So Solid Corbs - 21 Deselections To Go

[Zetetic]

It would be useful if we could set all of this - the withdrawal of rights for individuals, the abandonment of the EU to pro-€ federalists and a smaller number of large members, the greater risks of punitive responses for taking against neoliberal agendas, and so on - against the positives. Even at this stage.

What are they?

[biggytitbo]

It being 'easy' is one of the many privileges we have as EU members. How sad that some people are so willing to reduce their own rights.

Again, reality perception gap - not a right, and for most people who voted brexit somewhere below the price of biscuits in the list of things they give a shit about.

The EU made a very comprehensive offer on citizens' rights early on, which included continued free movement for UKinEU citizens, continued recognition of qualifications and so on.  The UK rebuffed it immediately, proposing a far inferior offer which the EU then agreed to match.  The EU are continuing to do far more to protect my rights as an UK citizen living in the EU than my own government are bothering to do.

Well I advocate reciprocating what they're doing then.

[jobotic]

I realise in some peoples brains it's literally unbelievable, some kind of irrational aberration, to not really give a shit or value at all, the ability to just up and leave and go live and work in a foreign country.


But this yet again, exposes the massive gap between remainers and leavers, that one side list amongst their major concerns in life is the ability to more easily move to Belgium than, say the US or Australia.

I can't move to another country, any other country, because I can't fucking afford to. If what you're trying to do (and you probably are, it's the trick you lot pull over and over again) is paint Remainers as out of touch elites then that's a cunt's trick. You have fucked over so many of us that I'm willing to bet are far worse off than you, with your actions. Still it's what Don and Vlad want so good luck to you.

[Cuellar]

Again, reality perception gap - not a right, and for most people who voted brexit somewhere below the price of biscuits in the list of things they give a shit about.

That just suggests to me that the people who voted for Brexit have the reality perception gap.

[Buelligan]

Again, reality perception gap - not a right, and for most people who voted brexit somewhere below the price of biscuits in the list of things they give a shit about.

You can apply that to anything - heath care, education, transport - if you don't need it, it doesn't matter.  This is the way of the Tories. 

[Neville Chamberlain]

Let's just make life that little bit shittier for everyone! Hooray!

[biggytitbo]

It would be useful if we could set all of this - the withdrawal of rights for individuals, the abandonment of the EU to pro-€ federalists and a smaller number of large members, the greater risks of punitive responses for taking against neoliberal agendas, and so on - against the positives. Even at this stage.

What are they?

You're making a list of things that aren't our concern of course, but perhaps we could lead the way by example considering we're now uniquely positioned to do what the EU is innately incapable of - repudiating neoliberalism. It might not happen - the forces of against us are strong, but it could. Whereas in the EU it is impossible by design.

[Buelligan]

Balls, that is.  Utter, utter, balls.  The only reason the EU's being attacked, by folks like Farage, Bannon, Banks, is because it frightens them.

[Neville Chamberlain]

Again, reality perception gap - not a right, and for most people who voted brexit somewhere below the price of biscuits in the list of things they give a shit about.

I know a couple of Brits here in Germany whose financial situation is so precarious they also worry about the price of biscuits. We're not all well-off elitists living in ivory towers, flitting care-free between Belgium, Berlin and the south of France - we're just ordinary people who, for a whole variety of reasons, have found themselves in mainland Europe. Still, whatever makes it easier for you to justify what is such a transparently and staggeringly stupid decision.

[pancreas]

You're making a list of things that aren't our concern of course, but perhaps we could lead the way by example considering we're now uniquely positioned to do what the EU is innately incapable of - repudiating neoliberalism. It might not happen - the forces of against us are strong, but it could. Whereas in the EU it is impossible by design.

I think Corbyn has repudiated neoliberalism, at least orally. Maybe we'll even get him elected and he can do it as the PM. So why don't you list some things he could do practically to repudiate neoliberalism, which are impossible inside the EU.

