Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FreudianSlippers

Bambi wrote: »

They were called the red army.

The soviets were not anti-fascists.

Hurrache

The Sun quoting a British government official who's pushing the It's all the Paddies fault line again, but at least there's some reasonable responses to it.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1082566709800853504

https://twitter.com/kevinhorourke/status/1082569388224589824

https://twitter.com/BaldwinRE/status/1082597282112000000

FreudianSlippers

EdgeCase wrote: »

This all stems from a notion that if the UK stands there holding a gun to its own head that the EU will have to give it everything it wants to avoid a financial meltdown.

It's the most deranged and irresponsible diplomacy I have ever witnessed.

I made a similar point on an earlier thread here and people were very quick to jump down my throat; the idea that there are "red lines" for the UK is totally disingenuous and was the first major shift of Brexit being a "UK problem" to an "EU problem" - this narrative that the UK was on the defensive and had "red lines" in their negotiation with the EU is a major aspect of conning the people of the UK into a false sense of victim-hood.

FreudianSlippers

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Sure, just like JRM who transferred his to the Republic of Ireland.

I'm not sure investing in the Irish football team is a great way to move his money.

Keatsian wrote: »

Regardless of how bad an idea leaving is, the EU doesn't inspire that kind of passion in anyone but middle-aged lawyers and academics.

Uh... I'm an elder millennial lawyer and academic thank you very much. :pac:

Dyr

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is a couple of voices from Labour wanting a no-deal and WTO terms. Seems no less crazy than the likes of JRM.

Why we should leave the EU on WTO terms - Brendan Chilton

The problems with this article starts of, well at the start. Spot the problem,



Kate Hoey has had her say in a Telegraph article. She seems to be backing on article 24 of the WTO to ensure no trade tariffs between the UK and the EU.

Jeremy Corbyn must trust his instincts and back a no-deal Brexit



She also comments that they will get to keep their £39b from the divorce bill. Is it safe to assume that we can discard anyone that has this opinion?

DeGaulle was right back in the day. It's the old Empire delusion, still a world power and all that lark.

History stopped for the Brits after The Yanks and Russians won WW2, they'd have been better off stopping it after the fall of Singapore: With their arse kicked out of Europe, Their empire gone and being bled by the former colonies for imports to keep themselves fed and watered.

FreudianSlippers

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is a couple of voices from Labour wanting a no-deal and WTO terms. Seems no less crazy than the likes of JRM.

Why we should leave the EU on WTO terms - Brendan Chilton

The problems with this article starts of, well at the start. Spot the problem,



Kate Hoey has had her say in a Telegraph article. She seems to be backing on article 24 of the WTO to ensure no trade tariffs between the UK and the EU.

Jeremy Corbyn must trust his instincts and back a no-deal Brexit



She also comments that they will get to keep their £39b from the divorce bill. Is it safe to assume that we can discard anyone that has this opinion?

Russman wrote: »

I've just read that article, and really, there's almost no arguing with that kind of delusion/stupidity. He talks about them automatically getting the best trading terms - how ?? The mind boggles.

Anyone who suggests that the UK can comply with WTO rules along the N.I. border without a hard border has never been to the N.I. border (or has only been on the M1/A1).

Sam Russell

Bambi wrote: »

DeGaulle was right back in the day. It's the old Empire delusion, still a world power and all that lark.

History stopped for the Brits after The Yanks and Russians won WW2, they'd have been better off stopping it after the fall of Singapore: With their arse kicked out of Europe, Their empire gone and being bled by the former colonies for imports to keep themselves fed and watered.

Actually I think they were bled dry by the USA Gov who sold them arms and food during WW II and needed paying after it was over. It cost the UK everything, and they had to hand over all their technology to the US for free, devalue GBP from GB£1= US$4.01 to GB£1=US$2.80 - that is a massive devaluation.

Losing India in 1947 was also a massive loss.

igCorcaigh

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually I think they were bled dry by the USA Gov who sold them arms and food during WW II and needed paying after it was over. It cost the UK everything, and they had to hand over all their technology to the US for free, devalue GBP from GB£1= US$4.01 to GB£1=US$2.80 - that is a massive devaluation.

Losing India in 1947 was also a massive loss.

They still managed to create the NHS after the war though.

Igotadose

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually I think they were bled dry by the USA Gov who sold them arms and food during WW II and needed paying after it was over. It cost the UK everything, and they had to hand over all their technology to the US for free, devalue GBP from GB£1= US$4.01 to GB£1=US$2.80 - that is a massive devaluation.

