Brexit Discussion Thread VI

ancapailldorcha

jm08 wrote: »

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.''

England is still prosperous. The problem is that said prosperity is being enjoyed by only a select few.

jm08

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most people in Sunderland don't work for Nissan.

Yes, only about 7,000 are directly employed by Nissan. They won't miss those jobs if they move to Poland or the Czech Republic because of Brexit.

The suppliers, local shops, services, etc. won't miss those 7,000 paychecks every week hitting the local economy either.

jm08

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

England is still prosperous. The problem is that said prosperity is being enjoyed by only a select few.

And that is going to change with Brexit?

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

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

Could it? Certainly.

Will it? Only time will tell. Presently, we see vested interests consolidating themselves such as moving their assets abroad. Corbyn is showing no sign of flexibility whatsoever beyond his position of constructive ambiguity while Theresa May decided to trap herself in a box painted with her own red lines. We have two sides bickering.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

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.''

Your personal dislike of Britains past could be viewed as irrelevant in a brexit discussion-and regarding Commonwealth countries,Canada and Australia amongst others have chosen to retain close ties with the UK.

ancapailldorcha

jm08 wrote: »

Yes, only about 7,000 are directly employed by Nissan. They won't miss those jobs if they move to Poland or the Czech Republic because of Brexit.

The suppliers, local shops, services, etc. won't miss those 7,000 paychecks every week hitting the local economy either.

Again, I'm not saying that these jobs are trivial. I'm saying that the people of Sunderland, 61% to be exact decided that voting to Leave was in their best interests. I'm not saying that it was the right decision or that it was made based on facts. I am simply advocating trying to understand why.

jm08 wrote: »

And that is going to change with Brexit?

I'm not arguing for Brexit. I'm trying to fall into the very tempting trap of dehumanising and "othering" people who don't agree with me which is proving difficult in this age of echo chambers, tailored news feeds and social media.

An Ciarraioch

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your personal dislike of Britains past could be viewed as irrelevant in a brexit discussion-and regarding Commonwealth countries,Canada and Australia amongst others have chosen to retain close ties with the UK.

But economically, members have vastly diversified their export and import markets, with Australia concentrating on China and SE Asia, while Canada does most trade with the US and Pacific nations.

listermint

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.

Then explain why the 'Take Back Control' and Sovereignty message rings so heavily with Leave Voters. These were ultra powerful motivators for them. And it was based on it harking back to a time when they were the boss of all around them, king of the seas so to speak.

I dont see how you can explain the coupling of that message with Leave and not equate it to looking back nostalgically to an era before

listermint

Additionally if i might add, Can you explain why we have various Minsters verbally saying that Ireland should know its place and they would starve us into submission.

It appears you are not approaching this with open eyes, That is Empire 101 and cannot be construed as meaning anything else.

Folkstonian

listermint wrote: »

Then explain why the 'Take Back Control' and Sovereignty message rings so heavily with Leave Voters. These were ultra powerful motivators for them. And it was based on it harking back to a time when they were the boss of all around them, king of the seas so to speak.

I dont see how you can explain the coupling of that message with Leave and not equate it to looking back nostalgically to an era before

Are they looking for control of former colonies or control of domestic affairs do you think?

listermint

Folkstonian wrote: »

Are they looking for control of former colonies or control of domestic affairs do you think?

Well I don't have to look far for Minsters telling us that they will be invited into former colonies who will seek to be 'guided' by Britain in trade relations. As if Britain were the source of all Political guidance.

There's an arrogance in those statements, I'm sure you've seen them yourself. Tell me what you would read from Minsters making such proclamations ?

Strazdas

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”."

I get the distinct impression that it is the British (or English?) Right who are proud of their imperial past and that it is the Left who reject it and are likely to call it a 'disgrace' etc.

Imreoir2

listermint wrote: »

Additionally if i might add, Can you explain why we have various Minsters verbally saying that Ireland should know its place and they would starve us into submission.

It appears you are not approaching this with open eyes, That is Empire 101 and cannot be construed as meaning anything else.

Not to mention that before we had "Global Britain" we had talk of "Empire 2.0".

murphaph

Folkstonian wrote: »

Are they looking for control of former colonies or control of domestic affairs do you think?

Dr. Fox coined the phrase "Empire 2.0".

Edit..beaten to it.

Folkstonian

listermint wrote: »

Well I don't have to look far for Minsters telling us that they will be invited into former colonies who will seek to be 'guided' by Britain in trade relations. As if Britain were the source of all Political guidance.

There's an arrogance in those statements, I'm sure you've seen them yourself. Tell me what you would read from Minsters making such proclamations ?

I perceive that kind of slogan a bit differently. To me it indicates that some people are not comfortable with certain decisions being made in Europe that would historically have been made by parliamentarians in London.

