Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Just to remind people that Brexit is not, nor has every been, the will of the British people:

We urgently need another referendum vote to settle this once and for all,

and preferably before the Brexit Tory Fascist Party bollock things up any further : )

Debs

I'm a remainer and lost. i'm also a democrat. Do we keep having referendums until we get the 'right' answer?

Sorry Debs, but those who didn't vote do not count (not least because one does not, nor could not, know how they would have voted). I agree that the Government has shown unbelievable levels of incompetence around the whole process, but nevertheless I believe it (voting to leave) was the right move. The EU is a sclerotic, overly-centralised organisation wedded to neoliberal dogma and austerity. In its current state (and barring a catastrophe, looks to be pretty unreformable) it is a total betrayal of the founding ideals of the original EEC (which i would be in favour of staying in).

I'm with John Pilger:

The most effective propagandists of the "European ideal" have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even "cool". What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as "neoliberalism".

The aim of this extremism is to install a permanent, capitalist theocracy that ensures a two-thirds society, with the majority divided and indebted, managed by a corporate class, and a permanent working poor. In Britain today, 63 per cent of poor children grow up in families where one member is working. For them, the trap has closed. More than 600,000 residents of Britain's second city, Greater Manchester, are, reports a study, "experiencing the effects of extreme poverty" and 1.6 million are slipping into penury.

Little of this social catastrophe is acknowledged in the bourgeois controlled media, notably the Oxbridge dominated BBC. During the referendum campaign, almost no insightful analysis was allowed to intrude upon the clichéd hysteria about "leaving Europe", as if Britain was about to be towed in hostile currents somewhere north of Iceland.

Christopher_M posted:

I'm a remainer and lost. i'm also a democrat. Do we keep having referendums until we get the 'right' answer?

Possibly not, but we shouldn't have held a referendum of the type that was held without some pretty robust constraints in place. For example, it should never have been possible for such a once in a lifetime momentous event such as a Hard Brexit to be achieved with such a relatively small percentage vote in a relatively low turnout. The hard right in the Tory party are very much in favour of much more stringent constraints in respect of Trades Union balloting, and will almost certainly (quite rightly) require additional constraints to be put in place if a second Scottish Independence referendum is held.  

At the very least, a threshold of 50+ percent of the electorate should have been required to achieve a Brexit result. If that had been achieved then those of us on the 'Remain' side of the referendum would have had very little legitimate cause for complaint.    

I would like to put a different spin on the OPs original question :

we have been asleep in Europe for forty years and are we now waking up?

Ray

Hmack posted:

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

"Getting out will be the best thing that the UK has done since 1945". 

Apologies for being so abrupt, but - Rubbish!

A dangerous thing, introducing politics to a forum like this. 

With the Poundshop Bismarck (Druncker) now ranting about an EU Army despite Nick Clegg assuring us this was a "dangerous fantasy", maybe you remainiacs should think about moving to Europe to lend them your support.

Hmack posted:

Christopher_M posted:

I'm a remainer and lost. i'm also a democrat. Do we keep having referendums until we get the 'right' answer?

Possibly not, but we shouldn't have held a referendum of the type that was held without some pretty robust constraints in place. 

....

I whole-heartedly agree. However I prefer to deal with the world as it is, not as it might have been.

Kevin-W posted:

The EU is a sclerotic, overly-centralised organisation wedded to neoliberal dogma and austerity

A lot of big impressive words, but what does this statement really mean.

I take it that your argument is that the EU Government is too centralised and too rigid in respect of its political or legal positions. That is a potentially valid argument to make, if not one with which I agree. However, your reference to 'neoliberal dogma and austerity' is a little puzzling. My interpretation of the term neoliberalism (yet another of these vague and woolly terms that tend to be used nowadays) and the most common dictionary definitions I have seen, is that it refers to a tendency to promote the transfer of control of economics from the public to the private sector, or the promotion of policies such as deregulation and tax cuts. These, along with austerity are surely more the domain of the current UK Tory party that that of the EU government.

