Brexit Discussion Thread number 3

[Bhazor]

I'm heartily fucking sick of the word 'deal'. It's such a lame, selfish, Apprentice-brained word to cover European unity, culture and society and the continuation of a project that's seen Europe co-exist in peace and relative prosperity for the entire lifetimes of most people who are alive today.

Sure the eu has prompted unprecedented half century of peace and prosperity across Europe. Sure its the first international body that actually gives a shit about neighbouring countries doing well economically rather than treating global politics as a dick measuring contest. Sure we've had decades of free frictionless trade. Sure the EU economically represents a liberal counter to the economy of ultra conservative US or the weird half totalitarian half capitalist China. Sure we have the right to work and live and travel through 27 countries without a visa. Sure the economy has been bolstered enormously by european students and workers. But how does any of this affect the bus time table?

[pancreas]

Creation of a bespoke customs union and full frictionless access to the single market but no freedom of movement of labour.

It's something they can never deliver but conveniently demonises migrants for votes, just like the Tories do. Just like UKIP does.

Oh fuck off. Part of the Brexit motion:

Stagnant wages, crumbling services and the housing crisis are being exacerbated by the government and employers making the rich richer at working people's expense, and not immigration.

There are features of freedom of movement which are exploitative. Not least is the fact that jobs can be outsourced to Eastern European companies who then put people to work in the UK on less than the minimum wage, because they're being paid in their own countries. This is particularly virulent in haulage.

Look, I would love to retain FoM—I'm a fucking academic—but I at least am realistic about the politics. Xenophobia has been left to rot for far too long by successive neoliberal governments, who have done nothing for poor areas of the country. Probably the only reason it's been suppressed is because consumer goods (inc food) have been so cheap. You are going to have to throw people a bone if you want them to vote for you; it may not have to be a big one, but you'll have to say something.

[New Jack]

They won't do it right in our faces - of course they won't.  They'll do it by stealth, the same way they have been dismantling the NHS in ways that they hope most people won't notice until it's too late.

Signing a trade deal with the US (you'll note biggy is still dodging this one) is going to involve a lot of pretty massive changes that the government will shift the blame for as well.  It's a wet dream for them, but they'll be crying crocodile tears the entire time.

I'm not even sure it's by stealth. I think bad old apathy or "doesn't affect me, mate" rears its head. Horrible old Universal Credit destroyed my life enough to where I got onto TV to bitch about it. And I remain alive and healthy and sheltered.

I just hope - I pray - the Tory "got mine (New) Jack, fuck you" attitude doesn't extend to the absolute chaos Brexit could bring. I mean, we've all seen the shitty semi-official self-justification about food banks. Oh, aye, I weren't hungry; went to one because I was really on the pull!

I believe if you are strong enough to take stock and change your beliefs - as long as it's something positive, like a nice change of heart, or good old pragmatism - you should be congratulated. The only people who truly ridicule are the ridiculous. When you do good, meaning you put others forward, you are accepted by those others. I suppose that skims too close to "Socialism" for the stereotypical Daily Mail brigade, but for me, politics are always been seen on a day-to-day, direct level. Shit, I found that food bank to be utterly fucking depressing; no, I'm not going to accept parroted quotes or "factoids" from anyone who hasn't even set foot in one.

If in two years, I'm successful, got my own place, eating three meals a day, not depressed, and I look around - and there are less homeless, less people on the street, less suffering in the poorest sectors of society which is indeed how you judge a society - I'll change my beliefs.

I am, I suppose, just self-invested - I don't like to be wrong for purely pragmatic reasons as my life is destroyed as it is by forces beyond my control, and I don't want to be wildly out-of-touch in the ways many Brexit and Tory supporters (distinct, but the combination also counts) justify things I find utterly shocking on a moral, human, compassionate level.

God, if you're down there, you can take New Jack messily in the night if I ever lock myself in that proverbial ideological ivory tower, just because my own voice's echo doesn't scare me.

