

Should Iran today be denied an election with the option to replace the Islamic revolution if the people want? Leave means leave suggests they should not. The Islamic recolution started in 1979 was followed by a referendum. When did that mandate become invalid or is it still valid? Some would argue when the reality changed to the point that it was legitimate to ask the people again.

What about those saying Trudeau has no moral authority to govern? You cannot agree with that statement and also agree that a referendum from two years ago should be maintained despite new infomration, accusations that people were lied to and the reality that the brexit sold is not the brexit that can be delivered.

I always suspect people who are reluctant to let the people have a say when there is an indication that the people might want to say something different.

The referendum was not binding it was infomration. If the information can change so be it more infomration can come. Only the winners of a close referendum who fear that they have a result that cannot be replicated would insist two years on that it is a contract that cannot be reversed.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

MPs reject public vote and indicative votes – but choose to delay Brexit

MPs have rejected the opportunity to legislate for another referendum in the first of a series of key Brexit votes today. Just 85 voted in favour, while 334 – a majority of MPs – were against.

Labour whipped MPs to abstain on the amendment, proposed by The Independent Group’s Dr Sarah Wollaston, which sought to extend Article 50 with the aim of legislating for a public vote on Brexit.

The party was criticised for the move by some supporters of another referendum, but the official People’s Vote campaign issued a statement that read: “We do not think today is the right time to test the will of the House on the case for a new public vote.”

Shadow ministers Yvonne Fovargue, Emma Lewell-Buck and Justin Madders defied the Labour whip to vote against a public vote, as did whip Stephanie Peacock. Ruth Smeeth also voted against and resigned from her parliamentary private secretary post.

quote:

Finally, MPs voted by a majority of 210 to extend Article 50 and delay Brexit. Theresa May will now request such an extension from the EU, and the 27 member states will have to unanimously agree to it.

Six Labour MPs defied the whip to vote against or abstain on extension, while seven of Theresa May’s cabinet members – Steve Barclay, Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, Penny Mordaunt, Gavin Williamson, Andrea Leadsom and Liz Truss – voted against her motion.

Responding to the results, Jeremy Corbyn said: “We have begun to hold meetings with members across the House to find a consensus and a compromise that meets the needs of our country. But the last few days have also put a responsibility on the Prime Minister. First, to publicly accept that both her deal and no deal are simply no longer viable options. Secondly, to bring forward the necessary legislation to amend the exit date of 29 March.

“Tonight I reiterate our conviction that a deal can be agreed based on our alternative plan that can command support across the House. And I also reiterate our support for a public vote not as political point-scoring but as a realistic option to break the deadlock.

“The whole purpose ought to be to protect communities that are stressed and worried. Those people are worried about the future of their jobs and industries. Our job is to try to meet the concerns of the people who sent us here in the first place.”

NDPP

Theresa May Surrenders After Another Brexit Defeat

https://youtu.be/V8h0IwoikB0

"After two humiliating defeats in the House of Commons, UK Prime Minister Theresa May has begrudgingly granted lawmakers a vote on delaying the March 29 Brexit..."

'Dear MPs':

https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/11062517575109468

"Democracy is a pressure relief valve. If you shut it off, the pressure doesn't go away. It breaks out elsewhere. Be warned."

 

The EU's Secret Negotiations Exposed

https://youtu.be/agZ0xISi40E

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

The best path is to do what the people voted to do:  Leave.  And on March 29.

The people never voted for a no-deal Brexit. The majority never supported a no-deal Brexit.

They voted to leave.  Leave means leave.  If they can’t get a deal, that doesn’t nullify the vote to leave.

The referendum doesn’t nullify the primacy of the UK Parliament.

I find it difficult to accept the premice of leave means leave after two years. It is actually a part of propaganda that is very insulting to voters while pretending to honour them.

Power to the people is not a quesiton of getting a vote by hook or crook and running with it even with those voters screaming in remorse or if the conditions of the support have changed.

Democracy is not based on a presumption that voters do not ahve a right to change their minds. It is not based on a presumption that if you can fool the people once they will sign a binding contract that you can hold over their heads forever - even if in legal terms the contract becomes what is called a "frustrated contract" invalidated by terms that have altered the reality so much that the contract cannot be delivered or ought not to be expected to be.