The EU likes Scalalectrix.....if I had know that I might have voted not to leave.

ltaylor posted:

Hmack posted:

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

"Getting out will be the best thing that the UK has done since 1945". 

Apologies for being so abrupt, but - Rubbish!

A dangerous thing, introducing politics to a forum like this. 

With the Poundshop Bismarck (Druncker) now ranting about an EU Army despite Nick Clegg assuring us this was a "dangerous fantasy", maybe you remainiacs should think about moving to Europe to lend them your support.

I suspect that your choice of words here, certainly widely exaggerated and almost bordering on the xenophobic, give away a little bit too much of your true feelings.

So I, and others who voted to remain and continue to argue that Brexit is a huge mistake for the people of Britain are now 'Remainiacs' rather than just simple 'Remoaners'. How wonderful! Actually, I happen to be just a little too elderly to be conscripted into any army, but I have just returned from a wonderful two weeks in France which I enjoyed immensely, so if only I could afford it I might just be tempted to make the move.    

Hmack posted:

Kevin-W posted:

The EU is a sclerotic, overly-centralised organisation wedded to neoliberal dogma and austerity

A lot of big impressive words, but what does this statement really mean.

I take it that your argument is that the EU Government is too centralised and too rigid in respect of its political or legal positions. That is a potentially valid argument to make, if not one with which I agree. However, your reference to 'neoliberal dogma and austerity' is a little puzzling. My interpretation of the term neoliberalism (yet another of these vague and woolly terms that tend to be used nowadays) and the most common dictionary definitions I have seen, is that it refers to a tendency to promote the transfer of control of economics from the public to the private sector, or the promotion of policies such as deregulation and tax cuts. These, along with austerity are surely more the domain of the current UK Tory party that that of the EU government.

 

   

It means exactly what it says, and if your love of the failing EU project blinds you to its meaning that is your problem, not mine.

Neoliberalism is a word bandied about rather willy-nilly these days, I agree, but it is hardly a vague term. It is a very well understood ideology and method of organising society. Many of us on the left (as well as neoliberals themselves) know exactly what it is.

Almost all the institutions in the developed world are neoliberal - and that includes the EU. It's not just the UK Tories who love it, the Fib Dumbs and the rump of Nu Liebor are neolibtards too (as is Farage). It is the dominant economic and social ideology of the past 40 years, and has infected almost all of UK society - and not for the better.

In any case, it's not strictly necessary to understand what neoliberalism is - one just has to see how catastrophic its effects have been in the developed world - the deliberate dismantling of the post-war consensus, the hollowing-out of industry, the devastation of communities, short-term gain over long-term investment, private wealth and public squalor, the selling-off of national assets (utilities, railways, the Royal Mail, social housing, parts of the NHS etc) on the cheap to the enrichment of a few, outsourcing public services to sleazy operators like G4S and Capita, increased inequality and slowing social mobility, stagnant wages and the offshoring of wealth.

If you think the EU is going to reverse any of this (look at Merkel, Macron, Juncker and the others - neolibs to the very core of their being) then you are seriously deluded I'm afraid. One only has to look at Greece. Or the huge youth unemployment in Spain. People moan about the huge number of bureacrats in the EU, but they're wrong: the bureacrats are far outnumbered by the corporate and bankster shills and lobbyists in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Interestingly, the UK was the first country in the world to industrialise, the first to deindustrialise and the first (apart from experiments in Chile after the fascist Pinochet's coup in '73)  to adopt neoliberalism. Perhaps - one can but hope - we will be the first to decouple from neoliberal dogma.

Leaving the EU is not without risk - particularly with the current bunch of clowns in charge - but for me, a leap in the dark is better than a steadily worsening status quo.

Interesting, isn't it, that so many of the big tax-avoiding megacorps (Amazon being just one, that well-known auction site another) are based in Luxembourg - which is in your beloved EU - and pay almost no tax?