Losing India in 1947 was also a massive loss.

I've had this discussion with a pro-Brexit UK type not all that long ago. His point being, "The US forgave debt to Germany why not the UK?"

My answer was, "These were the agreements they made." I'd really like some links to details of exactly what did happen and what was agreed to, is there a good history of this particular phase of UK/US relations?

And, really, my point to him was, "WWII is history. Leaving the EU won't change anything that happened then." The Brexiteers really are smarting over how well Europe, especially Germany are doing and want to re-fight the war, or something. They certainly are willing to punish their own citizens for this. Madness.

Sam Russell

Igotadose wrote: »

I've had this discussion with a pro-Brexit UK type not all that long ago. His point being, "The US forgave debt to Germany why not the UK?"

My answer was, "These were the agreements they made." I'd really like some links to details of exactly what did happen and what was agreed to, is there a good history of this particular phase of UK/US relations?

And, really, my point to him was, "WWII is history. Leaving the EU won't change anything that happened then." The Brexiteers really are smarting over how well Europe, especially Germany are doing and want to re-fight the war, or something. They certainly are willing to punish their own citizens for this. Madness.

The UK continued to spend huge sums on defence, and in particular, on Nuclear weapons, first developing their own, and then buying the US ones. They have steadily reduced the forces over the years and now have a much smaller navy, army and air force, but are still prepared to deploy them in support of the US in wars that are really of no interest to the UK.

Why are they in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan?

Why do they need nuclear weapons that can only be used with the permission of the USA?

The Germans did well because they controlled the labour unions through cooperation, and did not spend on the military.

BonnieSituation

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Anyone who suggests that the UK can comply with WTO rules along the N.I. border without a hard border has never been to the N.I. border (or has only been on the M1/A1).

Sure even when you use the M1 you get to see the vagaries such as the Jonesboro slip road and its multiple speed signs where the border cuts through it.

El Weirdo

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Germans did well because they controlled the labour unions through cooperation, and did not spend on the military.

Did they have much choice in that?

Imreoir2

El Weirdo wrote: »

Did they have much choice in that?

Look at Japan, they were in much the same poistion as Germany and they spend hugely on their Military. The US want's Germany to spend more not less on arms. They had a choice, they could have become a hevily armed US ally in Europe, they chose not to go down that route.

road_high

Bambi wrote: »

DeGaulle was right back in the day. It's the old Empire delusion, still a world power and all that lark.

History stopped for the Brits after The Yanks and Russians won WW2, they'd have been better off stopping it after the fall of Singapore: With their arse kicked out of Europe, Their empire gone and being bled by the former colonies for imports to keep themselves fed and watered.

Often wonder why De Gaulle and co were so opposed. Used put it down to good old fashioned French beligerence and hatred of the English. It’s only now I can see where they were coming from...!

Leroy42

road_high wrote: »

Often wonder why De Gaulle and co were so opposed. Used put it down to good old fashioned French beligerence and hatred of the English. It’s only now I can see where they were coming from...!

TBF, the UK of today is very different from the UK back then. I think it was mainly down to good old fashioned French belligerence.

Nobody could have foreseen the UK that it is today, heck we are all amazed at what is going on.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

TBF, the UK of today is very different from the UK back then. I think it was mainly down to good old fashioned French belligerence.

Nobody could have foreseen the UK that it is today, heck we are all amazed at what is going on.

De Gaulle felt that the British leaned more towards the US than Europe and because of that wouldn't ever be fully engaged in the process.

Skelet0n

El Weirdo wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Germans did well because they controlled the labour unions through cooperation, and did not spend on the military.

Did they have much choice in that?

West Germany was allowed to rearm in 1954 after the French dropped their objection due to the larger threat of the Soviet Union.

ancapailldorcha

I've always found the idea that the British voted to leave based on a desire to reclaim a lost empire cringeworthy to be honest and an idea with virtually no basis in reality. Every country has its nostalgic idiocy so I would expect a few of the sixty-something inhabitants of this island to believe that. Same sort of thing with Irish barstool republicans or the stereotypes of truck-driving, gun toting, bible bashing rustbelters of the United States.