[jobotic]

I know a couple of Brits here in Germany whose financial situation is so precarious they also worry about the price of biscuits. We're not all well-off elitists living in ivory towers, flitting care-free between Belgium, Berlin and the south of France - we're just ordinary people who, for a whole variety of reasons, have found themselves in mainland Europe. Still, whatever makes it easier for you to justify what is such a transparently and staggeringly stupid decision.

It's not stupid, it's by design. Do socialists on this site really consider biggy a fellow traveller? Fuck me.

[pancreas]

Yes, except for Brexit, where's he's patently wrong and won't or can't admit it.

He thinks there's some utopia at the end of all this. He has no evidence for that, of course, just his own faith.

[jobotic]

It's the same utopia that Rees-Mogg wants. But yeah, board legend.

[Buelligan]

I know a couple of Brits here in Germany whose financial situation is so precarious they also worry about the price of biscuits. We're not all well-off elitists living in ivory towers, flitting care-free between Belgium, Berlin and the south of France - we're just ordinary people who, for a whole variety of reasons, have found themselves in mainland Europe. Still, whatever makes it easier for you to justify what is such a transparently and staggeringly stupid decision.

Let me echo that.  I've lived here for years, absolutely hand-to-mouth.  Came here primarily because, now they don't let you live in a horsebox or bus, I knew I had the choice of living somewhere unbearable in the UK or trying my luck somewhere where I could probably own the place I sleep, keep warm, grow some food and have beauty.  Beauty.

For my soul.

[Neville Chamberlain]

...or trying my luck somewhere where I could probably own the place I sleep, keep warm, grow some food and have beauty.  Beauty.

You should have moved to Yeovil!

[bgmnts]

It's unlikely - but not impossible, that they're utterly fucked.

Phew!

[Buelligan]

You should have moved to Yeovil!

Hey lady, you, lady, cursin' at your life
You're a discontented mother and a regimented wife
I've no doubt you dream about the things you'll never do
But I wish someone had a talked to me like I wanna talk to you
Ooh I've been to Yeovil...

[pancreas]

It's the same utopia that Rees-Mogg wants. But yeah, board legend.

It's an annoyance that he can't just admit this is all a dreadful mistake and that he's been found on the wrong side. At least he seems to have shelved the Trump defence and deep-state conspiracies.

[Neville Chamberlain]

Is there any song that can't be improved with the addition of the word "Yeovil"?

[bgmnts]

Is there any song that can't be improved with the addition of the word "Yeovil"?

Billie Jean is not my Yeovil.

[Neville Chamberlain]

In Yeo-o-vil I was born, heave away, haul away
Yeo-o-vil, round Sherborne, we're bound for Yeo-o-o-vil etc etc

Anyway, back to BrexiCorbs ;-)

[biggytitbo]

Yes, except for Brexit, where's he's patently wrong and won't or can't admit it.

He thinks there's some utopia at the end of all this. He has no evidence for that, of course, just his own faith.

Did you read that Jacobin article? I think it expresses the case quite well. Disagree if you like, but don;t pretend their isnt a case - https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/04/brexit-labour-party-socialist-left-corbyn

The Left's anti-Brexit hysteria, however, is based on a mixture of bad economics, flawed understanding of the European Union, and lack of political imagination.

It's the last one that continually causes the left to cite Jacob Rees Mogg as a reason we must remain in the EU. It's the mental process of a battered wife.

"The painful truth is that the vast majority of British households will be better off out of the European Union with a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn than in the European Union under the yoke of a Conservative government led by anyone."

Indeed: a democratic socialist government led by Corbyn is the best option for the majority of British citizens and for the British economy. This leads to an obvious conclusion: that for a Corbyn-led Labour government, not being a member of the European Union "solves more problems than it creates," as Weeks notes. He is referring to the fact that many aspects of Corbyn's manifesto — such as the renationalization of mail, rail, and energy firms and developmental support to specific companies — or other policies that a future Labour government may decide to implement, such as the adoption of capital controls, would be hard to implement under EU law and would almost certainly be challenged by the European Commission and European Court of Justice. After all, the EU was created with the precise intention of permanently outlawing such "radical" policies.