I won’t pretend that I think they are concerns entirely without merit. I don’t think there are great numbers of people in Britain who would. But it’s all about compromise, and looking at how much return you get for the powers you give over to the European Union.

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your personal dislike of Britains past could be viewed as irrelevant in a brexit discussion-and regarding Commonwealth countries,Canada and Australia amongst others have chosen to retain close ties with the UK.

What has my personal view of Britain's past got to do with what countries like Canada or Australia think, neither of which will bend over backwards to save Brexit Britain. Those close ties are at a very safe distance.

Folkstonian

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Not to mention that before we had "Global Britain" we had talk of "Empire 2.0".

murphaph wrote: »

Dr. Fox coined the phrase "Empire 2.0".

Edit..beaten to it.

The Empire 2.0 thing was ‘coined by sceptical officials, worried about the importance given to Commonwealth trade deals ahead of Brexit negotiations’

It’s a little bit inaccurate/ disingenuous to present a slogan used in internal department correspondence by cynical and doubtful staffers as an official outlook of the British government or any minister.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-government-africa-free-trade-zone-post-brexit-empire-2-liam-fox-international-commonwealth-a7613526.html

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

Then explain why the 'Take Back Control' and Sovereignty message rings so heavily with Leave Voters. These were ultra powerful motivators for them. And it was based on it harking back to a time when they were the boss of all around them, king of the seas so to speak.

I dont see how you can explain the coupling of that message with Leave and not equate it to looking back nostalgically to an era before

Simple. Take back control referred to the country, the country being the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. The tabloids have been doing their best to convince people that the UK is a vassal state of Brussels for decades now.

As for nostalgia, it's there but it's for a time much more recent. A time when low skilled jobs were not only more abundant but paid much better. A time when the NHS wasn't being stretched by under-investment and an aging population. And for some, yes a time when there were fewer foreigners running around even though EU migrants are net contributors.

listermint wrote: »

Well I don't have to look far for Minsters telling us that they will be invited into former colonies who will seek to be 'guided' by Britain in trade relations. As if Britain were the source of all Political guidance.

There's an arrogance in those statements, I'm sure you've seen them yourself. Tell me what you would read from Minsters making such proclamations ?

So basically, hoary old Etonians. A tiny demographic which couldn't be more disproportionately represented in government. Right.

demfad

I think we have to assume that the people pushing hard Brexit are not stupid but appear to be stupid because they cannot openly say why they might be OK with what will happen.
The UK is a moderate sized economy between two massive trading blocks.
In reality, it must either follow EU or US regulations.
The hard Brexiters want alignment with the US. This is what Matthew Elliot, Fox and all the transatlantic Libertarian types want.
Under a no-deal Brexit, due to the need to import vast quantities of cheap food, this will effectively happen. UK agri-business will effectively be wiped out which will also mean a repossession of land by the elite.
Many ordinary people will suffer and suffer badly, but the uber elite will have grabbed more power and will burn worker and environmental rights.
The likes of the Koch brothers, Mercers believe that any taxation is stealing from honest hard working billionaires. The UK versions are similar.
In time the powerless lower classes will come to accept the new situation especially so if this dawns a new (final) world order.
THye cant say openly that they are lying to Britons in order to grab even more power and wealth at their cost.
So they say ..'things will carry on as normal..' and other lies.

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Could it? Certainly.

Will it? Only time will tell. Presently, we see vested interests consolidating themselves such as moving their assets abroad. Corbyn is showing no sign of flexibility whatsoever beyond his position of constructive ambiguity while Theresa May decided to trap herself in a box painted with her own red lines. We have two sides bickering.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I would be less hopeful of change if Labour had had at least tried to lead by example even while in opposition, but Corbyn's performance is what has showed the scale of ineptitude within their leading elected parties.

If there was a general election tomorrow, I suspect many would vote more to keep someone out of government rather than to put someone in which is a truly deplorable state for a country to be in.

That being said, change doesn't come easy so the next government is most certainly going to be made up of the same protagonists. It might be the election after that that newer players emerge possibly in the same parties but at least maybe with new ideals and focus.

Tell me how

Is there a UK version of Boards where regular people discuss Brexit or is it all taking place on Twitter and Facebook.

I would be interested in viewing the assessment part of their opinions. I suspect the opinions themselves are typically polarised.

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

I would be less hopeful of change if Labour had had at least tried to lead by example even while in opposition, but Corbyn's performance is what has showed the scale of ineptitude within their leading elected parties.

If there was a general election tomorrow, I suspect many would vote more to keep someone out of government rather than to put someone in which is a truly deplorable state for a country to be in.

That being said, change doesn't come easy so the next government is most certainly going to be made up of the same protagonists. It might be the election after that that newer players emerge possibly in the same parties but at least maybe with new ideals and focus.

