Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[Nessie]

It's only significant if you treat this "party" as any different to the previous Farage party, UKIP.

It's the same backers, and financing, and front man.

In which case the Faragists gained 6 MEPs, which is not to be sneezed at, but not quite a miracle.

Anyone know when the investigation into the financing of the Brexit Party happens?

That makes it very significant. It is the reason why we are leaving the EU.

Farage via UKIP and the Brexit Party has found, to many people's surprise, that there is a lot of dislike of the EU, so much so, the referendum vote was to leave.

Then, once the reality of leaving has become far more clear, to everyone's surprise, there is still a significant number of people voting for Farage and I think even more surprising, 63% of voters did not bother to turn out.

That tells me the majority do not care!!! Even after all this chaos.

 

[The Don]

There is no leftlist argument for leaving the EU in the UK. There are arguments that are being made in the name of leftlist causes, but none of them are remotely lined with reality. I want an actual argument to have that trait before I consider it more than a wiff of wind. Before you can make a leftlist argument for leaving the EU you must be in line with the most left-leaning states of the union and want to leave in order to be able to tilt even further left. This is manifestly not happening.

I disagree, the current position of the UK on the EU political spectrum has nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of the left wing arguments for leaving the EU.

I personally agree that the arguments are largely spurious, but as I understand it they boil down to:

• The EU is a corporatist entity and the four freedoms are far more to do with globalisation than they do with protecting individuals' rights
• There is specific EU legislation which prevents the kind of government support for key industries that Jeremy Corbyn is advocating. EU membership is incompatible with the policies he is passionately attached to
• The influx of EU citizens into the UK (as part of the four freedoms) has served to undercut the wages of, and steal the jobs of, UK workers - a group that the Labour Party is supposed to represent

Interestingly, the first point is also one that some of my more left-wing German colleagues echo.

 

[Nessie]

Scotland's voting over the past 20 years showed that whilst there was growing support for independence, it was not enough to tip a referendum. But after the referendum, the SNP did really well. The Scots voted over a series of elections to show they were happy in the Union, but want more devolved power.

Has the same thing happened in the UK over the EU? Has there been growing discontent with the EU, but rather then leave outright, the UK want to to reposition itself so that it has more controls, but is still a member.

The problem is that unlike Scottish voting, which achieved a compromise of still in the Union, but with lots more powers, the UK voting cannot get that compromise with the EU.

 

[The Don]

Scotland's voting over the past 20 years showed that whilst there was growing support for independence, it was not enough to tip a referendum. But after the referendum, the SNP did really well. The Scots voted over a series of elections to show they were happy in the Union, but want more devolved power.

Has the same thing happened in the UK over the EU? Has there been growing discontent with the EU, but rather then leave outright, the UK want to to reposition itself so that it has more controls, but is still a member.

The problem is that unlike Scottish voting, which achieved a compromise of still in the Union, but with lots more powers, the UK voting cannot get that compromise with the EU.

....not least because the UK already has a very sweet deal with the EU in terms of both the financial settlement and the range of opt-outs we have.

Then again, given the inaccuracy of the anti-EU propaganda, it's very likely that many things that Brexiteers are railing against are imaginary.

There is however a point at which the special requests that the Brexiteers want are fundamentally incompatible with membership.

 

[Tolls]

That makes it very significant. It is the reason why we are leaving the EU.

Farage via UKIP and the Brexit Party has found, to many people's surprise, that there is a lot of dislike of the EU, so much so, the referendum vote was to leave.

Then, once the reality of leaving has become far more clear, to everyone's surprise, there is still a significant number of people voting for Farage and I think even more surprising, 63% of voters did not bother to turn out.

That tells me the majority do not care!!! Even after all this chaos.

Again, though, that's overstating the numbers.

The Faragists got less than a third of the vote.

As for the low turnout, it was an EU election and, though many talked of it being a proxy-referendum it really was never going to be any such thing.

There were a number of vox pops, mostly younger people, who said that they wouldn't be voting, but if it was a referendum they would. Numpties, but don't assume they don't care about leaving the EU.

 

[McHrozni]

I disagree, the current position of the UK on the EU political spectrum has nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of the left wing arguments for leaving the EU.

I personally agree that the arguments are largely spurious, but as I understand it they boil down to:

• The EU is a corporatist entity and the four freedoms are far more to do with globalisation than they do with protecting individuals' rights
• There is specific EU legislation which prevents the kind of government support for key industries that Jeremy Corbyn is advocating. EU membership is incompatible with the policies he is passionately attached to
• The influx of EU citizens into the UK (as part of the four freedoms) has served to undercut the wages of, and steal the jobs of, UK workers - a group that the Labour Party is supposed to represent

Interestingly, the first point is also one that some of my more left-wing German colleagues echo.