Last time I looked, Lux was not only an EU member, but its primary tax haven. Hmmm...

Kevin-W posted:

 

Last time I looked, Lux was not only an EU member, but its primary tax haven. Hmmm...

Brexit Tory Britain will become a tax haven after leaving the EU. 

I remember in the Eighties as EU integration deepened that politicians  hoped for Euro-heaven, where the food was French, the cars Italian, the Policeman British, the weather Spanish etc. Thirty years on I think we can at least all agree that this utopian ideal was nowhere near achieved.

thebigfredc posted:

I remember in the Eighties as EU integration deepened that politicians  hoped for Euro-heaven, where the food was French, the cars Italian, the Policeman British, the weather Spanish etc. Thirty years on I think we can at least all agree that this utopian ideal was nowhere near achieved.

 

You forgot... "And the plumbers are Polish"

Btw, that's sarcasm. And I can say that, because I'm originally from Poland, though sadly not a plumber ;-)

MDS posted:

I agree with that analysis, Fatcat. In my view the various EU public statements on Brexit have been measured and reasonable.  The UK's 'divorce bill', as it has often been described by the UK media, must be a fair reflection of the financial commitments we made - many of which the UK explicitly supported and will benefit from - before we decided to leave the UK.  

I don't really like the often used analogy of comparing Brexit to the breakdown of a marriage, where one partner wants out and the other one doesn't.  However, this posturing around how much the UK needs to contribute to the EU post-leaving, might be likened to one of the parties in a marriage wanting to leave and go their own way and arguing that they should no longer contribute to the school fees of the children they are going to leave behind even though, at the time, they agreed that the children should go to a fee-paying school.  

The UK has for many years been one of the biggest and richest EU member states, making a annual contribution to the EU budget because of that wealth.  Every year the UK has been party to the decision-making process around how the EU budget is spent and on what projects. Many of those projects will have been infrastructure and research which we will have supported at the time.  It is only right that we fulfil the financial obligations that we freely entered into. In my view the UK's reputation for being a nation of high integrity and respect for law depends upon it.

Hey guess what? I disagree with that analysis, but you knew that anyway lol

This is the position of the German government "life outside the EU should not be as good as inside". "Measured and reasonable" is the last thing we are going to get. When Merkel is re-elected the German government's position will be reinforced. And EU IS run by Germany. For the benefit of Germany.

I can't see how fee-paying example is analogous. We lose access to all the institutions/funded projects once we leave and we are not certainly being offered anything for the assets that our finance helped create. Quite the opposite - we are expected to walk away and leave those behind. And we certainly have no say in anything afterwards - so why should we pay for it? Our departure means all bets are off.

As for being a party to decision-making process - we have overruled/outvoted at every juncture - budget, agriculture, fisheries, currency - because Anglo-Saxon values/culture/ way of doing things is the opposite to those of continental Europe and (quite naturally) they like to do things their way. Our money was welcome though ...

Finally, this matter isn't about "high integrity and respect for the law" - we should simply be being hard-nosed and unremitting in pursuing our own best interests because that is what the other side is doing. Its a critical negotiation and we need the hardest, nastiest lawyers we can find to fight our corner.

If it were up to me, I would simply walk away. The UK is good enough and big enough to make its own way in this world and I would rather we did that then continue being an unpopular member of a club that we don't like being a member of. Over time, relationships/players and context will change and sensible, mutually beneficial agreements will be easier to achieve. And we would be negotiating from a stronger position. Right now, it is all too emotional and there's no need to rush this (imo). . We tried hard to make it work for a long time, but the reality is that it never worked for reasons stated in para3.

YNWA250505 posted:

"We tried hard to make it work for a long time, but the reality is that it never worked for reasons stated in para3".

Really?

I suspect that quite a few people in the Brexit camp didn't try very hard! 

