You think the brexit was a smart choice of the UK, please tell us why
We don't know it yet. that's the exciting part.
What can possible happen:
GB will fall apart. scotland independent and a reunited ireland (good or bad)
International companies move to other countries in the EU. (good for EU, not GB)
Pound drops (good for tourists and exports)
No more money to poorer regions (funded by the EU)
and so many more things. In a few years time we know.
Now it's just speculating
Comment has been collapsed.
In my opinion, it was a bad idea. The European Union in its current state is a terrible state of affairs, but remaining therein is a less terrible option than leaving it, especially when ethnonationalism and other reactionary sentiments are on the rise. The only silver lining in Brexit that could come is if Jeremy Corbyn become the Prime Minister, since there would no longer be EU restrictions and regulations impeding his goals. That is unlikely to happen, however, and more likely is for even worse an outcome with Nigel Farage or some other reactionary imbecile taking David Cameron's place. David Cameron's resignation may appear to be a glimpse of good in this whole ordeal, but not when Labour is unprepared for a general election and when the UK public is still not favoring Jeremy Corbyn, and especially when it's more likely that Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage will win.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nigel Farage has no real possibility of gaining any power. His UKIP party was a minority protest group and Farage was widely despised by most people however they voted. I think the US is different, but over here you can't be in charge without a majority in government. The more mainstream factions of the 'leave' campaign used him to reach out to the far right and spread lies without tainting themselves - as far as they are now concerned his job is done and he's for the scrap heap. He only becomes a factor again if we end up making a really unfavourable deal with the EU after Brexit or if Brexit doesn't actually happen - something that remains a possibility as it looks more and more like Boris and chums didn't expect/want this outcome.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the United States, the presidency is determined by a popular vote in the general election. (Technically, the presidency is determined by the Electoral College, so it actually is not by popular vote. Yet one of countless reasons that the United States is not, and never was, a democracy—as if democracy is even possible in capitalism.) In the United Kingdom, however, the Prime Minister is determined by the political party that has the most Members of Parliament in the Commons elected from its party. (In that capacity, the parliamentary and presidential system are similar in that the people don't directly elect their chief leaders; a committee of people either elected by, or ostensibly representing, the people do.)
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of UK politics, but I have noticed a sharp increase in nationalist and other reactionary sentiments therein, which fueled Brexit and which plays directly into Farage's hand, hence why he was one of the foremost promoters of Brexit. Whether Farage is actually a viable candidate—rather, whether the UKIP is likely to win the majority of seats—is beyond my knowledge, but I fear that either him or someone of general ideological similarity to him may be selected. Internationally, national capitalism is rising throughout the world and the United Kingdom is no exception (see attached image).
Perhaps the Leave campaign did indeed simply use him to woo far-right reactionaries, but that isn't without consequences. Doing so normalizes such rhetoric and ideas and shifts the spectrum of acceptable thought further right, which only bolsters that rhetoric and those ideas (and the adherents thereof) in public discourse. Unless those who allegedly did so are utterly daft and oblivious to the political consequences of their actions (which is possible), I suspect they are fully aware of what they are doing and tacitly approve of what is likely to result from it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the information about the US. You are broadly correct about the UK - but keep in mind that for some parties grass roots membership have a significant say in electing the leader.
I'm not claiming to be an expert in UK politics but it is a lot more complex than many people seem to believe. Farage doesn't have a viable political party and isn't a viable candidate for anything. He's probably been the public face of Brexit in the media but his role in truth has probably been far less significant.
UKIP were however starting to pick up enough votes to affect elections in marginal seats and Cameron felt he had to defuse the situation somehow. Which is why he promised a referendum if elected. But at the time he didn't seem to expect to get a majority. He likely thought he could just break his promise and blame it on his liberal coalition partners - but the collapse of the liberals and the unpopularity of Milliband took many by surprise.
Boris probably just thought he'd put himself in the public eye fighting a heroic campaign on behalf of Britain but then lose because of the crazy liberals. He'd then assume control of the tories after Cameron was torn down by eurosceptic MPs and then have a grand old time blaming anything that went wrong on the EU. He's now at a loss and nobody seems enthusiastic about the poison chalice of actually leading us out of the EU.
A rise of the far right has been a predictable result of divisive austerity and mass migration in some of the countries poorest regions. Certain factions within the Conservatives have been using scaremongering to encourage that shift for some time as those areas were also traditional Labour strongholds and they felt it would hurt the left more than themselves. They may now be thinking that they went too far.
But this result, much like other unexpected results in recent years, has been swung by issues at the opposite end of the spectrum to the far right. The 'New Labour' movement has left a lot of disenfranchised and disenchanted left wingers feeling that nobody represents them any more. It's a large factor in the rise of nationalism in Scotland and elsewhere - traditional Labour regions increasingly felt they were being controlled by a London elite that had more in common with each other than themselves. It's why there is a battle between Blairite MPs and Corbyn - traditional Labour supporters see Corbyn as their last chance to regain control of their party and will simply keep returning him to power. And it's why a lot of the left threw in against the establishment on this one.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, basically, Brexit is just an elaborate prank that went too far? A whole bunch of dullard politicians insincerely posturing for votes an grossly underestimating just how stupid receptive the voting base is to such propositions?
If "traditional Labour" is so supportive of Corbyn, why did so many vote against the establishment and support Brexit? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Comment has been collapsed.
That assessment probably isn't far wide of the mark. Certainly not many politicians are now acting like they wanted this.
The New Labour experiment shifted the party away from it's socialist roots in order to become 'electable'. This initially worked but eventually alienated core Labour support. By then the political party was stuffed full of ambitious young career politicians brought in under the Blair regime. After Blairite MPs started supporting austerity under Cameron their relationship with their supporters started to completely break down - this is where Scotland turned to the SNP and the Conservatives gained an unexpected majority.