[Huxleys Babkins]

Not quite, Keir Starmer (gottleogear) said yesterday that he'd already taken soundings from key people within the EU on the matter of creating a customs union (outside of the standard EU customs union), frictionless borders, etc and had been given reason to believe that this was something they will run with. 

In essence, I think Labour's deal will make Britain poorer and more isolated than it is now, in the short term at least.  But it will not bring back war in NI, it will not mean people being made stateless and loaded into cattle trucks on either side of La Manche, it will not mean that Kent becomes a truck stop, it will mean that British businesses are able to continue selling in Europe easily and it will mean that this bus does not go over the fucking cliff in the end.  Which would be nice.

The customs union part isn't really going to be an issue, sure. It's being in the single market without respecting the four freedoms. That will scuttle anything they take to Brussels.

Chequers doesn't mean war in NI, cattle trucks, etc. either. Doesn't mean it's acceptable though.

Oh fuck off. Part of the Brexit motion:

There are features of freedom of movement which are exploitative. Not least is the fact that jobs can be outsourced to Eastern European companies who then put people to work in the UK on less than the minimum wage, because they're being paid in their own countries. This is particularly virulent in haulage.

Look, I would love to retain FoM—I'm a fucking academic—but I at least am realistic about the politics. Xenophobia has been left to rot for far too long by successive neoliberal governments, who have done nothing for poor areas of the country. Probably the only reason it's been suppressed is because consumer goods (inc food) have been so cheap. You are going to have to throw people a bone if you want them to vote for you; it may not have to be a big one, but you'll have to say something.

If you want to have access to the SM to the extent Labour do, you need to retain FoM. There's no two ways around that. The Tories have tied themselves up in knots trying to square this circle and failed. Labour will fare no differently.

And even if we were to suppose that the rhetoric around immigration that Corbyn uses is simply to win votes and that he'd actually, secretly retain FoM in his Brexit deal, isn't he doing exactly the same thing that the Blairites did? Saying one thing about it whilst doing another? That was Brown's position. That was Milliband's position. How does this help anyone?

[Buelligan]

My slight feeling/hope on FoM is that Labour may find themselves "forced" into accepting it as a compromise.

Chequers doesn't mean war in NI, cattle trucks, etc. either. Doesn't mean it's acceptable though.

Chequers can't get past the tory cabinet, it's like saying heaven doesn't mean war in NI but heaven's not on the table (and neither is Chequers) because Boris and Jacob's European Research Group don't like it (and they get to decide, yes, they do).  Pob's just watching.

Please don't imagine for one moment I'm equating Chequers with heaven.

[Darles Chickens]

There are features of freedom of movement which are exploitative. Not least is the fact that jobs can be outsourced to Eastern European companies who then put people to work in the UK on less than the minimum wage, because they're being paid in their own countries. This is particularly virulent in haulage.

Look, I would love to retain FoM—I'm a fucking academic—but I at least am realistic about the politics. Xenophobia has been left to rot for far too long by successive neoliberal governments, who have done nothing for poor areas of the country. Probably the only reason it's been suppressed is because consumer goods (inc food) have been so cheap. You are going to have to throw people a bone if you want them to vote for you; it may not have to be a big one, but you'll have to say something.

Britain needs immigration. If it doesn't come from the EU, it'll just come from elsewhere. If the Government want to detoxify freedom of movement, they need to pledge to control it in precisely the way the EU allow, i.e. three months without a means to support yourself (no job or not self-sufficient with private health cover) then you're out. I'm not clear if "out" implies deportation, or whether it just confers a status whereby one doesn't qualify for benefits, etc, and the only choice is to leave. I know that, in Spain, if I were to turn up and not work for a few months, there's no chance in hell I'd be able to start claiming unemployment benefit.

If there are exploitable loopholes in FoM, these are exactly the sort of things that the UK should be working with other countries to fix inside the EU.