In my opinion, the seeds of the Leave vote in 2016 were sown in the Blair years. Blair espoused the same sort of free market neoliberal ideology initially pursued in the UK by Margaret Thatcher. In doing so, he robbed the British people of any sort of political alternative as both major parties were essentially singing from the same hymn sheet. Three if you count the Liberal Democrats. Successive neoliberal governments hollowed out British institutions such as Tony Blair prohibiting anything coming up in cabinet he wasn't briefed for, privatising or outsourcing as much of the state as possible and decimating unions. Church, which might have once provided a sense of community for some has been on the decline for some time. That's not necessarily a bad thing but social media and consumerism are pretty appalling replacements. Then we had austerity which hit the working classes the hardest while tax dodging billionaires, press barons, oligarchs and the well-connected made a killing.

All of this might be bad enough but there's been no effort to invest in the country's infrastructure. Housebuilding barely occurs, class sizes at schools are increasing while traditional employers of the working classes have either emigrated, closed down or employed robots. I don’t know if anyone watched Brexit: The Uncivil War on Channel 4 last night. There’s a scene towards the end where the Britain Stronger In Europe hold a focus group of 7 people from different backgrounds. Soon enough, they start bickering. Craig Oliver enters the room and one working class woman starts shrieking that she’s fed up of feeling like nothing because her community has been ignored.

A friend recently suggested watching Sunderland ‘Til I Die on Netflix. The producers interview a taxi driver at various points who explains that Sunderland AFC is the only thing the people of Sunderland have left. The Shipbuilding and Mining industries which employed the local populace have left while the place has been completely ignored by politicians. I’d argue this is a better representation of why most working class voted Leave to be honest.

Folkstonian

Bambi wrote: »

DeGaulle was right back in the day. It's the old Empire delusion, still a world power and all that lark.

History stopped for the Brits after The Yanks and Russians won WW2, they'd have been better off stopping it after the fall of Singapore: With their arse kicked out of Europe, Their empire gone and being bled by the former colonies for imports to keep themselves fed and watered.

And they say that the teaching of history in Britain is bad.

Whatever you think of how the U.K. has conducted itself (quite shoddily I’ll agree) in Europe over the last number of years, this post is either an appallingly ignorant, or appallingly malicious revision of the british contribution to the destruction of nazi Germany and the rebuilding of Europe that followed.

Folkstonian

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've always found the idea that the British voted to leave based on a desire to reclaim a lost empire cringeworthy to be honest and an idea with virtually no basis in reality. Every country has its nostalgic idiocy so I would expect a few of the sixty-something inhabitants of this island to believe that. Same sort of thing with Irish barstool republicans or the stereotypes of truck-driving, gun toting, bible bashing rustbelters of the United States.

In my opinion, the seeds of the Leave vote in 2016 were sown in the Blair years. Blair espoused the same sort of free market neoliberal ideology initially pursued in the UK by Margaret Thatcher. In doing so, he robbed the British people of any sort of political alternative as both major parties were essentially singing from the same hymn sheet. Three if you count the Liberal Democrats. Successive neoliberal governments hollowed out British institutions such as Tony Blair prohibiting anything coming up in cabinet he wasn't briefed for, privatising or outsourcing as much of the state as possible and decimating unions. Church, which might have once provided a sense of community for some has been on the decline for some time. That's not necessarily a bad thing but social media and consumerism are pretty appalling replacements. Then we had austerity which hit the working classes the hardest while tax dodging billionaires, press barons, oligarchs and the well-connected made a killing.

All of this might be bad enough but there's been no effort to invest in the country's infrastructure. Housebuilding barely occurs, class sizes at schools are increasing while traditional employers of the working classes have either emigrated, closed down or employed robots. I don’t know if anyone watched Brexit: The Uncivil War on Channel 4 last night. There’s a scene towards the end where the Britain Stronger In Europe hold a focus group of 7 people from different backgrounds. Soon enough, they start bickering. Craig Oliver enters the room and one working class woman starts shrieking that she’s fed up of feeling like nothing because her community has been ignored.

A friend recently suggested watching Sunderland ‘Til I Die on Netflix. The producers interview a taxi driver at various points who explains that Sunderland AFC is the only thing the people of Sunderland have left. The Shipbuilding and Mining industries which employed the local populace have left while the place has been completely ignored by politicians. I’d argue this is a better representation of why most working class voted Leave to be honest.

It is easier and probably more fun - whether you are an outside observer in Ireland or (more pertinently) a remain supporting activist in the cauldron of British politics - to convince yourself and others that millions of people in working class towns who voted to leave are now drawing up plans for the retaking of Ceylon, Rhodesia and Bengal.