Corbyn is real old skool Labour and despised by many New Labour MPs. But he was elected as leader with an overwhelming majority by Labour party supporters who are kicking back against New Labour values - and they will likely just re-elect him if he is deposed and Corbyn knows this.
Then you get to Brexit. New Labour politicians are entirely pro-EU but old Labour was a bit more eurosceptical. Free movement is a capitalist ploy to break the power of the unions, don't you know? New Labour expected and demanded it's supporters to vote 'remain' but again many simply kicked back against New Labour values.
The liberals and the lefties were supposed to vote for the EU because nationalism is bad. Together with the centre right and everybody scared poopless by Project Fear the far right were supposed to be easily outnumbered. But the happy liberals that like integration and refugees were matched by angry liberals that hate austerity and globalisation, and when large numbers of lefties broke ranks as well it all went to crap. At least that is my assessment.
Comment has been collapsed.
So Corbyn supporters broke from Corbyn's official support for Remain because they considered Remain to be the establishment position even though Corbyn supported it? Do you think Corbyn's support for Remain significantly hurt his credibility among those demographics?
Free movement is a capitalist ploy to break the power of the unions, don't you know?
How so? Couldn't free movement also benefit workers' interests by facilitating the development of international unions and organizations, provide for an easier spread of ideas, and allow for international participation in strikes and protests? Or is this just a superficially beneficial but ultimately subversive method of undermining worker power, like the abominable so-called "right-to-work" laws here in the United States?
Comment has been collapsed.
Corbyn was in a difficult position as he was expected to lead the official Labour Remain campaign, but historically he hasn't been very supportive of the EU. New Labour MPs are angry claiming that his campaign wasn't very enthusiastic and they may well be right. Some Labour supporters were certainly angry that Corbyn was doing what New Labour wanted but seemingly now feel that it is important to get behind him again. Many clearly just ignored the Labour Remain campaign entirely and did what they thought Corbyn really wanted, or at least the opposite of what Tony Blair wanted.
Probably best to read up on Tony Benn if you want to try and understand traditional leftist objections to the EU. But on that subject the theory is that workers rights should be based on solidarity, unions and the right to strike. That doesn't work if employers can simply use cheap migrant labour instead. In hindsight they may have a point - the EU supposedly guarantees many rights for workers but there are plenty of loopholes. Many employers locally are now only employing people through temp agencies on zero hour contracts. If you cause trouble by wanting a living wage or booking an inconvenient holiday or being sick or having the wrong colour skin you simply don't get called in for shifts - possibly ever again - and there is no comeback. It's the kind of exploitation that would have led to strikes in the past, but now there is always a bunch of Polish lads to do the work instead. The far right blame the migrants, the far left blame the system. Both voted against the EU.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even without EU worker protection loopholes, it is still easy to hire cheap immigrant labor in the United Kingdom, so Brexit doesn't seriously address that issue. The United States it acquiring cheap labor just fine despite some of the most harsh and stringent border policies in the world. The United Kingdom can do the same. Did the UK public simply believe otherwise? Moreover, wouldn't Brexit also deprive UK workers with free movement in the EU, thereby preventing them from immigrating to another European country if they wanted to take advantage of the laws and job opportunities there? Was that simply not a common choice in the UK?
I don't really see how Brexit would have solved any of the issues you're describing from a leftist perspective because capitalists could simply find another way of getting cheap migrant labor. Am I missing something here? Was the left Brexit vote simply a protest vote against the political establishment?
Comment has been collapsed.
Realistically it is unlikely that Brexit will solve many of the things that people were upset about. Especially as we are almost certainly going to have to accept freedom of movement in order to maintain access to the single market. But hey, lots of people are getting to post bulldogs wearing Union Jack waistcoats on Facebook and that is clearly the main thing!
What else can I say? Given that much of the UK is surprisingly flammable, that there have been drastic cuts to the police and fire services during austerity, that sooner or later the far right are going to find out that we won't be sending all the Romanians and refugees home, and that I've certainly been previously happy working elsewhere in the EU - it's maybe time to start asking about an Irish passport!
Comment has been collapsed.
Either that, or get prepared to start bashing some fashies. I'm still not deciding which I'm going to do when the United States inevitably turns fascist.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it comes to that I grew up under Thatcher m8 - kids today don't know the meaning of 'civil disorder'.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, firstly happy cake day!
With regards to Thatcher - well that's a whole can of worms. I'll never forgive her for the long term social damage that she caused. By removing the livelihoods of whole communities and parking so many people on benefits she created the 'benefits culture' that so many complain about now. She widened the divides between the rich and the poor, between the North and the South, between the authorities and everyone else. She changed the police from public servants to a private army - fighting pitched battles like at Orgreave and backing them in miscarriages of justice like Hillsborough. That was my childhood, with serious rioting outside my own window.
But on the other hand she did possess many admirable qualities that recent leaders have lacked and that we could use right now. She stood for something other than herself, she took the long view in things and had the force of will carry through big projects without constant U-turns, she was economically literate, and she was a very shrewd negotiator and respected internationally (apart from the obvious).
Looking at the shambles at the top at the moment and how likely they are to cope with the current crisis maybe things weren't so bad. Certainly she never treated the poor with such utter contempt and malevolence as this lot under austerity. Things were bad back then but seriously - food banks, zero hour contracts, benefits sanctions, anti-homeless spikes? “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone' should have been a line from Judge Death in 2000AD but it was just Big Dave Cam...
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks!
But on the other hand she did possess many admirable qualities that recent leaders have lacked and that we could use right now. She stood for something other than herself, she took the long view in things and had the force of will carry through big projects without constant U-turns, she was economically literate, and she was a very shrewd negotiator and respected internationally (apart from the obvious).