The first one is accurate, the four freedoms (free flow of goods, services, capital and people/workers) have more to do with globalisation than they do with protecting individuals' rights. They allow firms to compete freely across the continent, unburdened by different local legislation, tariffs, standards and such.

However the main effect this does is preventing an unprofitable business to keep charging more for an inferior service or product due to government interference. Unified minimum standards ensure a level playing field in all aspects. The consumer benefits not because the product has been deregulated but because the regulations are harmonious across a huge swath of market.

It's a globalist agenda all right - but globalist agenda services the individual too. Not a often as it does the capitalist maybe, but it's a myth individuals are left out by default. This is why the argument is spurious in the first place. It's true, but it's flawed and tells us nothing.

The other two arguments don't even reach the point "flawed". Corbyn desperately wants Britain to engage in manifestly unprofitable economic activity. That's exactly the same as Trump with his inane coal subsidies. Kind of puts it in perspective, doesn't it? The influx of citizens in UK can be managed by the UK under existing EU law. For the argument to have any merit at all, UK would have to be overwhelmed by said migrants while adhering to all (or at least the majority) of permissable EU legislation. In order for it to be an argument worth considering it would also have to ask for and be denied the necessary changes to stem the flow.

Until that happens this is not an argument for Brexit. It may be a statement of fact that "UK is overwhelmed by EU migrants", but leaving the EU is not a way (let alone the way) to solve the issue. It may also be that certain British businesses are unprofitable due to four freedoms - but they will be unprofitable regaradless of British membership in the EU, but British subsidies and tariffs may keep them afloat by allowing them to keep selling an inferior product at higher price.

McHrozni

 

[JihadJane]

The first one is accurate, the four freedoms (free flow of goods, services, capital and people/workers) have more to do with globalisation than they do with protecting individuals' rights. They allow firms to compete freely across the continent, unburdened by different local legislation, tariffs, standards and such.

However the main effect this does is preventing an unprofitable business to keep charging more for an inferior service or product due to government interference. Unified minimum standards ensure a level playing field in all aspects. The consumer benefits not because the product has been deregulated but because the regulations are harmonious across a huge swath of market.

It's a globalist agenda all right - but globalist agenda services the individual too. Not a often as it does the capitalist maybe, but it's a myth individuals are left out by default. This is why the argument is spurious in the first place. It's true, but it's flawed and tells us nothing.

The other two arguments don't even reach the point "flawed". Corbyn desperately wants Britain to engage in manifestly unprofitable economic activity. That's exactly the same as Trump with his inane coal subsidies. Kind of puts it in perspective, doesn't it? The influx of citizens in UK can be managed by the UK under existing EU law. For the argument to have any merit at all, UK would have to be overwhelmed by said migrants while adhering to all (or at least the majority) of permissable EU legislation. In order for it to be an argument worth considering it would also have to ask for and be denied the necessary changes to stem the flow.

Until that happens this is not an argument for Brexit. It may be a statement of fact that "UK is overwhelmed by EU migrants", but leaving the EU is not a way (let alone the way) to solve the issue. It may also be that certain British businesses are unprofitable due to four freedoms - but they will be unprofitable regaradless of British membership in the EU, but British subsidies and tariffs may keep them afloat by allowing them to keep selling an inferior product at higher price.

McHrozni

So, do you think we shouldn't have bailed out the banks?

 

[Ian Osborne]

It was a pity Change UK seemed to roll over and die during the European election. I was hoping they'd become a new force in politics, serving the oft-neglected centre.

 

[The Don]

It was a pity Change UK seemed to roll over and die during the European election. I was hoping they'd become a new force in politics, serving the oft-neglected centre.

I had exactly zero hope and expectation for Change UK. They lacked infrastructure, funding and a compliant set of media outlets to get their message across (in stark contrast to the Brexit Party). As I feared, Change UK served only to split (marginally) the pro-Remain vote.

 

[catsmate]

It's only significant if you treat this "party" as any different to the previous Farage party, UKIP.

It's the same backers, and financing, and front man.

In which case the Faragists gained 6 MEPs, which is not to be sneezed at, but not quite a miracle.

Anyone know when the investigation into the financing of the Brexit Party happens?

Or indeed the rightist fringe of the Conservatives.

 

[Information Analyst]

Then again, given the inaccuracy of the anti-EU propaganda, it's very likely that many things that Brexiteers are railing against are imaginary.