If you accept that many leave votes came from people worrying about the complete degradation of the wealth, identity and industry of their home town over the past 20 to 30 years, you have to also accept that overturning the vote would not be any sort of victory in and of itself. It would be one step on a long road.

To turn it into a victory, you would need to acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns, but annoyingly you’d be obliged at this point to work towards fixing the country afterwards. And that will be slow, arduous, complicated and expensive.

So it’s probably better to label Brexit voters simply as neo-colonialists, xenophobes and isolationists. C’est la vie.

ancapailldorcha

Folkstonian wrote: »

If you accept that many leave votes came from people worrying about the complete degradation of the wealth, identity and industry of their home town over the past 20 to 30 years, you have to also accept that overturning the vote would not be any sort of victory in and of itself. It would be one step on a long road.

To turn it into a victory, you would need to acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns, but annoyingly you’d be obliged at this point to work towards fixing the country afterwards. And that will be slow, arduous, complicated and expensive.

Of course. The status quo isn't viable whatever way this turns out. If it were, we wouldn't have Brexit.

Folkstonian wrote: »

If you accept that many leave votes came So it’s probably better to label Brexit voters simply as neo-colonialists, xenophobes and isolationists. C’est la vie.

I don't know about neo-colonialists but there's was a serious whiff of nastiness towards foreigners during and after the Leave campaign with the highlight for me being Nigel Farage's infamous refugees poster. Then there's the overplayed thread of Turkey joining. I'm not saying that 17.4 million Leave voters are Xenophobes but the journey to the leave vote certainly showed some troubling sentiments.

hill16bhoy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've always found the idea that the British voted to leave based on a desire to reclaim a lost empire cringeworthy to be honest and an idea with virtually no basis in reality. Every country has its nostalgic idiocy so I would expect a few of the sixty-something inhabitants of this island to believe that. Same sort of thing with Irish barstool republicans or the stereotypes of truck-driving, gun toting, bible bashing rustbelters of the United States.

It's not the whole truth but there is a huge amount of truth in it. The majority of British people see their history of empire as something to be proud of, not ashamed of. So they're starting with a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

Every country may have "nostalgic idiocy" (and this is becoming a serious problem for politics pretty much everywhere), but the thing that Britain and the US have in common is that their political systems are set up in such a binary way as to allow such nostalgic idiocy to become a dominant narrative.

That "nostalgic idiocy" narrative has been in control of the Tory party for decades and is pushed constantly by huge swathes of the British press - and the newspapers that push this narrative are the most read newspapers there.

In the US, "nostalgic idiocy" was specifically what drove Trump's popularity. It was right there in his slogan.

The Brexit campaign fed hugely off that too.

ancapailldorcha

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It's not the whole truth but there is a huge amount of truth in it. The majority of British people see their history of empire as something to be proud of, not ashamed of. So they're starting with a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

Do you have a source for this?

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've always found the idea that the British voted to leave based on a desire to reclaim a lost empire cringeworthy to be honest and an idea with virtually no basis in reality. Every country has its nostalgic idiocy so I would expect a few of the sixty-something inhabitants of this island to believe that. Same sort of thing with Irish barstool republicans or the stereotypes of truck-driving, gun toting, bible bashing rustbelters of the United States.

In my opinion, the seeds of the Leave vote in 2016 were sown in the Blair years. Blair espoused the same sort of free market neoliberal ideology initially pursued in the UK by Margaret Thatcher. In doing so, he robbed the British people of any sort of political alternative as both major parties were essentially singing from the same hymn sheet. Three if you count the Liberal Democrats. Successive neoliberal governments hollowed out British institutions such as Tony Blair prohibiting anything coming up in cabinet he wasn't briefed for, privatising or outsourcing as much of the state as possible and decimating unions. Church, which might have once provided a sense of community for some has been on the decline for some time. That's not necessarily a bad thing but social media and consumerism are pretty appalling replacements. Then we had austerity which hit the working classes the hardest while tax dodging billionaires, press barons, oligarchs and the well-connected made a killing.