I'm of the opinion that whatever admirable nature might be present in such qualities is wholly negated by the fact that what she stood for, the projects she undertook, and the philosophy behind those positions and decision are so utterly despicable that it doesn't matter whether what she did was guided by a higher goal or if everything she did was self-serving. Maybe my opinion of Thatcher is due to being given an unfair representation of her, since I never experienced her leadership like you did, but I'm under the impression that Thatcher was such a terrible (but skilled) leader and politician that no amount of redemption is possible. I understand that you were probably not trying to afford her legacy any such luxuries, and I completely get the point you were making, but I'm not so sure I would admire even her admirable qualities.
Do you think that's a fair perspective, or is it distorted by the lack of a more matured understanding of Margaret Thatcher?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry about the late reply. It took me a while to recover from the Wales win.
Don't get me wrong, for me the bad with regards to Thatcher will always outweigh the good by a wide margin. But although when I was a kid I thought she was the worst thing imaginable - some of the leaders since have put things in perspective.
When she took over the country was in a terrible state economically and on many other levels and the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction was still very real. By the time she left office the country was economically strong, many people were better off (in certain areas at least) and she had made impressive efforts towards negotiating the end of cold war.
Were the economic benefits worth the long term damage to our society or was the damage even necessary? That's a matter for some debate - but certainly the final tally (much like the woman herself) was a fierce mix of strong positives and strong negatives.
Compare that to the unmitigated shite we have had in charge since. Under Cameron and Osborne and austerity the poor have been shafted far worse than ever before. Thatcher crushed hopes and dreams and parked people on the dole but at least it was an easy life - the current explosion in food banks, benefits sanctions, homelessness, mental illness and suicide makes the 80s look like a cheery nostalgic sitcom. With a great soundtrack. And absolutely nothing has been achieved for all the pain. Every economic target of this government has been missed. The economy is stagnant, the country is in more debt than ever and the structural deficit is worse than ever. What positives can be identified in the legacy of our outgoing chancer of a PM?
Was that grinning shitehawk Blair any better? His regime took the country from boom to bust. A worldwide economic crisis was out of his control - but bank deregulation that allowed high street banks 'too big to fail' to engage in high risk casino banking wasn't. Instead of bankers taking the hit it was taxpayers that ended up taking the hit through bailouts and that shouldn't have happened. The unsustainable state that many public services are in at this time is also down to New Labour and its obsession with PFI rather than simple underinvestment by others - the NHS, etc are haemorrhaging money to private companies with 30 year deals to provide services according to incompetent contracts with no guaranteed service levels. Not to mention the current problems faced by a left wing Labour party with hardly any left wing politicians - or even the absolute disaster that was his war on Iraq and the consequences that the whole world has struggled with since. What legacy there?
Suddenly Thatcher starts seeming like an overly mischievous imp rather than the devil incarnate...
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps Thatcher's improvements were never meant to be permanent, or that those improvements were not necessarily due to Thatcher herself? I understand that Thatcher might have came at an opportune moment, as did Reagan, but the "improvements" both of them made to their respective countries were either illusory or temporary (or deleterious), or would have occurred anyway regardless of who took office during those historical conditions. That was (in my opinion) the case for Reagan, at least, but I don't know enough about Thatcher to say for her, as well.
Then again, can we honestly say that these politicians deserve to be blamed in specific and take the brunt of that blame for the events that occurred under their tenure? As far as I'm aware, virtually all of them—from Blair to Cameron, and well before even them—were standard politicians who maintained the same general function that has historically been their position: to serve as a figurehead for the country and to serve the interests of the ruling class (bourgeoisie).
For example, Blair's role in bank deregulation may have been reprehensible, but do you honestly believe any other politician (or viable candidate for PM)—with the exception of those who sought to fundamentally change the system, not just get a job promotion—would have done much to any differently? Without implying the inevitability of such events, I honestly wonder whether it's even fair to blame any particular politician when they are simply performing their role within a system of rules, and their accompanying material and historical conditions, which compels them to make those decisions.
What do you think? Am I being unfair myself and failing to properly hold them accountable, or is it fair to state that they simply did what just about any standard politician would have done in their position? I ask that out of genuine curiosity; I don't know enough about UK politics to assess for myself, though I have considered such conclusions when it came to the United States.
As an aside which is related to my original post, the surprise resignation of Nigel Farage as leader of the UKIP has rendered his chances of becoming PM as asymptote.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for another late reply.
Historically the view from here is that American presidents, certainly in the modern age, have been little more than figureheads for the various interest groups that put them in place. While for various reasons, from the way the PM is chosen to the regulations regarding funding and promotion for political parties, our own leaders are seen as somewhat more independent as well as personally more powerful and responsible.
The truth is somewhat murkier. The satirical periodical 'The Private Eye' (which has somehow become the one of the last bastions of investigative journalism over here) is still uncovering details of unsavoury arms deals involving the Thatcher family, big business and corrupt regimes. And that was before the Blair regime did much to homogenise UK and US politics.
I do have an interest in politics but I said some time ago I wasn't an expert. I don't think I'm in any position to judge overall whether you are being unfair or fair with regards to your opinions of politicians more generally.
But with regards to Thatcher and Reagan there were certainly very significant differences. Although there were broad similarities between the economic-political movements they represented Thatcher was far more of an idealist and an autocrat. She had a very personal and radical long-term ideological plan for the country and somehow managed to maintain populist support for herself as a personality rather than her policies or even sanity over multiple elections. Despite being decades apart I'd say in many ways Thatcher had far more in common with Trump than Reagan.
Thatchers economic reforms went far beyond the more typical cycles of boom-and-bust and capitalist imperatives that I've become used to during my life time, and although she never had the opportunity to complete her grand vision for the country the impact she had on society is still very real and visible.