Well actually, "we" (i.e. the UK) were made to try and make it work for 40 years ...

and if the EU were really so popular/good, then why didn't it work?

Do we really have to rehash this stuff?

Kevin-W posted:

Hmack posted:

 

   

Leaving the EU is not without risk - particularly with the current bunch of clowns in charge - but for me, a leap in the dark is better than a steadily worsening status quo.

 

I think you've captured the choice very concisely and simply there, Kevin.  If only that was the choice put to the electorate at the time of the referendum.  

I think even the supporters of the EU and its institutions would accept that its structures, processes and policies could and should be improved. Personally I think the UK would have done better to stay and use it's influence to achieve change, and with the UK's economy predicted to catch and eventually possibly exceed Germany's (largely due to favourable demographics) our influence in the EU should have been increasingly strong.  I wholly accept that this isn't an easy or quick fix but then I see the 'leap into the dark' as carrying greater risks.  I might be wrong. Indeed for the sake of my kids and grandchildren I hope I am.  But I shall always feel that the choice put to the electorate was ill-thought through and appallingly lacking in facts and objectivity. And while I think the Conservative party led by Cameron will go down in history as carrying the responsibility for that failure, I think politicians in all parties let the electorate down during the referendum campaign.

ynwa250505 posted:

MDS posted:

 

Finally, this matter isn't about "high integrity and respect for the law" - we should simply be being hard-nosed and unremitting in pursuing our own best interests because that is what the other side is doing. Its a critical negotiation and we need the hardest, nastiest lawyers we can find to fight our corner.

 

No, ynwa250505. I not at all surprised that you don't agree with my analysis.  We are clearly on different sides of there argument here. No problem with that.  But I really can't see how your proposal here can be in the interests of the UK in leaving the EU.  After leaving the EU we will still be a part of Europe and our businesses will still want to trade with the twenty seven countries that remain in the EU. How can an acrimonious 'divorce' in which we adopt the position of the 'nasty guy' help in that (though I do accept that there are probably a few within the Conservative party who would agree with you)?      

MDS posted:

I think you've captured the choice very concisely and simply there, Kevin.  If only that was the choice put to the electorate at the time of the referendum.  

I think even the supporters of the EU and its institutions would accept that its structures, processes and policies could and should be improved. Personally I think the UK would have done better to stay and use it's influence to achieve change, and with the UK's economy predicted to catch and eventually possibly exceed Germany's (largely due to favourable demographics) our influence in the EU should have been increasingly strong.  I wholly accept that this isn't an easy or quick fix but then I see the 'leap into the dark' as carrying greater risks.  I might be wrong. Indeed for the sake of my kids and grandchildren I hope I am.  But I shall always feel that the choice put to the electorate was ill-thought through and appallingly lacking in facts and objectivity. And while I think the Conservative party led by Cameron will go down in history as carrying the responsibility for that failure, I think politicians in all parties let the electorate down during the referendum campaign.

Can't disagree with you there Mike. It was a dreadful campaign on both sides. Some remainers like to blame the evil Murdoch press/Barclay Bros/Mail/Express but to be frank the power of the press (and I should know) is grossly exaggerated, as the last GE demonstrated; also, the remain campaign was utterly dismal, full of bullying empty threats (especially from dear old Mr Osborne - remember his 'punishment budget'?) and failing to make a positive case for staying in the EU.

The problem was, everyone from the then PM down thought it was a done deal. The electorate thought otherwise.

naim_nymph posted:

 Brexit Tory Britain will become a tax haven after leaving the EU. 

I'm sure many Tories would love that Debs. But the thing is, we can vote the Tories out if we choose to do so. So it might not.

But we have no say in whether Messers Jucker, Schulz, Timmermans, Draghi et al stay or go.

I notice that you didn't condemn the fact that Lux is a tax haven, you just moaned about the Tories and Brexit. Do you think that it is right that the Luxemourg government and the EU leadership allow this to continue? Do you really think that the EU provides any kind of real bulwark against the excesses of modern capitalism? Really?

