United Kingdom

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.

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. 

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).....

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."

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.”

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.

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 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.

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.

You’re right of course Josh.

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

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?

..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.

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

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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