Blair, Cameron and others can can certainly be argued to be little more than opportunists that stood for little other than themselves and represented little more than the inevitability of systems. But I think Thatcher can be far better be held responsible for both the good and bad of her era.
With regards to Farage and his resignation - there have been plenty of political surprises over here but that wasn't one of them. UKIP wasn't a self-sustaining or effective political entity, it never achieved any real power and it had absolutely no future. It was held together by Farage through a great expenditure of will and resources and having served its purpose (to threaten to steal enough votes from the mainstream to force a referendum) it was inevitable that it was going to be dropped like the proverbial hot potato.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although you profess to not be an expert in politics, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on the topic, at least with respect to UK politics. Thanks for your commentary.
I only described Farage's resignation as a surprise because it personally surprised me and a number of news outlets, including UK ones, were describing it as such. I suppose it's only a surprise for those who weren't closely watching the political trends and developments in UK politics, though, since that seems to be what you've been doing and it didn't surprise you. Do you think UKIP is over now, or might it continue? Or perhaps another ideologically similar party take its place?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think most foreign media that I saw reacted with a great deal of surprise to the Farage resignation, but I think that was mostly because most foreign media seemed to have a fairly distorted idea of the importance of UKIP.
UK media reported the resignation in a variety of ways according to the biases and agendas of various organisations but realistically I find it hard to believe it was a genuine surprise. Many of the more respected political commentators for various newspapers had been predicting it from the day after the referendum.
What happens to UKIP now is a good question. As a political party it isn't self-sufficient in terms of organisation or funding. It doesn't have the traditions or structures or revenue streams in place that mainstream parties depend on - it's just a collection of nutjobs that had been assembled for pushing propaganda through letterboxes and standing in every available election with little in the way of long term planning.
The easy answer is without the resources and leadership of Farage it will simply collapse. The issue, however, is that despite the pretensions of UKIP towards respectability it had become a massive focus for the far right and sapped support from more traditional far right movements. With the battle won and Farage gone there is suddenly a significant power vacuum and it is unclear what is going to fill it.
Nobody currently seems to making any serious bid to seize control of UKIP or provide it with any future direction so it appears to be slowly disintegrating. But the BNP (the previous bastion of 'respectable' racism anti-immigration debate) doesn't seem to be moving to reclaim it's previous membership or status. People instead seem to be drifting to the more unpredictable or illicit far right organisations such as the EDL, Britain First and even Combat 18. But the situation is volatile and I suspect it could be easily shaped in an unexpected direction by a charismatic leader or serious incident.
I'm old enough to remember when NF activity in the 80s was a serious problem but it faded as communities integrated - the current situation doesn't feel like it is going the same way. Commonwealth immigration from the West Indies and India was controversial but people were assured it was for the good of the country and the housing and infrastructure to support it was built, and despite being black or brown these were essentially people from countries that shared many British values, that had fought with Britain in WW2, and so on.
Immigration is currently at record levels and it doesn't feel like there is any plan. Cameron promised to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands but it just went up. Infrastructure isn't being built because apparently this shouldn't be happening so there is a housing crisis and schools and hospitals are failing and so on. And it isn't evenly distributed so while some parts of the country are struggling other parts don't see what the problem is - which is why of the main reasons for regional differences during the Brexit vote. Mainstream politicians and media are ducking the hard questions around immigration which is exactly what led to the Brexit result. And perhaps worst of all - some of these people are coming from countries that don't even play cricket!
Older people were accused of xenophobia following the Brexit vote - but it's perhaps worth mentioning that many of these had managed to accept Jamaicans, sikhs and hindus but never accepted the EU originally as they felt it was a betrayal of our commonwealth allies that had fought for us and then been cast aside in favour of our former enemies. It was up to politicians to give them a positive vision for the future instead of just making promises they knew they couldn't keep.
With things as they are I think the situation with the far right is only going to continue to escalate and it's only a matter of time before some kind of a leader arises and starts providing direction and focus. And I feel things could take a very dark turn indeed if Brexit doesn't end free movement or impact immigration - or somebody at least takes responsibility for making immigration work.
Comment has been collapsed.
Radicalization among UKIP supporters and the UK's political right in general was what I feared, though I suppose it's inevitable that this point. All around the world, political radicalization is occurring and the old guard of the political center is being eaten up in the process. Whether in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Norway, or elsewhere, political polarization is occurring with whichever political wing that was strongest in the country is usually receiving the greater support.
With the centrist old guard disintegrating and the establishment they propped up being assailed on all sides, in which direction do you think the United Kingdom will go? Will it go toward Jeremy Corbyn and those to the left of him, or will it march onward to the national capitalism that much of France et al. is pursuing? Given your comments above, I can only assume you suspect the latter, but perhaps you could further elaborate on your assessment, if you're willing. I understand that the United Kingdom is itself under threat of disintegration, with Scotland and Northern Ireland wanting to leave again and stay with the EU, so perhaps each part of the UK might go in different directions.
All this talk reminds me of what one of my favorite professors, Richard D. Wolff, had remarked on this issue in his July 2016 lecture. Perhaps you'll find it intriguing, as well. He talks about the UK and European politics a bit before that specific part, as well, if you're interested.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's worth pointing out that the far right still remains very much a minority, although an increasingly brazen and problematic minority. I think that was where I came into this thread by suggesting that the situation was more complex than that a majority of the UK had suddenly become neo-nazis. But yeah, political polarization and radicalization is the new trend.
The gap between the poorest and the wealthiest is worse now than ever before in my lifetime and huge numbers of people are feeling entirely disenfranchised. But where you also previously had a number of people who were quite happy with the status quo those are now the people who are now angry that the peasants have somehow inflicted Brexit on them and ruined the economy. All of the people are pissed off about something here now.