The proble  with the leave means leave is the presumption by many that leave would lose now. There is tremendous value in, once things have changed asking for a new mandate. Governments always have this option for good reason with their own mandates. In negotiation a renewed support from the people proving the support recognizes and supports the changes strengthens the hand in negotiation. If it cannot be renewed, there is no shame in the people having changed their minds. Power to the people means they should be able to do so.

Should Iran today be denied an election with the option to replace the Islamic revolution if the people want? Leave means leave suggests they should not. The Islamic recolution started in 1979 was followed by a referendum. When did that mandate become invalid or is it still valid? Some would argue when the reality changed to the point that it was legitimate to ask the people again.

What about those saying Trudeau has no moral authority to govern? You cannot agree with that statement and also agree that a referendum from two years ago should be maintained despite new infomration, accusations that people were lied to and the reality that the brexit sold is not the brexit that can be delivered.

I always suspect people who are reluctant to let the people have a say when there is an indication that the people might want to say something different.

The referendum was not binding it was infomration. If the information can change so be it more infomration can come. Only the winners of a close referendum who fear that they have a result that cannot be replicated would insist two years on that it is a contract that cannot be reversed.

Only the losers of a vote would call for a revote, beginning the day after the vote.

JKR

josh wrote:

Only the losers of a vote would call for a revote, beginning the day after the vote.

Only those afraid of losing a vote would try to prevent another one three years later after the ramifications are clearer. If the UK Parliament cannot come to a decision on Brexit it will likely have to be decided by the people through another informative referendum. My guess is that the UK politicians will be able to reach an agreement on some kind of soft-Brexit. So the UK’s Brexit will likely end up being Theresa May’s Brexit Deal  2019. Who voted for that to happen almost three years ago!? 

nicky

It is remarkable that Brexiters both in Britain and at Babble say it is undeocratic to have a second democratic referendum where events have superseded the landscape behind the first referendum.

Close to 60% of the public wants a second vote. Millions of new voters are now eligible, young people who overwhelmingly see their best future as part of Europe.

if anything it is profoundly undemocratic to deny them a voice.

NDPP

BREXIT Was A Working Class Revolt

https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1106480235518795776

"Millions of working class people voted for BREXIT because they have the most to gain from BREXIT. The reason the elite hate BREXIT so much is that it has given ordinary people a voice..."

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

BREXIT Was A Working Class Revolt

https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1106480235518795776

"Millions of working class people voted for BREXIT because they have the most to gain from BREXIT. The reason the elite hate BREXIT so much is that it has given ordinary people a voice..."

The challenge with analyses like this is that each side claims a broad cross range of demographics and both are right. 17 million were not working class people and in fact working class people voted on both sides. The UK was split.

These articles also do not address the fact that both sides were led by opinion leaders and information that may have been right or wrong; honest or not.

A statement that x range of people voted for something is not the same as proof that they voted in their interest,  that it was beneficial to them.

People have largely doubled down on earlier opinions. In such divisions as this usually happens.

A large number of people have been telling pollsters that they have changed their minds since the referendum. We know that the leave side knows this is true since they are so despereate to avoid a re-vote even though a confirmation of the original vote would actually help -- if they could get one.

We are left with statements about the original vote that defy logic.

Millions of working class people voted against Brexit as well. Both sides claim all demographics because all demographics were split.

NDPP

CrossTalk: Brexit on Life Support

https://youtu.be/t5K-GzYG57Q

"The Brexit saga continues. The deeply divided British House of Commons can only seem to agree on one thing: it doesn't want the UK to leave the EU without a deal. The problem is there isn't a parliamentary majority on what do to next. "

josh

nicky wrote:

It is remarkable that Brexiters both in Britain and at Babble say it is undeocratic to have a second democratic referendum where events have superseded the landscape behind the first referendum.

Close to 60% of the public wants a second vote. Millions of new voters are now eligible, young people who overwhelmingly see their best future as part of Europe.

if anything it is profoundly undemocratic to deny them a voice.

If remain had won 52-48, and events "changed" since then, you can be sure the remainers would be fighting tooth and nail to prevent a revote.  The demand for a revote started the day after the vote.  It has nothing to do with "changing events."  Events always change.  They want a revote because they lost the first one.

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

nicky wrote:

It is remarkable that Brexiters both in Britain and at Babble say it is undeocratic to have a second democratic referendum where events have superseded the landscape behind the first referendum.