[pancreas]

And even if we were to suppose that the rhetoric around immigration that Corbyn uses is simply to win votes and that he'd actually, secretly retain FoM in his Brexit deal, isn't he doing exactly the same thing that the Blairites did? Saying one thing about it whilst doing another? That was Brown's position. That was Milliband's position.

They'd have to get a form of words from the EU which works and hope the blue passports do the rest.

How does this help anyone?

Well it stops Nissan from moving to Germany for a start. The MAIN thing is of course to make people's lives better, so they don't carp on about immigrants. It means building houses and infrastructure and, yes, even put on some more buses. Why am I having to explain this to you? You know this.

[pancreas]

Britain needs immigration. If it doesn't come from the EU, it'll just come from elsewhere.

I agree. This is about reassuring people you're taking their misguided concerns seriously.

[Huxleys Babkins]

My slight feeling/hope on FoM is that Labour may find themselves "forced" into accepting it as a compromise.

Chequers can't get past the tory cabinet, it's like saying heaven doesn't mean war in NI but heaven's not on the table (and neither is Chequers) because Boris and Jacob's European Research Group don't like it (and they get to decide, yes, they do).  Pob's just watching.

Please don't imagine for one moment I'm equating Chequers with heaven.

Chequers was signed off by the cabinet.

They'd have to get a form of words from the EU which works and hope the blue passports do the rest.

Well it stops Nissan from moving to Germany for a start. The MAIN thing is of course to make people's lives better, so they don't carp on about immigrants. It means building houses and infrastructure and, yes, even put on some more buses. Why am I having to explain this to you? You know this.

Nobody is going to stop carping on about immigrants though. That's the problem. Corbyn's progressive policies would take a long time to implement, longer still should he be unable to get a working majority. And in the meantime anti-immigration sentiment isn't going to go away.

(Of course, it's worth mentioning that all of the above is thoroughly theoretical as Labour won't be implementing Brexit of any flavour because there won't be another GE until 2022, three years after Brexit day and just over a year after the end of the proposed transition).

[pancreas]

(Of course, it's worth mentioning that all of the above is thoroughly theoretical as Labour won't be implementing Brexit of any flavour because there won't be another GE until 2022, three years after Brexit day and just over a year after the end of the proposed transition).

I tend to agree. As Nick Brown has been saying, if a GE happens, it will happen somehow by accident.

[pancreas]

A good hate-read for you all.

In which Jenny Eclair speaks for the oldies and tells you they're going to save you, even now, because they went on a march. Ignoring the fact that they voted for the Tory fuck-up in the first place.

Christ it's hard work.

[Paul Calf]

To be far to L'Eclair, I'm not sure she voted for either Brexit or the Tories. It seems unlikely.

[jobotic]

I'm not reading that drivel. But I don't expect Eclair voted Tory or Leave. Neither did my left-wing parents. Nor my granddad, who surprised me as he was a committed Tory. He explained that he also fought in World War II and feared what leaving the EU would do.

[New Jack]

[Buelligan]

Chequers was signed off by the cabinet.

Sorry, I had the idea that they all agreed it and then Johnson and Davis came out a day later saying it was shit, I obviously wasn't paying enough attention.

[Johnny Yesno]

Labour's position on Brexit is just as disingenuous and cynical as May's. If they were to take their proposed "deal" to Brussels, it'd be rejected just as Chequers was. It's a perfectly reasonable position to support Labour's domestic policy but to be against the leadership's handling of Brexit.

We call out the Tories for using dishonesty to win votes, we should be as comfortable holding Labour to the same standard.

I disagree. There's some wiggle room regarding freedom of movement, such as getting a commitment to end exploitative employment practices, including proper enforcement. May doesn't give a flying fuck about that kind of issue, whereas Corbyn absolutely does. It might not be what is uppermost in many brexit voters minds but it's in the spirit of what they want.