I'm starting to think of Corbyn as a "Disaster Socialist" to be honest. He's happy for economic catastrophe to launch him to power whereupon he will be able to enact his agenda.

The Labour party is an awkward coalition of Blairite liberals, socialists, working class loyalists and metropolitan socialists. However, by shying away from providing any sort of opposition, Corbyn undermines his own claim to be a man of principle.

Tell me how wrote: »

Is there a UK version of Boards where regular people discuss Brexit or is it all taking place on Twitter and Facebook.

I would be interested in viewing the assessment part of their opinions. I suspect the opinions themselves are typically polarised.

Probably some subreddits. In my experience, people there tend to be either fairly centrist, liberal and very Remain leaning or out and out Trumpish Brexiteers. So, yes. The same polarization that infects popular discourse is very much there as well.

O'Neill

Tell me how wrote: »

Is there a UK version of Boards where regular people discuss Brexit or is it all taking place on Twitter and Facebook.

I would be interested in viewing the assessment part of their opinions. I suspect the opinions themselves are typically polarised.

https://forums.digitalspy.com/categories/politics

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm starting to think of Corbyn as a "Disaster Socialist" to be honest. He's happy for economic catastrophe to launch him to power whereupon he will be able to enact his agenda.

The Labour party is an awkward coalition of Blairite liberals, socialists, working class loyalists and metropolitan socialists. However, by shying away from providing any sort of opposition, Corbyn undermines his own claim to be a man of principle.

It didn't necessarily even need to be opposition. If they had been principled and pushed to be included in a cross party negotiating team they could have played the delivering the referendum result while simultaneously saying they were doing what they could to limit the negative impact. Absolutely would not have guaranteed any sort of success but it should have been done in the form of 'desperate times, desperate measures' type thing. Even if the conservatives had rejected their offer to do this, they should have maintained that position and been able say, well, we tried to get involved.

Corbyn is done as far as I am concerned. He may get the PM position if there is a general election but it is by no means guaranteed. But, if he does, the Conservatives will be animalistic in their opposition as they will be taking out their frustrations of the last few years on them.

Corbyn, Barry Gardiner, Diane Abbott, Emily Thornberry et al are not strong enough to withstand such an onslaught in my view.

Calina

Folkstonian wrote: »

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.

The USSR can claim a good chunk of credit for the defeat of Germany. The US for the reconstruction of western Europe. The UK got a fair chunk of the Marshall Plan and was the biggest recipient of aid from it.

flutered

Imreoir2 wrote: »

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.

the us wants germany plus the other nato countrys to purchase us arms, there is method to their demands

Headshot

Another defeat for May tonight.

Good thing it proves there's no majority for leaving the EU without a deal

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

It didn't necessarily even need to be opposition. If they had been principled and pushed to be included in a cross party negotiating team they could have played the delivering the referendum result while simultaneously saying they were doing what they could to limit the negative impact. Absolutely would not have guaranteed any sort of success but it should have been done in the form of 'desperate times, desperate measures' type thing. Even if the conservatives had rejected their offer to do this, they should have maintained that position and been able say, well, we tried to get involved.

Corbyn is done as far as I am concerned. He may get the PM position if there is a general election but it is by no means guaranteed. But, if he does, the Conservatives will be animalistic in their opposition as they will be taking out their frustrations of the last few years on them.

Corbyn, Barry Gardiner, Diane Abbott, Emily Thornberry et al are not strong enough to withstand such an onslaught in my view.

Being part of the negotiating team means accepting some responsibility for any consequences of Brexit. I see what you're getting at. It might be in the interest of the nation but it's not in the interest of the Labour party. The Tories are in their third Parliamentary term. It's noteworthy that they only commanded a majority in one of those three terms. I don't know how much longer they can last to be honest.

The one nice thing about Brexit is that it's frustrated their attempts to cement their position by undermining the already unrepresentative democracy we have here.

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

What has my personal view of Britain's past got to do with what countries like Canada or Australia think, neither of which will bend over backwards to save Brexit Britain. Those close ties are at a very safe distance.

Who knows how countries will react in a situation?-Australia and Canada have been there for Britain in the past and I don't just mean WW2.I prefer to stay in the EU personally but do remember Britain's closer ties with Commonwealth countries right up to the 70's with regards to trade etc.

J Mysterio

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your personal dislike of Britains past could be viewed as irrelevant in a brexit discussion-and regarding Commonwealth countries,Canada and Australia amongst others have chosen to retain close ties with the UK.

In the context of existential crisis like Brexit, all elements and facets of a country are relevant in terms of trying to understand how such a monumentally bad national breakdown has happened.

As regards Canada and Australia retaining close ties - why shouldnt they? Ireland wants close ties and we have as much reason as anybody to be bitter in this. Australia are not promising a great trade deal though, neither are the US. Not sure on Canada but presume same.