Close to 60% of the public wants a second vote. Millions of new voters are now eligible, young people who overwhelmingly see their best future as part of Europe.

if anything it is profoundly undemocratic to deny them a voice.

If remain had won 52-48, and events "changed" since then, you can be sure the remainers would be fighting tooth and nail to prevent a revote.  The demand for a revote started the day after the vote.  It has nothing to do with "changing events."  Events always change.  They want a revote because they lost the first one.

Cute word play but always there will be in a country of millions those who would demand a revote the day after and be wrong. Good try attempting to focus on them. Since then two things have happened: 1) this demand has gained manny more supporters and 2) it has gained legitimacy due to changed circumstances and gained knowledge about how the vote was held. Thanks for explaining in detail exactly how bankrupt the argument against a revote actually is by reaching for such weak arguments.

Ever notice how the argument against a revote never has anything to do with the more important questions about how the people may want to send a different message and how the circumstances they voted for has changed? It always reaches for a technicality. When a country tips on a technicality, you know that you are being had.

nicky

You’re right of course Josh.

And by your logic the1944 Conscription referendum should still govern. Have you shown up to enlist yet?

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

nicky wrote:

It is remarkable that Brexiters both in Britain and at Babble say it is undeocratic to have a second democratic referendum where events have superseded the landscape behind the first referendum.

Close to 60% of the public wants a second vote. Millions of new voters are now eligible, young people who overwhelmingly see their best future as part of Europe.

if anything it is profoundly undemocratic to deny them a voice.

If remain had won 52-48, and events "changed" since then, you can be sure the remainers would be fighting tooth and nail to prevent a revote.  The demand for a revote started the day after the vote.  It has nothing to do with "changing events."  Events always change.  They want a revote because they lost the first one.

Cute word play but always there will be in a country of millions those who would demand a revote the day after and be wrong. Good try attempting to focus on them. Since then two things have happened: 1) this demand has gained manny more supporters and 2) it has gained legitimacy due to changed circumstances and gained knowledge about how the vote was held. Thanks for explaining in detail exactly how bankrupt the argument against a revote actually is by reaching for such weak arguments.

Ever notice how the argument against a revote never has anything to do with the more important questions about how the people may want to send a different message and how the circumstances they voted for has changed? It always reaches for a technicality. When a country tips on a technicality, you know that you are being had.

Yes, a democratic vote is a mere technicality.

At least the revoters can be honest and say, we want a revote because we didn't like the results of the first vote.  Every vote has lies thrown around.  False promises and dubious tactics.  Europe had been a main issue in British politics since the early 1970s.  The referendum wasn't run tabula rasa.  The British people were well familar with the issues, and what leave meant. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
When a country tips on a technicality, you know that you are being had.

But the much stronger rebuttals seem to be "But Nigel Farage exaggerated" and "But little Billy was only 16 when they voted... where's HIS voice????".

Politicians of all stripes exaggerate, and for EVERY referendum or election there will be a handful of people who are 17 years and 364 days old and they miss the fun.  How come these were never dealbreaking problems until now?

NDPP

Nor is it any surprise to find this crowd cheerleading the supranational, anti-socialist, neoliberalist monstrosity that is the EU. Ask Gilets Jaunes or the Greeks etc how much they love German bankster rule. The British voted LEAVE. Their elites led by a Remain prime minister wish it otherwise.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the reality is that if the politicians can't work a deal out there will more than likely be another vote..unless the eu rejects the extension. then it will be no deal brexit.

nicky

The 2015 referendum provided a stark choice between remain and leave.

it did not specify under what terms the Uk would leav - hard or soft Brexit, backstop, customs union, Norway or Canada style, etc etc. 

It is that ambiguity that is bedeviling the politicians.

assuming they do come up with a deal do our Babble Brexiters think that 5he public should be allowed to approve it in a further referendum?

our does their unspecified leave vote in 2015 oblige the public to accept anything the politicians come up with?

 

josh

Referendum was 2016, and no.  They voted to leave.  A Brexit deal would be leaving.  Why would they need to vote again?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..to break the deadlock

josh

What deadlock?  His assumption was that a Brexit deal had been reached

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..there is no political way forward re parliament as yet. if they can't decide that is deadlock.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..and i might point out there is not yet any discussion on the ballot question.

nicky

The Brexiters, both in Britain and on Babble, oppose a second referendum not on democratic grounds but because they know, now that the alternatives have clarified, that they would lose.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
assuming they do come up with a deal do our Babble Brexiters think that 5he public should be allowed to approve it in a further referendum?