The liberals have been completely destroyed as a political force and don't appear to be recovering. With the change of leadership from Cameron to May the tories have shifted to the authoritarian right. The reputation of the centrist Labour blairites was destroyed some time ago but now the fight is on for real socialists.
What happens next depends on the outcome of the internal conflict in the Labour party. And that is far too messy to accurately predict. The PLP (parliamentary labour party) which is primarily centrist and Blairite is fighting for its political survival - if Corbyn and his allies have their way they will all be deselected and replaced by socialists.
But Corbyn already had majority support amongst Labour supporters - who even if they thought Corbyn was a bit of a dinosaur disliked the Blairites more. And the recent actions by the PLP to ensure victory by blocking whole sections of the party from voting is turning dislike and distrust into outright hostility.
The PLP have no choice but to fight this battle but if they win then they will be in charge of a party that openly despises them. Many Labour supporters are saying they will never vote for Labour again if Corbyn loses. And it's as unclear where they will turn as it is who will acquire the loyalties of the far right.
I don't think there is a realistic possibility of UK disintegration, by the way. NI and Scotland didn't vote to remain by huge margins (around 55% remain in NI and 62% in Scotland). I'm part Irish and have lived in NI - sectarian loyalties are far more important than the EU, having been potentially life and death matters for decades. Most people would vote in a referendum to leave the UK entirely along republican/loyalist lines and the loyalists clearly have an advantage.
I'm less knowledgeable about Scotland but I had some Scottish friends staying with me the weekend and they certainly don't think Scotland would leave the UK. They felt people voted for the status quo in both the independence referendum and the EU referendum, likely because Scotland has it better than many other parts of the UK.
They felt the independence vote was only so close last time because in practical terms so little would have changed - with Scotland and England both in the EU freedom of movement and trade would have remained unaffected. With Scotland more dependent on the UK than the EU and the possibility of a hard border and trade tariffs between Scotland and England they seemed convinced that many people who voted for a UK in the EU wouldn't be in favour of a Scotland in the EU without England, or at least would see it as the worst of two crappy options.
Plus many Scottish nationalists are also anti-EU. Nicola Sturgeon appears to be antagonising many of her own supporters with her posturing. And she also appears to have little support in Europe who feel that making any special allowances for Scotland would set a bad precedent - quite aside from concerns about Scotlands finances and national debt.
That said, I think a lot of people are hoping that Sturgeon finds a way to derail Brexit for the whole of the UK.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your commentary and for answering my numerous questions. I really appreciate it and I hope you have a great day!
Comment has been collapsed.
Especially as we are almost certainly going to have to accept freedom of movement in order to maintain access to the single market
I'm not so sure. I think it would be politically unacceptable for the UK government to do this now (and certainly the Tory leader candidates seem to be going along with this). I honestly think the UK will go for a WTO agreement if the EU do not agree to move from a freedom of movement of people to a freedom of movement of labour agreement
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably not the best time to answer this as I'm Welsh and have been drinking heavily. But...
It's a shitstorm at the moment, I don't think this was actually expected and the fallout seems to back that up. I'm not convinced Brexit is even going to happen. Nobody wants to take responsibility for going against the wishes of the public - but nobody seems to want to take responsibility for leading us out either. Apart from Gove and I'm not sure he has the support to win leadership. If somebody has the balls to take this to a vote in the House of Commons it is going down, and I honestly believe that sooner or later it is going to that.
If it does happen I think the only sensible option is to prioritise trade deals outside the EU. That is where the growing economies are that we could profit from. But I don't think anyone with a say has the balls to break away from the single trade agreement. People are talking about 'Norway-plus' because of the amount we import but between the gobshites we are going to have negotiating and the protections they are going to want for London traders that I would have run out of town we are going to end up with 'Norway-minus'.
Free movement and a complete shafting on every level is what we can expect.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not about a spectrum of (acceptable) thought, it's about the spectrum of opinions that are published in the media and considered relevant.
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically, as far as I'm aware, the Overton window originally described the range of acceptability on public policies that governments can implement (which is obviously a laughable notion, especially noawadays). In contemporary discourse, it's used to refer to any instance wherein there is a spectrum of acceptable thought, whether it be in public discourse or in what the media is willing to post. Perhaps you were thinking of Hallin's spheres?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, Overton window. Spectrum of acceptable thought is not the same as spectrum of published content in the media or spectrum of public opinion about viable political causes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nevertheless, that is how the Overton window is now used. Whether it was ever used exclusively to refer to "the spectrum of opinions that are published in the media and considered relevant" is questionable, since that does not appear to be the original meaning of the Overton window, but it might as well be since the Overton window now generally refers to any spectrum of thought or opinions and the acceptability thereof.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not familiar with that kind of usage, but it could be. Meanings change over time.
Besides, the important part is the acceptability, so maybe stick to 'acceptability of discourse', something in this direction.
My point is, that I see 'spectrum of thought' as a red flag, because acceptability of thought implies that there is such thing as an acceptable thought, therefore an unacceptable thought exists as well, and thus some form of thought control, arbiter of thought, or thought enforcement (or thought police, as a popular example), which is obviously not the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point is, that I see 'spectrum of thought' as a red flag, because acceptability of thought implies that there is such thing as an acceptable thought, therefore an unacceptable thought exists as well, and thus some form of thought control, arbiter of thought, or thought enforcement (or thought police, as a popular example), which is obviously not the case.
That was exactly what I intended to imply because I absolutely do believe that there is a notion of "acceptable thought" in wider society that is being enforced. Thought policing is a regular phenomenon and most people do it to themselves on a daily basis, not to mention to others. When directed at others, it is typically those in a position of power who engage in the practice. This practice is especially common in bourgeois "democracies", since thought control through propaganda and the manufacturing of consent is a much more effective form of controlling the populace than is the use of state violence like in authoritarian and nondemocratic regimes.