[Howj Begg]

I disagree. There's some wiggle room regarding freedom of movement, such as getting a commitment to end exploitative employment practices, including proper enforcement. May doesn't give a flying fuck about that kind of issue, whereas Corbyn absolutely does. It might not be what is uppermost in many brexit voters minds but it's in the spirit of what they want.

Absolutely. But after that, if Labour doesn't change the general tone and attitude towards immigrants, and reflect the reality of how necessary/important/welcome immigrants of every kind are to GB*, I'll be so annoyed that I may vote for them reluctantly. Please no more fucking racist slogans on mugs. No more kow-towing towards "legitimate concerns" inflated and invented by the right wing press. Tell people that immigrants are good for Britain, good for the economy, good for the NHS, good for the culture. No more shame about thinking this, saying this, proclaiming this. Labour is nothing if it's not an anti-racist party, and 90% of all immigration rhetoric is racism.

*I fully expect this to happen, mind.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Labour's position on Brexit is just as disingenuous and cynical as May's. If they were to take their proposed "deal" to Brussels, it'd be rejected just as Chequers was. It's a perfectly reasonable position to support Labour's domestic policy but to be against the leadership's handling of Brexit.

We call out the Tories for using dishonesty to win votes, we should be as comfortable holding Labour to the same standard.

Usual stuff

Corbyn derided for years for 'not playing the game', putting principles before power, yadda-yadda, and then as soon as he starts doing something that's not exactly and entirely what centrists/remainers want, it's not good enough.

Believe it or not, Labour won't actually win power if they plant their flag in either mast. They are trying to catch which way the wind is blowing, and on a subject where the public know so pitifully little about as this, and with a recent historical of every party thus far failing when they've adopted a Remain position or a hard Brexit position, I'd say it's not clever so much as basic common sense.

But still, let's wait and see until Labour take a firm principled line on another topic and see if you leap enthusiastically to their defence or suggest they play 'grown up politics' and 'get in the real world'.

[Huxleys Babkins]

Usual stuff

Corbyn derided for years for 'not playing the game', putting principles before power, yadda-yadda, and then as soon as he starts doing something that's not exactly and entirely what centrists/remainers want, it's not good enough.

Believe it or not, Labour won't actually win power if they plant their flag in either mast. They are trying to catch which way the wind is blowing, and on a subject where the public know so pitifully little about as this, and with a recent historical of every party thus far failing when they've adopted a Remain position or a hard Brexit position, I'd say it's not clever so much as basic common sense.

But still, let's wait and see until Labour take a firm principled line on another topic and see if you leap enthusiastically to their defence or suggest they play 'grown up politics' and 'get in the real world'.

As Johnny and Howj have pointed out, the UK cannot and will not move on from this self-destructive shit-fit until the country starts having an honest conversation about immigration. And Labour are the only party that can realistically start that conversation. The language Corbyn uses and his refusal to accept freedom of movement as part of his proposed Brexit do nothing to move us on from the toxicity that brought us to this point in the first place.

But, yeah, I'm just centrist concern trolling.

[Buelligan]

I don't know what you're doing but I do know the reason why I support Corbyn, it's because I recognise that he has strong principles that he's upheld all his life, that he's a democrat (in the best sense of the word) and that he knows a fuckload more than I or most people, do about how to do politics.

That's why I want him to be Prime Minister.  I trust his judgment (and he's usually way ahead of the curve and of history).

[pancreas]

As Johnny and Howj have pointed out, the UK cannot and will not move on from this self-destructive shit-fit until the country starts having an honest conversation about immigration. And Labour are the only party that can realistically start that conversation. The language Corbyn uses and his refusal to accept freedom of movement as part of his proposed Brexit do nothing to move us on from the toxicity that brought us to this point in the first place.

But, yeah, I'm just centrist concern trolling.

Listen to yourself:

'having an honest conversation about immigration'

What the fuck does an 'honest conversation about immigration' mean to anyone who doesn't follow politics? You may as well be talking about 'hard-working families'. Many of these people just want the buggers sent back.