I suppose that depends on what would follow a rejection of that deal.  It might make the most sense, if they wish to poll the public, to present them with, say, three or four deals (one of which would, by default, be a hard brexit) and go with whatever gets a plurality.

Would that suffice?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..yesterday

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

nicky wrote:

It is remarkable that Brexiters both in Britain and at Babble say it is undeocratic to have a second democratic referendum where events have superseded the landscape behind the first referendum.

Close to 60% of the public wants a second vote. Millions of new voters are now eligible, young people who overwhelmingly see their best future as part of Europe.

if anything it is profoundly undemocratic to deny them a voice.

If remain had won 52-48, and events "changed" since then, you can be sure the remainers would be fighting tooth and nail to prevent a revote.  The demand for a revote started the day after the vote.  It has nothing to do with "changing events."  Events always change.  They want a revote because they lost the first one.

Cute word play but always there will be in a country of millions those who would demand a revote the day after and be wrong. Good try attempting to focus on them. Since then two things have happened: 1) this demand has gained manny more supporters and 2) it has gained legitimacy due to changed circumstances and gained knowledge about how the vote was held. Thanks for explaining in detail exactly how bankrupt the argument against a revote actually is by reaching for such weak arguments.

Ever notice how the argument against a revote never has anything to do with the more important questions about how the people may want to send a different message and how the circumstances they voted for has changed? It always reaches for a technicality. When a country tips on a technicality, you know that you are being had.

Yes, a democratic vote is a mere technicality.

At least the revoters can be honest and say, we want a revote because we didn't like the results of the first vote.  Every vote has lies thrown around.  False promises and dubious tactics.  Europe had been a main issue in British politics since the early 1970s.  The referendum wasn't run tabula rasa.  The British people were well familar with the issues, and what leave meant. 

The technicality is that a few people wanted a revote the next day. That many more want it now is something to ignore apparently.

It is absurd rejecting to go back to the people based on a previous non-binding vote before a lot more information came out. Nobody ever asks to respect a previous vote from years ago unless they are afraid the people would vote a different way now.

NDPP

Brexit Has Left The British Political Class Trapped By Its Own History

https://t.co/plfeF0nUMN

"...For uber Remainers, there has never been any question of compromise. For them the EU is a higher form of government, which it could never be rational to leave. They think of themselves as embodiments of reason, facing down the ignorant positions of the unwanted rabble. But their rationalism is a vehicle for a dangerous myth in which the EU is a semi-sacred institution rather than a failing political experiment...The chief feature of Remainer discourse is that the actual condition of the EU is hardly ever mentioned..."

voice of the damned

John Gray wrote:

The combination of free movement with porous external borders has fuelled right-wing nationalism throughout the EU. The upshot of what its supporters regard as a quintessentially liberal project is that European liberal values are in greater danger than at any time since the 1930s.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this kind of reasoning? It basically amounts to saying that a particular policy(free movement) should be rejected on the basis that it will lead to an extremist reaction from the right. IOW, we should do what the right-wingers want, or else they might go berzerk on us.

Once you start down that path, where does it end?

 

nicky

Here is a site that combines all recent polling on Brexit issues:

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/uk-poll-results/

spokier alert! You Babble Brexiters will not find much comfort in it

josh

voice of the damned wrote:

John Gray wrote:

The combination of free movement with porous external borders has fuelled right-wing nationalism throughout the EU. The upshot of what its supporters regard as a quintessentially liberal project is that European liberal values are in greater danger than at any time since the 1930s.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this kind of reasoning? It basically amounts to saying that a particular policy(free movement) should be rejected on the basis that it will lead to an extremist reaction from the right. IOW, we should do what the right-wingers want, or else they might go berzerk on us.

Once you start down that path, where does it end?

 

No I think it’s an observation of a phenomenon.  Cause and effect.  Doesn’t dictate what the response to that, if any, should be.  But I think it’s only one aspect. The failure of moderate left parties on the continent, for the most part, to respond forcefully to neo-liberal econonomics, and in many cases to adopt them, has also contributed to the rise of new-fascist parties.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I saw this on a friend of mine's Facebook page. He is a ex-pat Brit so I thought of this thread.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Nobody ever asks to respect a previous vote from years ago unless they are afraid the people would vote a different way now.