There are certain thoughts, opinions, and beliefs which are simply unacceptable by society's standards (which, in reality, are the manufactured standards of the state and ruling class projected onto society). People try to avoid entertaining these thoughts, opinions, and beliefs regardless of whether they are actually considered immoral, unjust, or otherwise unacceptable by them as individuals.
To me, this is obvious, so I don't know why you consider it "obviously not the case".
Comment has been collapsed.
Then how's it enforced? Who does it? And how? If you think an arbiter of acceptable thought exists, please go ahead and name names.
[...] bourgeois "democracies", since thought control through propaganda and the manufacturing of consent [..]
Careful, when trying to avoid propaganda, don't fall for another.
There are certain thoughts, opinions, and beliefs which are simply unacceptable by society's standards
(which, in reality, are the manufactured standards of the state and ruling class projected onto society).
"I'm perfectly safe, murder is illegal in this state.."
Comment has been collapsed.
Careful, when trying to avoid propaganda, don't fall for another.
Fortunately I am careful and fortunately I'm not, so no need to concern yourself with that.
"I'm perfectly safe, murder is illegal in this state.."
What point are you trying to make?
Comment has been collapsed.
Careful, when trying to avoid propaganda, don't fall for another.
...
Fortunately I am careful and fortunately I'm not, so no need to concern yourself with that.
Your choice of words betrays you..
What point are you trying to make?
I don't like making points, I just like to ask questions..
Do you really think there is such a thing as a "manufactured standard" in our societies?
Do you really think that such thing as a "ruling class" exists?
Do you really believe that you can rule or even control a society?
Do you really believe in such conspiracies?
Comment has been collapsed.
Your choice of words betrays you..
No, they do not. If you are going to accuse serious political and economic theory as mere "propaganda", you better substantiate that claim.
I don't like making points, I just like to ask questions..
Then you aren't really fit for a discussion. Anyway, your questions have implied points you are attempting to make, so it's not even reasonable to ask questions in an attempt to avoid making points.
Do you really think there is such a thing as a "manufactured standard" in our societies?
Yes, manufactured consent does exist in societies, especially those which do not rely on explicit violence to control their populace. The express purpose of the entire propaganda arms of commercial industries, namely advertising and public relations, is to manufacture consent among consumers.
Do you really think that such thing as a "ruling class" exists?
Of course there is and a basic review of how society operates would demonstrate as much. Capitalism, like feudalism and slavery, is a class-based hierarchical system wherein a dominant class exploits a subordinate class and uses the products of that exploitation to reproduce the material conditions of that system and their privileged position therein. In slavery, the classes were slavers and slaves; in feudalism, they were lords and serfs; and in capitalism, they are the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and the proletariat (workers). All that has changed since slavery is the form of social organization, not the fundamental rules of that system.
Do you really believe that you can rule or even control a society?
Of course I can't because I'm just another prole, thus a member of the subordinate class in capitalism. Capitalists do, however, and they do so collectively as a class. Of course capitalists can; if you think politicians and governments can, then it isn't a great leap to recognize that the owners of those politicians and governments (capitalists) can as well.
Do you really believe in such conspiracies?
Conspiracy theories posit that the problem is some ruling class oppressing and deliberately destroying the world for some unknown yet vaguely nefarious reasons, and that the problem is with this ruling class. Such conspiracy theories tend to be predicated on extremely facile explanations of how the world works, most of which are either wholly unsubstantiated by empirical or formal evidence and some of which is even demonstrably false. The people who believe in such nonsense often inject their own spiritual mysticism into them, or are so scientifically illiterate and alienated from their own critical thinking skills that they resort to fantastical explanations on the order of absurdity of those proposed by David Icke.
What I'm saying is that there is a ruling class that simply behaves according to their class interests and that the problem is with the system that produces these material conditions (capitalism), not with any particular person or group. This critique of capitalist political economy has existed for centuries; it is substantiated by both empirical and formal evidence; and it has been proposed and upheld by philosophers, economists, scientists, politicians, academics, and countless others of varying professions and positions in society.
It's not a conspiracy, nor is it a conspiracy theory. No conspiracies are necessary to explain how capitalism works, though conspiracies indubitably occur (as they always have). To treat a critique of capitalism as a mere conspiracy (theory) is intellectually lazy and demonstrates such a profound ignorance of the most rudimentary necessary elements of this topic that you are clearly unfit to participate in it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Such good sheeple, never question the ideologies you are sold..
No, they do not. If you are going to accuse serious political and economic theory as mere "propaganda", you better substantiate that claim.
You're damn right that I accuse leftist ideologies as propaganda, hell yes. This is painfully obvious.
Then you aren't really fit for a discussion. Anyway, your questions have implied points you are attempting to make, so it's not even reasonable to ask questions in an attempt to avoid making points.
It's called the Socratic method. It is only, wait let me check, uhm, more than 2000 years old.
Yes, manufactured consent does exist in societies, especially those which do not rely on explicit violence to control their populace. The express purpose of the entire propaganda arms of commercial industries, namely advertising and public relations, is to manufacture consent among consumers
This must be this vast right wing conspiracy you can read in some newspapers about..
Of course there is and a basic review of how society operates would demonstrate as much. Capitalism, like feudalism and slavery, is a class-based hierarchical system wherein a dominant class exploits a subordinate class and uses the products of that exploitation to reproduce the material conditions of that system and their privileged position therein. In slavery, the classes were slavers and slaves; in feudalism, they were lords and serfs; and in capitalism, they are the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and the proletariat (workers). All that has changed since slavery is the form of social organization, not the fundamental rules of that system.