And how precisely do you propose to have an 'honest conversation' with the population about immigration?

Show that you're fixing society first, and then maybe people might take you seriously.

[Paul Calf]

If we were having 'an honest conversation about immigration' we'd have to admit that immigration is pretty fucking essential to the functioning of this country.

I'm not sure that's what Huxers is talking about though.

[Buelligan]

Immigration though, it's like Brexit, it's been so loaded and weaponised over such a long period by irresponsible self-serving cunts, that it's literally become shorthand for let's have a fucking fight. 

Pancs is correct, no politician (except a tub-thumping racist) will get a hearing.  The only sane approach, IMO, is to fix the reasons why immigration has become such a trigger.  Then, a sane and intelligent conversation might be possible.

[Zetetic]

If we were having 'an honest conversation about immigration' we'd have to admit that immigration is pretty fucking essential to the functioning of this country.

I'm not sure that's what Huxers is talking about though.

I think it probably is actually, optimistically or otherwise.

[Zetetic]

For the avoidance of doubt - this 'intervention' of the Commission 'requesting' that Italy revise their budget is obviously bunch of miserable bollocks and shows up the problems of the Eurozone. I hope that Italy decline the 'request'.

(This is another reason why it's a shame that we're leaving - we were a demonstrator that the EU didn't have to mean the Eurozone.)

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

'having an honest conversation about immigration'

Usual stuff. Second hand phrase.

What if this honest conversation ends with mutual agreement it's really good?

Please stop pretending 'we can't talk about immigration' when it is talked about all the time. There is no barrier to such a conversation.

[Mr_Simnock]

I hope that Italy decline the 'request'

What happened to that country not far from Turkey that had a brief habit of declining 'requests'?

[Zetetic]

It stopped declining them, for a start, and instead accepted the deal proposed by the ECB and IMF.

I'd hope that Italy's government believes itself to be in a stronger position than Greece's ultimately did.

(I'm not entirely convinced by Varoufakis's view that a bit more nerve would have been enough for everything to be wonderful, but...)

[Bhazor]

For the avoidance of doubt - this 'intervention' of the Commission 'requesting' that Italy revise their budget is obviously bunch of miserable bollocks and shows up the problems of the Eurozone. I hope that Italy decline the 'request'.

Italy already has the second highest public debt in the EU following decades of Berlusconi's unabashed corruption and links to organised crime. Letting it run up the most bloated budget deficit in decades on top of that would bring it well into the Greek slide. Not to mention that those policies Italy want to fund were naked populism which allowed an extremely far right euroskeptic government into power.

Same with Greece. Decades of political corruption and government facilitated tax evasion. Voting against EU measures to curb those trends and ultimately forced to balance their check book and actually start collecting the tax they were keeping under the desk.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109500

In both cases we have local governments who will now be blaming all the ills of society on those evil warmongering EU bankers for not giving them everything they promised the electorate. Sound familiar?

[Dr Rock]

Usual stuff. Second hand phrase.

What if this honest conversation ends with mutual agreement it's really good?

Please stop pretending 'we can't talk about immigration' when it is talked about all the time. There is no barrier to such a conversation.

I don't pretend to know how to put the racists back in their box. The 'I'm not racist but' lot. Maybe half of them can be assured that immigrants aren't a burden, the other half are basically ethno-state nationalists and maybe they need more shaming. Accept that there is virulent racism in our country and the fear and hatred, mainly directed at muslims, is not unlike how Germany was conditioned to be antisemitic in the 30s. The Labour Party cannot be the only voice to 'defend immigration' - it must be accompanied by a massive row about whether we accept the way this country is, and the direction it's going. This is still a country where non-white people don't visit the countryside because they encounter racism. No tolerance to the shit Boris Johnson says. All that xenophobia needs to flourish is for good people not to say 'shut the fuck up you racist cunts'.

Bit of a rant really. I don't pretend to know what to do, but I'm ready to kick off if everyone else is.