How often has that had to be asked?  Typically, we don't even think of revisiting a referendum three years later, when the results of the first referendum haven't even been implemented.

Quote:
Here is a site that combines all recent polling on Brexit issues:

And also some pre-referendum polls.  Interesting that "remain" was the more popular choice then, too, except when the actual referendum happened.

NDPP

"Today the British parliament is an Augean stable, swilling with filth, swilling with betrayal and treachery. The British parliament has betrayed the British people and until the British people sweep them away and change that Parliament, it looks like we are locked into the European Union for an indeterminate amount of time..."

George Galloway, TMOATS: Friday, March 15, 2019 (podcast)

https://talkradio.co.uk/radio/listen-again/1552676400

@ 05:00 Christchurch, Brexit and more

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Nobody ever asks to respect a previous vote from years ago unless they are afraid the people would vote a different way now.

How often has that had to be asked?  Typically, we don't even think of revisiting a referendum three years later, when the results of the first referendum haven't even been implemented.

Quote:
Here is a site that combines all recent polling on Brexit issues:

And also some pre-referendum polls.  Interesting that "remain" was the more popular choice then, too, except when the actual referendum happened.

"haven't been" or "haven't been able to be" Important distinction

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:

Here is a site that combines all recent polling on Brexit issues:

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/uk-poll-results/

spokier alert! You Babble Brexiters will not find much comfort in it

I do not think your interpretation is correct. Either side could either take comfort or dispair.

When you drill down to specific desires of what the government should do -- when you group responses -- you get a very clear picture.

This picture suggests that parliament is not as much to blame as  first appears. The people are angry at parliament -- that is for sure.

However, parliament reflects divisions that exist such that there are no majorities in opinions about what to do.

If you read the opinions you see that a plurality woudl prefer remain now but a plurality don't want the government to take action to do so. A plurality does believe that respecting the vote is important (this is not my opinion as I think they are deadlocked but this is the opinion).

It appears to me from the body of polls that the UK is badly deadlocked and has no idea what to do. The country seems truly frightened of Brexit but also frightened about the divisivness of another referendum.

The UK seems to have come to plurality opinion that they agree that Brexit is a bad deal however a plurality seems to be willing to go through with it rather than keep fighting about it.

While both sides could take comfort -- there is real suggestion here that most do not think that they can take comfort in any solution. There appears to be no enthusiasm to continue but a determination not to turn back.

My interpretation of this is very sad. It looks like they want to go through with it even though they believe that it is the wrong choice. They believe they are caught.

It almost seems that the only hope would come from Brexit turning out better than they currently fear since most seem to think it is impossible or unwise to avoid.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
"haven't been" or "haven't been able to be" Important distinction

How so?  When the UK invoked Article 50, March 29, 2019 was set as the day that the UK would cease to be a member of the EU, and it looks like in two weeks they will, in fact, cease to be a member of the EU.  So in what way have they not been able to do as the referendum indicated?

Leaving the EU -- that was the sole question on the ballot -- versus the negotiation of special arrangements for trade and security after they leave is also an important distinction.

If I give notice to my landlord that I'm vacating in two months, it doesn't mean I'm in any way unable to leave because he and I cannot seem to reach an agreement in which I can still use my parking space and the apartment swimming pool afterward.

NDPP

Brexit Delayed Until June?

https://youtu.be/50VSSQLExR8

"UK Prime Minister Theresa May will have her third chance to put her Brexit divorce plan up for vote before the House of Commons next week. The UK is tentatively out of the EU by March 29 unless a delay is secured...."

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
"haven't been" or "haven't been able to be" Important distinction

How so?  When the UK invoked Article 50, March 29, 2019 was set as the day that the UK would cease to be a member of the EU, and it looks like in two weeks they will, in fact, cease to be a member of the EU.  So in what way have they not been able to do as the referendum indicated?

Leaving the EU -- that was the sole question on the ballot -- versus the negotiation of special arrangements for trade and security after they leave is also an important distinction.