Every group of human beings, where n is the number of individuals, and given n > 100 (give or take), relies on hierarchical structures. It just doesn't work any other way. Has always been true, is still true, will always be true.
Of course I can't because I'm just another prole, thus a member of the subordinate class in capitalism. Capitalists do, however, and they do so collectively as a class. Of course capitalists can; if you think politicians and governments can, then it isn't a great leap to recognize that the owners of those politicians and governments (capitalists) can as well.
Damn those big bad capitalists and their black magic..
Here's the thing: No one really can. Oh, and guess I'm just another prole as well, but I don't rely on Marx, Engels et. al. to do the thinking for me..
Conspiracy theories posit that the problem is some ruling class oppressing and deliberately destroying the world for some unknown yet vaguely nefarious reasons, and that the problem is with this ruling class. Such conspiracy theories tend to be predicated on extremely facile explanations of how the world works, most of which are either wholly unsubstantiated by empirical or formal evidence and some of which is even demonstrably false. The people who believe in such nonsense often inject their own spiritual mysticism into them, or are so scientifically illiterate and alienated from their own critical thinking skills that they resort to fantastical explanations on the order of absurdity of those proposed by David Icke.
Conspiracies, spiritual mysticism. You are onto something here. Good thing you and me don't believe in such nonsense, as you said. Deliberately destroying the world, oh boy, that's just ridiculous.
What I'm saying is that there is a ruling class that simply behaves according to their class interests and that the problem is with the system that produces these material conditions (capitalism), not with any particular person or group. This critique of capitalist political economy has existed for centuries; it is substantiated by both empirical and formal evidence; and it has been proposed and upheld by philosophers, economists, scientists, politicians, academics, and countless others of varying professions and positions in society.
Well, if only there were such things as homogeneous classes or even homogeneous interests within them. That would make explaining the world a lot easier, I'll give you that.
And I seriously doubt that part about "empirical and formal evidence". They keep using these words, but still don't even know what they mean. There is always another theory, enabling another explanation, that works without blindly making numerous assumptions. I'm sure you know how that principle is called..
It's not a conspiracy, nor is it a conspiracy theory. No conspiracies are necessary to explain how capitalism works, though conspiracies indubitably occur (as they always have). To treat a critique of capitalism as a mere conspiracy (theory) is intellectually lazy and demonstrates such a profound ignorance of the most rudimentary necessary elements of this topic that you are clearly unfit to participate in it.
You are right, you don't need to rely on conspiracies to explain how capitalism works. It's actually pretty easy. If you understand human nature, you understand capitalism, it really is that fucking easy. The latest fad, I heard, is that it's now called "behavioral economics". As if these mechanisms weren't as old as humanity itself. Oh, the irony.
You know what, you can criticize capitalism. There's more than enough to be critical of, perfectly fine with me. Just like you can literally criticize everything else. Be specific, be on point, don't pull out large theoretical constructs and avoid using big and fancy words, and it will actually work.
But I tell you what really is intellectually lazy: To blindly follow an ideology, without questioning what others try to tell you, just throwing your critical thinking overboard, and have blind faith in what they are trying to sell you. Even if their slogans are so convincing. Justice and prosperity for all, oh my, doesn't that sound nice?
Comment has been collapsed.
Such good sheeple, never question the ideologies you are sold..
Can you try to be a bit more pretentious? You're not being arrogant enough for me to stop taking you seriously.
You're damn right that I accuse leftist ideologies as propaganda, hell yes. This is painfully obvious.
Then either substantiate those "painfully obvious" claims or stop making wild and unsubstantiated assertions.
It's called the Socratic method. It is only, wait let me check, uhm, more than 2000 years old.
I know what the Socratic method is, given I extensively studied ancient Greek history and philosophy, particularly Socrates. You're not very good at it.
This must be this vast right wing conspiracy you can read in some newspapers about..
This has nothing to do with politics. It's an economic phenomenon that capitalists partake in regardless of their political affiliation. Whether it's the Koch brothers or George Soros, they all engage in manufacturing consent and other such activities because it is in their class interest to do so.
Every group of human beings, where n is the number of individuals, and given n > 100 (give or take), relies on hierarchical structures. It just doesn't work any other way. Has always been true, is still true, will always be true.
So? Even if that was true (which it isn't and countless communes disprove it), that doesn't mean it "always will be true". That's a fundamentally fallacious claim.
Damn those big bad capitalists and their black magic..
Here's the thing: No one really can. Oh, and guess I'm just another prole as well, but I don't rely on Marx, Engels et. al. to do the thinking for me..
If you're just going to deride my position, then you can go fuck yourself. I have better things to do than to be talked down to by an idiot.
Of course a dominant class can control society when they have the majority of economic power within that society. To assert otherwise is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what power is and how it works in economics. These opinions and conclusions I have and came to were my own. The theoretical works of previous philosophers and economists merely facilitated my understanding of the conclusions I already made and clarified the opinions I already had. It's incredibly demeaning to treat someone as if they are a mindless follower of some belief system, especially when you haven't even bothered to question them to understand what their position is.
Conspiracies, spiritual mysticism. You are onto something here. Good thing you and me don't believe in such nonsense, as you said. Deliberately destroying the world, oh boy, that's just ridiculous.
Exactly. I don't believe in any of that nonsense. It reeks of the sort of infantile thinking that resembles the plot of Saturday morning cartoons.
Well, if only there were such things as homogeneous classes or even homogeneous interests within them. That would make explaining the world a lot easier, I'll give you that.
There are. Perhaps you should actually study political economy and bother to read some radical leftist theory? Or would you prefer to pooh-pooh on it from a position of complacent ignorance?
And I seriously doubt that part about "empirical and formal evidence". They keep using these words, but still don't even know what they mean. There is always another theory, enabling another explanation, that works without blindly making numerous assumptions. I'm sure you know how that principle is called..