MDS posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

MDS posted:

 

Finally, this matter isn't about "high integrity and respect for the law" - we should simply be being hard-nosed and unremitting in pursuing our own best interests because that is what the other side is doing. Its a critical negotiation and we need the hardest, nastiest lawyers we can find to fight our corner.

 

No, ynwa250505. I not at all surprised that you don't agree with my analysis.  We are clearly on different sides of there argument here. No problem with that.  But I really can't see how your proposal here can be in the interests of the UK in leaving the EU.  After leaving the EU we will still be a part of Europe and our businesses will still want to trade with the twenty seven countries that remain in the EU. How can an acrimonious 'divorce' in which we adopt the position of the 'nasty guy' help in that (though I do accept that there are probably a few within the Conservative party who would agree with you)?      

And the EU businesses will still want to trade with the UK too. But the people running the EU won't agree to that unless we agree to conditions that effectively bind us (detrimentally, and probably on bended knee) to the EU.

However, there IS a solution to all this - it is that we simply carry on trading - there is no obstacle to this, except that the rules of the Club rules and political need for the UK to be seen to be punished.

Given that position, I would simply leave. As I have said a number of times, this is emotional, traumatic and costly - so lets just stop trying persuade them to be reasonable and sensible - lets just walk. I didn't say it would be easy or comfortable, but we are where we are ...

Its about time you stopped blaming the Tories too ...

MDS posted:

Kevin-W posted:

Hmack posted:

 

   

Leaving the EU is not without risk - particularly with the current bunch of clowns in charge - but for me, a leap in the dark is better than a steadily worsening status quo.

 

I think you've captured the choice very concisely and simply there, Kevin.  If only that was the choice put to the electorate at the time of the referendum.  

I think even the supporters of the EU and its institutions would accept that its structures, processes and policies could and should be improved. Personally I think the UK would have done better to stay and use it's influence to achieve change, and with the UK's economy predicted to catch and eventually possibly exceed Germany's (largely due to favourable demographics) our influence in the EU should have been increasingly strong.  I wholly accept that this isn't an easy or quick fix but then I see the 'leap into the dark' as carrying greater risks.  I might be wrong. Indeed for the sake of my kids and grandchildren I hope I am.  But I shall always feel that the choice put to the electorate was ill-thought through and appallingly lacking in facts and objectivity. And while I think the Conservative party led by Cameron will go down in history as carrying the responsibility for that failure, I think politicians in all parties let the electorate down during the referendum campaign.

"failure"? 52% of voters disagree with you. Clearly, a leap in the dark is the preferred option for the majority ...

wrt politicians; Cameron's government was the first political party to make EU membership a manifesto issue and he deserves credit for that because all parties ignored that issue for too long when it was clear that this was a major issue for a significant part of the electorate. He also deserves credit for following through on his manifesto promise. His mistake/failure (imo) was to campaign for continued membership when his pre-referendum overtures to the other EU leaders were so obviously and blatantly rejected. He was landed with such a weak hand that the only campaign option was negativity allied to multiple threats from various world leaders (EU and non-EU).

As for staying in so that we could use our influence to achieve change - that old chestnut is well and truly discredited. We've tried it for decades and Cameron tried it and look what happened. In fact, look at Juncker's latest SOTEU speech ... more and more centralised control with greater powers leading to the imposition of political union and the currency - you couldn't invent it ...

so lets just get out and start doing trade deals around the world, rather than waste time trying to persuade a bunch of people that are determined to f**k us to be sensible and reasonable. If they'd been sensible and reasonable to Cameron, we wouldn't be having this discussion ...

Quite a few of the 52% voter because they thought the Remain vote was a certainty, but wanted to teach Cameron a lesson by reducing the Re ain't majority. 

52% of anything is not an overwhelming majority and cannot possibly justify any form of extreme Brexit.

Groundhog Day.