All of this might be bad enough but there's been no effort to invest in the country's infrastructure. Housebuilding barely occurs, class sizes at schools are increasing while traditional employers of the working classes have either emigrated, closed down or employed robots. I don’t know if anyone watched Brexit: The Uncivil War on Channel 4 last night. There’s a scene towards the end where the Britain Stronger In Europe hold a focus group of 7 people from different backgrounds. Soon enough, they start bickering. Craig Oliver enters the room and one working class woman starts shrieking that she’s fed up of feeling like nothing because her community has been ignored.

A friend recently suggested watching Sunderland ‘Til I Die on Netflix. The producers interview a taxi driver at various points who explains that Sunderland AFC is the only thing the people of Sunderland have left. The Shipbuilding and Mining industries which employed the local populace have left while the place has been completely ignored by politicians. I’d argue this is a better representation of why most working class voted Leave to be honest.

All of those events have had an impact in influencing perception of the political class within the UK. I would argue though that that in itself wasn't sufficient to motivate voting to leave. It was a perfect storm of political apathy within the electorate (as outlined above), the false information as to the benefits of leaving (€350M for NHS), the Arab spring unleashing migrants at greater numbers on Europe and the sense that maybe remain was going to win anyway so why not give the government a bloody nose.

I believe the final push to get the remain over the line was influenced by outside forces (1.5B ads/day targeted at 7M selected individuals via social media).

If it had been 52/48 in favour of remaining, the last 2 years would have been very different politically in the UK. But, I wonder if the fiasco that these two years have been will influence the UK towards electing a more responsible government.

Could Brexit have helped to remove the shiny facade that UK politics has had and lead people to look for something different?

Igotadose

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do you have a source for this?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

"YouGov found 44 per cent were proud of Britain’s history of colonialism while only 21 per cent regretted that it happened. 23 per cent held neither view.

The same poll also asked about whether the British Empire was a good thing or a bad thing: 43 per cent said it was good, while only 19 per cent said it was bad. 25 per cent responded that it was “neither”."

Dytalus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course. The status quo isn't viable whatever way this turns out. If it were, we wouldn't have Brexit.



I don't know about neo-colonialists but there's was a serious whiff of nastiness towards foreigners during and after the Leave campaign with the highlight for me being Nigel Farage's infamous refugees poster. Then there's the overplayed thread of Turkey joining. I'm not saying that 17.4 million Leave voters are Xenophobes but the journey to the leave vote certainly showed some troubling sentiments.

This was my general view. While there's definitely some nastiness coming out of the general population that I hadn't seen before (most of what I encountered living in England a few years ago was genuine ignorance of foreign things, rather than maliciousness), most of the 'imperialist attitudes' seems to be coming from the press and politicians.

I definitely pick up a sentiment of "the good old days of the empire" from certain elements of British discourse, but I think it's unfair to say that's the main reason people voted the way they did. People are more pushed to vote by what's directly around them - like the decline of wealth and living conditions in their hometown. That their desperation and poor conditions were taken advantage of is something to be disgusted by, not to blame them for.

ancapailldorcha

Igotadose wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

"YouGov found 44 per cent were proud of Britain’s history of colonialism while only 21 per cent regretted that it happened. 23 per cent held neither view.

The same poll also asked about whether the British Empire was a good thing or a bad thing: 43 per cent said it was good, while only 19 per cent said it was bad. 25 per cent responded that it was “neither”."

Thanks for the link.

However, this hasn't really got anything to do with the EU referendum vote. It simply says that 44% of people are proud of Britain's imperial past.

jm08

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A friend recently suggested watching Sunderland ‘Til I Die on Netflix. The producers interview a taxi driver at various points who explains that Sunderland AFC is the only thing the people of Sunderland have left. The Shipbuilding and Mining industries which employed the local populace have left while the place has been completely ignored by politicians. I’d argue this is a better representation of why most working class voted Leave to be honest.

Sunderland has Nissan which is a lot more than a lot of regions have. Despite being told by Nissan to vote remain, they voted to leave. Explain that one!

ancapailldorcha

jm08 wrote: »

Sunderland has Nissan which is a lot more than a lot of regions have. Despite being told by Nissan to vote remain, they voted to leave. Explain that one!

Most people in Sunderland don't work for Nissan.

jm08

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

However, this hasn't really got anything to do with the EU referendum vote. It simply says that 44% of people are proud of Britain's imperial past.

England was prosperous then and that is what the nostalgia is about. They don't realise that gunboat diplomacy doesn't work anymore. As I heard one trade negotiator saying when asked what the Commonwealth thought about brexit, he said ''they smell blood in the water and are ready to pounce.''