Have you even studied Marxist theory or non-Marxist radical leftist theory? If not, then how can you assert that there is no empirical and formal evidence for it?
You are right, you don't need to rely on conspiracies to explain how capitalism works. It's actually pretty easy. If you understand human nature, you understand capitalism, it really is that fucking easy. The latest fad, I heard, is that it's now called "behavioral economics". As if these mechanisms weren't as old as humanity itself. Oh, the irony.
You have to be profoundly arrogant to believe you "understand human nature". We as a species barely understand ourselves, our origins, and our own minds. All we have established about so-called "human nature" thus far is that we like to eat, drink, defecate, urinate, play, work, socialize, serve our interests, and serve the interests of our society. Beyond that, "human nature" is shaped by its material conditions; it is neither immutable nor universal, nor should it be treated as such.
You know what, you can criticize capitalism. There's more than enough to be critical of, perfectly fine with me. Just like you can literally criticize everything else. Be specific, be on point, don't pull out large theoretical constructs and avoid using big and fancy words, and it will actually work.
Maybe you should actually educate yourself about those theories and terms rather than chiding people for using those darn-tootin' smart people words that make yer brain hurt. Alternatively, ask me those questions you love to ask and I'll elaborate in more detail.
But I tell you what really is intellectually lazy: To blindly follow an ideology, without questioning what others try to tell you, just throwing your critical thinking overboard, and have blind faith in what they are trying to sell you. Even if their slogans are so convincing. Justice and prosperity for all, oh my, doesn't that sound nice?
Care to presume anything else about me? Just so you know, I only arrived at the beliefs I hold now after nearly a decade of questioning my beliefs and investigating various belief systems and ideologies to find the one that was the most persuasive, rational, and adept at explaining the world around me. I went from being a Republican (United States) to flirting with fascism and autocracy to being interested in technocracy to being a mainstream social liberal to a social democrat to a democratic socialist to what I am today.
If you are not going to show me even an iota of decency and respect, and instead treat me as some blind sheeple who is no match for your nauseatingly pretentious superior intellect and philosophical sophistication, then don't even bother responding. I have dealt with enough people like you this week and I'd prefer to not suffer through the inanity of having to deal with another.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyone who has studied Macroeconomics will tell you that the Brexit does not end well for the UK.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course it's good. Crazy how a huge percentage of young people are so full of themselves talking about how the other side is so ignorant and that old people don't have to live with the consequences blabla.
Multiculturalism doesn't work out, sovereign nation states are the way to go and diversity means failure. Only in unity is strength.
Comment has been collapsed.
Obviously "unity" is a pretty broad thing, using it in context with "diversity" should make it clear enough.
But go ahead and think a EU super state with open borders is "united"...
Comment has been collapsed.
This image sums it up nicely.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah it just shows how the rest of Europe looks at GB right now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fun Fakt :)
Most googled in the UK after the exit :)
"Brexit"
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Brexit&geo=GB&date=now%207-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-2
Comment has been collapsed.
Just dropping these here ... enjoy:
Stupid Butt-Hurt Millennials
Nigel Farage roasts the EU Parliament before & after Brexit
Comment has been collapsed.
As technically an immigrant in England in the middle of this I've been trying my best to take a balanced view with regards with regards to this poop storm, trying to understand things from different peoples viewpoints without calling diverse chunks of the population out as racists, idiots, etc. But the one thing I am firm on is that there should be no room for anyone as dumb as that Holly...
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't argue with that - PJW is polarizing entertainment value, alongside some good and
lesser arguments. While the whole picture "different peoples viewpoints" is indeed never
that simple ... except for some it just is. :-D
Comment has been collapsed.
It is a shambles on my Facebook since last week. People complaining about all the morons voting for Brexit that have ruined their futures but then when anyone asks why their answers are even stupider. A whole bunch of people falling over themselves to share examples of racism - but statistically there was still a whole load of racism last week, month, year, etc that people strangely weren't giving a crap about on social media. Racism is despicable but is ignoring it until it proves your point worse? Is it not likely that is how things got to this stage? My grandad is ready to murder anyone who says old people who shouldn't have voted because he fought the nazis for their democracy. Half my family have unfriended the other half on social media. I was in the off-licence earlier behind a queue of people hoping the sheep shagging bastards would get knocked out. How many goals do you think Belgium will stick past them? I'm Welsh m8...
All bullshit. Forgive my stream-of-consciousness rant. I've been celebrating and I only came on to enter some Avernum 2 giveaways...
Comment has been collapsed.
Sounds arduous ... social media sure serves a purpose but lacks, what can't be easily
relayed in typed words or pictures - tripwires everywhere. Yeah digging up whatever
argument that comes in handy, even if its just to have a point to benign with is common,
but once you start poking around you what the fuss is about.
Good Luck on winning Avernum 2 - if you can't win it but want to get it, you certainly could in
Groupbuys or riskier/cheaper g2a.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am happy to leave these things up to karma and fate. I may have a terrible ratio and I may be sad that various UK politicians haven't been struck by enough lightning, but who am I to decide what is fair?
Comment has been collapsed.
FT from tomorrow
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqKo5I8W8AA_Av1.jpg
Comment has been collapsed.
Some facts I know about (if you have some more please tell me below, I'll try to read them all)
-the GBP (Great Brittish Pound) has dropped from 1,50USD : 1GBP to 1,35USD : 1GBP
-Some people regret their choice
-they are out of the footbal competition in the EU (nothing to do with the brexit but still :P)
-AAA+ mark has dropped to AA
some videos to watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8 - lwt with john oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0ac5HUpDU -lwt update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0 - brexit the movie
other interesting links:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 -vote
Comment has been collapsed.