This is what's so infuriating really, the doomed mindset that we must have tory governments (or indeed Blairish centrism) forever, there's literally nothing we can do about it, therefore the EU is the better of two dog turd sandwiches.

[pancreas]

FFS. It's like arguing with jelly.

You've been asked for positives for leaving.

Instead, you've supplied the usual tripe about not being able to engage in a process of nationalisation, despite the fact that there are evidently nationalised companies in the EU, like DB and the NHS. Moreover, you have not refuted the point that one may simply ignore any ECJ judgements on this, with probably little to no consequences.

Therefore you have still not supplied any positives.

[Pdine]

Did you read that Jacobin article? I think it expresses the case quite well. Disagree if you like, but don;t pretend their isnt a case - https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/04/brexit-labour-party-socialist-left-corbyn

I haven't read it all, but I might not bother as paragraphs 4 and 5 contradict each other ("we have no idea what is in the government's forecasting model / the government's forecasting model contains the following bias"), which is a bad sign.

[Fambo Number Mive]

"The painful truth is that the vast majority of British households will be better off out of the European Union with a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn than in the European Union under the yoke of a Conservative government led by anyone."

That's not an argument for leaving the EU. If you compared how the vast majority of British households would be out of the European Union with a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn or in the European Union with a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn, or how the vast majority of British households would be out of the European Union  under the yoke of a Conservative government led by anyone or in the European Union  under the yoke of a Conservative government led by anyone, that would be a valid comparison. But that quote compares two scenarios where two things are different, EU membership and the UK government.

[jobotic]

Quite.

[thraxx]

I am in the same situation as Buelligan and Neville Chamberlain, Brexit could also split my Family up as well as being freakin' skint. Worried that we'll have nowhere to turn when it goes down and even if there was, and nae money to do it.

But we shouldn't trust Neville's on Europe his record in the Munich Agreement, Sudetan Crisis and appeasement is well rubs.

[Fambo Number Mive]

I find that Jacobin article baffling

This is exemplified by the claims that without the "protection" of the Single Market the UK would slip into a dystopian nightmare, where it would be overrun with "genetically modified foods, chlorinated chicken, and access to procurement of protected sectors like health care" and where, as Denayer writes, human rights would be "substantially" reduced, and "principles of fair trials, free speech and decent labour standards" would be compromised. While it may be true that in some areas previous right-wing British governments have been positively constrained by the EU in their push for all-out deregulation and marketization, the notion that the British people are incapable of defending their rights in the absence of some form of "external constraint" is patronizing and reactionary.

So how do the British people ensure that their health, human and food supply rights are defended post Brexit if their government refuses to do so? Or is it "patronizing and reactionary" to ask that?

This line of argument can be found in a recent article by anti-Brexit commentator Will Denayer, which cites the fact that the report was produced by Britain's "pro-Brexit government" as proof of its reliability. However, he fails to acknowledge that these forecasts suffer from a neoliberal bias embedded within the forecasting models themselves. The mathematical models used by the British government are highly complex and abstract, and their results are sensitive to the numerical calibration of the relationships in the models and the assumptions made about, for example, the effects of technology. The models are notoriously unreliable and easily manipulated to achieve whatever outcome one desires. The British government has refused to release the technical aspects of their modeling, which suggests they do not want independent analysts examining their "black box" assumptions.

There's no evidence that these forecasts have neoliberal bias, or what a neoliberal bias means.

[Paul Calf]

EDIT: don't want to add to the noise

biggy: positives of leaving the EU please.

[olliebean]

So how do the British people ensure that their health, human and food supply rights are defended post Brexit if their government refuses to do so? Or is it "patronizing and reactionary" to ask that?

Obviously by paying whatever is necessary to ensure quality of healthcare, food, and human rights. What is "patronizing and reactionary" is the suggestion that anyone worthwhile won't have the wherewithal to do so.

(For the avoidance of misunderstanding, this is sarcasm.)