I posted on Quora recently that many Leavers seem to act in a very similar way to conspiracy theorists. They are happy to tolerate numerous incompatible forms of Brexit amongst themselves, in a way that do not tolerate the opinions of Remainers. They also cherry-pick, misrepresent, or simply lie about the "evidence" of the supposed ills of the EU.

 

[Information Analyst]

I had exactly zero hope and expectation for Change UK. They lacked infrastructure, funding and a compliant set of media outlets to get their message across (in stark contrast to the Brexit Party). As I feared, Change UK served only to split (marginally) the pro-Remain vote.

I ran the numbers recently, and came to the conclusion that, while the Lib-Dems and the Greens attracting the same number of votes under a single banner would have given them 27 MEP rather than 23, adding in the CUK votes would have only secured two more.

 

[IanS]

I would surmise Brexiters are generally more militant in their thinking than remainers. They are in New Zealand, and not interested in the thoughtful concerns of remainers. It also appears they are worried they are seeing death by a thousand cuts, so 31% of 37% may not mean what it appears.

Indeed, and I said the same thing some pages back (ie that Brexit voters are much more comitted to actually getting out and voting. They are frankly all furious and absolutely insistent about it (just won't take "No" for an answer).

But if it comes to another referendum, or a General Election, then even based on them getting 31% of the vote in those EU elections, Farage & Brexit might still easily lose by 5%-10% (or at least, I hope so!).

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... I personally agree that the arguments are largely spurious, but as I understand it they boil down to: ...The EU is a corporatist entity and the four freedoms are far more to do with globalisation than they do with protecting individuals' rights...

Just want to comment on that bit about the four freedoms. The claim you cite (not one you make) is maddening to me, in that it is a transparent smear tactic. Once again, Brexiteers get things 180º backwards.

The four freedoms are the embodiment of what a "single market" is. They pertain, without mention or worry, across, say, the entire 50 states in the US. Added to the real (yet reasonable) barriers non-EU members face, this is a net gain in economic terms and cannot reasonably be associated with anything greater than intra-community flows. So: very local, among neighbors, and not global. Superficially similar to globalisation, but a different animal, with some traits of protectionism. The advantage of common product, procurement and safety regulations is enormous, offering a market potential no one member state could hope to achieve or impose. This is not just "trade", it is market creation. You do not get that with one-off trade deals among would-be bullies.

Boggles the mind and bugs me to no end. Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Brexit latest: It is now ‘patriotic’ to side with a foreign politician when he slags off the elected mayor of the English capital.

 

[ceptimus]

Just want to comment on that bit about the four freedoms. The claim you cite (not one you make) is maddening to me, in that it is a transparent smear tactic. Once again, Brexiteers get things 180º backwards.

The four freedoms are the embodiment of what a "single market" is. They pertain, without mention or worry, across, say, the entire 50 states in the US.

Exactly. The EU wants to convert a group of independent sovereign countries into the United States of Europe.

 

[Klimax]

Exactly. The EU wants to convert a group of independent sovereign countries into the United States of Europe.

In a way it is actually logical and necessary outcome. Fragmented Europe is no match to USA, Russia or China.
"United we stand, divided we fall".

 

[McHrozni]

So, do you think we shouldn't have bailed out the banks?

If the banks were unprofitable because they were outcompeted by foreign banks then no, absolutely not.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Exactly. The EU wants to convert a group of independent sovereign countries into the United States of Europe.

Yes.

I wonder when did building pan-national superstates become such an anathema to the British.

Free Northumbria!

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I posted on Quora recently that many Leavers seem to act in a very similar way to conspiracy theorists. They are happy to tolerate numerous incompatible forms of Brexit amongst themselves, in a way that do not tolerate the opinions of Remainers. They also cherry-pick, misrepresent, or simply lie about the "evidence" of the supposed ills of the EU.

I'll agree with that view. I had a 'discussion' (an exchange that didn't merit the title) on Quora with a couple of Leavers recently, both claimed the solution to the Irish border question was easy and cited a document of 14 MPs (mostly CON/DUP vermin) claiming it could be done easily by the end of 2020, if there was political will to do so.

When I asked them whether or not the WA should be ratified they recoiled immediately, claiming it bound UK to EU forever. When I pointed out their opinions are mutually exclusive, if Irish border question is easily solvable by technology the Backstop should be a non-issue, they stopped responding altogether.

Not that technology is a magical wand that solves the Irish border question. As the report noted the solution requires a lot of goodwill by EU and Ireland, probably a tolerance of a copious amount of smuggling too. Nigh-on impossible in the best of times, when UK had a lot of political capital and goodwill to call upon.

McHrozni