If I give notice to my landlord that I'm vacating in two months, it doesn't mean I'm in any way unable to leave because he and I cannot seem to reach an agreement in which I can still use my parking space and the apartment swimming pool afterward.

These simplistic analogies are famous in political discourse as unhelpful and in full denial of the meaning.

Voters voting for Brexit did not all vote for a common idea of what Brexit would be -- they voted for what they were led to believe Brexit would be and for many, if not most, that was a negotiated deal not the chaos we are seeing.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The Left Bloc on the Put It to The People national demo

On March 23rd, six days away from the scheduled exit day, hundreds of thousands of people will march to demand a final say on Brexit.

We are coming together as the left in all our diversity – as trade unions, greens, labour movement activists, migrants' rights campaigners and progressives – to put forward a clear left message as part of mobilising the biggest possible numbers for the protest.

Supported by:
Another Europe is Possible
The Green Party of England and Wales
Left Unity
TSSA
Open Labour
Labour for a Socialist Europe
Marsha de Cordova MP
Clive Lewis MP
Kate Osamor MP
Caroline Lucas MP
Preet Gill MP
Lloyd Russell Moyle MP
Rachael Maskell MP
Sandy Martin MP
Rosie Duffield MP
Chi Onwurah MP
Anna McMorrin MP

josh

They voted to leave.  If they voted to remain, the UK would have remained.  Not a conditional remain.  

Sean in Ottawa

It seems that a few quotes about what people were told prior to voting might be helpful:

I did this with a simple internet search restricting the period to before the vote.

From "www.voteleavetakecontrol.org"

"Europe yes, EU no. We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. "

So no deal was not the proposition?

"We spend our money on our priorities. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and schools."

This has been exposed as a lie.

"We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European Court before the 2020 election."

Looks like people voted for a deal then right?

"The day after nothing changes legally. There is no legal obligation on the British Government to take Britain out of the EU immediately. There will be three stages of creating a new UK-EU deal - informal negotiations, formal negotiations, and implementation including both a new Treaty and domestic legal changes."

Hmmm still does not look like no deal.

"Overall, the negotiations will create a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way. In particular, we will negotiate a UK-EU Treaty that enables us 1) to continue cooperating in many areas just as now (e.g. maritime surveillance), 2) to deepen cooperation in some areas (e.g. scientific collaborations and counter-terrorism), and 3) to continue free trade with minimal bureaucracy. The details will have to await a serious negotiation but there are many agreements between the EU and other countries that already solve these problems so we will be able to take a lot ‘off the shelf’."

there is that negotiation presumption again. Seems pretty clear people voted for a negotiation that would work not what they have now?

"Similarly we might agree a different legal mechanism to Article 50."

Oh not even a presumption of Article 50... that is interesting.

"This will be a properly democratic process involving those directly affected by the rules."

Oh crap it looks like the role of democracy was not intended to be frozen with a yes vote. A people's vote on the deal does seem to be something there is some room for...

"the new UK-EU Treaty should be ready within two years. "

Oh relax -- it has been done already -- right?

"All the important elements of a new Treaty should be in place well before the next election."

And the government will not call a snap election without a deal - right?

"The great advantage of a ‘leave’ vote is it gives Britain wider options. It is the best move regardless of how the EU responds. If they refuse to face reality and accept the need for changes in the European architecture, we will obviously have done the right thing. If it forces them to face reality and accept sensible changes, we will not only have helped Britain but we will also help Europe avoid continued decline."

Ohhhhhhh so leave does not mean leave if Europe changes? Hmmm. Seems they wanted some leave does not necessarily mean leave voters as a protest to get them a centemetre over the line? Seems it worked although you have to question the mandate.... Well maybe you can close your ears and scream respect the vote and other BS like that.

"It is delusional to think that voting to ‘remain’ will give us any leverage to persuade the EU to change radically. Brussels will not, understandably, take our complaints seriously. "

"The only realistic way to influence Europe is to vote leave. Relations will be friendlier after we vote leave. We will stop blocking them. They will stop interfering with our democracy. We will all become better friends and allies and together build a new model for free trade and friendly cooperation."

Sure sounds like people were voting for an idea of what the relationship would be after.

Of course the full reasons to vote leave are here:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/assets-d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net...

Yikes-- why would they take that down? - They said it was their case. "Here is why we think you should Vote Leave. Browse, download, print or share this document with friends." Hmmm

 

Pages