Brexit Thread Six: A Gaping Homage To Brextus Propertius

[Paul Calf]

It's a counterpoint to the myth that the EU is a progressive internationalist body, when the reality is it's as protectionist and racist as anything we'd criticise the tories or Trump for.

biggyfullofshitbo

[jobotic]

It's a counterpoint to the myth that the EU is a progressive internationalist body, when the reality is it's as protectionist and racist as anything we'd criticise the tories or Trump for.

Nah, you wouldn't criticize Trump for it.



By they way, how come it's okay for the Greeks to max out their credit card then? Austerity only good for the British?

[Paul Calf]

EU IS BAD COS IMAGRATION
We must get out of the noeliberel EU to protect our borders and our national intarist

EU IS BAD COS OF BORDERS
We must get out of EU because it wants to pretect it's bordars and its members intirost

[Zetetic]

Back to lying about tariffs then?

I don't believe that the UK would advocate for no-borders-now as a member state - I think being a member state is a meaningful step towards fewer borders and that the UK could advocate and demonstrate a meaningfully better policy towards the refugee crisis inside the EU.

Leaving raises some more borders for people (but not capital) and gives more credibility to those in the EU arguing for "Fortress Europe".

I can recognise both that freedom of.movement for people should be a universal right and that we can only extend it gradually because of the externalities it produces.

[biggytitbo]

Enough of this whataboutery Paul - my argument against the EU has never being about immigration anyway so your attempts at a diversion don't really work, do you think it's good that the EU are trying to set up a system of detention camps in African countries using bribes to split the solidarity of Africa as a whole, which the AU describe as being akin to modern day slave markets? Do you think that's good or not? Why not just say so?

[DrGreggles]

I don't understand

#nutshell

[Zetetic]

Whatever your argument is, we're leaving in order to erect a barrier to human movement.

That's the government's top selling point for withdrawal, that was a major focus of the Leave campaign (along with opposing geographic redistribution I guess) and that's the closest thing to a common red line across Brexit advocates.

The meaning of Leaving has been fixed by these things, whether you agree with them or not.

[Zetetic]

And in second place to ending FoM is the selling point that we'll be able to lower tariffs and regulatory barriers - not to Zambia or Venezuela or Mozambique - but to the United States, Australia and China.

[Zetetic]

The more you think about the many and varied problems with the EU in the context of Brexit - both in procedure and the policy it produces - it is remarkable that leaving looks set to deepen most of them here and exacerbate most of them there.

[biggytitbo]

Back to lying about tariffs then?

I don't believe that the UK would advocate for no-borders-now as a member state - I think being a member state is a meaningful step towards fewer borders and that the UK could advocate and demonstrate a meaningfully better policy towards the refugee crisis inside the EU.

Leaving raises some more borders for people (but not capital) and gives more credibility to those in the EU arguing for "Fortress Europe".

I can recognise both that freedom of.movement for people should be a universal right and that we can only extend it gradually because of the externalities it produces.

I seriously doubt the road to your Utopia is a bureaucratic trading block designed to grease the wheels of big business.

[Paul Calf]

I seriously doubt the road to your Utopia is a bureaucratic trading block designed to grease the wheels of big business.

And what's the road to your utopia?

[Johnny Yesno]

Enough of this whataboutery

Stop it, then.

[biggytitbo]

And what's the road to your utopia?

A more responsive, representative and democratic system of governance.

[Paul Calf]

Which is presumably why you've been a lifelong advocate of proportional  representation and municipalism?

No?

Just Brexit?

[Johnny Yesno]

A more responsive, representative and democratic system of governance.

Are you channelling the Independent Group now?

[ToneLa]

A more responsive, representative and democratic system of governance.

Last time you went into how it went no deeper than buzzword-laden longing

[Huxleys Babkins]

Worth pointing out that neither the Tories nor Labour are promising a more responsive, representative and democratic system of governance.

[Cuellar]

I'm hoping for a similarly robust campaign to fuck the House of Lords off. If we get that then maybe Brexit won't have been entirely pointless.

I'm sure the likes of Rees-Mogg, Gove, Bojo, are desperate to get rid of it.

[Johnny Yesno]

Worth pointing out that neither the Tories nor Labour are promising a more responsive, representative and democratic system of governance.

To be fair, Labour are promising a more responsive, representative and democratic system of governance of Labour, which is a start. In fact, Corbyn likes to point out that Labour is funded by members, meaning its policies aren't bought by corporate donors.

[Paul Calf]

Which would be great if the Labour Party hadn't just been utterly sidelined in the Commons by Tory and New Labour machinations.

[NoSleep]

Which would be great if the Labour Party hadn't just been utterly sidelined in the Commons by Tory and New Labour machinations.

Define "utterly". All those Labour members who raised the majorities of the defectors won't be campaigning for them next time there's an election.

[Paul Calf]

next time there's an election.

That's the trick isn't it? Commons now has a healthy majority of MPs who have a powerful incentive to prevent a General Election at all costs.

[Huxleys Babkins]

To be fair, Labour are promising a more responsive, representative and democratic system of governance of Labour, which is a start. In fact, Corbyn likes to point out that Labour is funded by members, meaning its policies aren't bought by corporate donors.

Labour need FPTP as much as the Tories do so I wouldn't hold your breath.

[NoSleep]

That's the trick isn't it? Commons now has a healthy majority of MPs who have a powerful incentive to prevent a General Election at all costs.

But Corbyn is still the Leader of the Opposition; which is roughly the same amount he was "sidelined" as the week before. Who said it would be easy?

[biggytitbo]

Worth pointing out that neither the Tories nor Labour are promising a more responsive, representative and democratic system of governance.

Having huge swathes of governance back up for grabs after being off the table for decades will force politicians to engage with the public whether they like it or not, and it won't just be PR and TIG style platitudes, it will be fundamental matters of substance because suddenly they will be directly responsible for it again.

[ToneLa]

Having huge swathes of governance back up for grabs after being off the table for decades will force politicians to engage with the public whether they like it or not, and it won't just be PR and TIG style platitudes, it will be fundamental matters of substance because suddenly they will be directly responsible for it again.

Explain how thx

[Johnny Yesno]

Labour need FPTP as much as the Tories do so I wouldn't hold your breath.

Tbh, when almost the entirety of the media is biased towards different flavours of right wing ideology, it doesn't matter which voting system you use.

[Johnny Yesno]

Having huge swathes of governance back up for grabs

Please tell me where I will find these huge swathes of governance.

[Paul Calf]

But Corbyn is still the Leader of the Opposition; which is roughly the same amount he was "sidelined" as the week before. Who said it would be easy?

He's the leader of an opposition with no leverage whatsoever because of electoral calculus. It's time to stop denying this and work out what to do about it. The only option I can see is a second referendum to break the deadlock but I really don't think that's any kind of solution.

[Huxleys Babkins]

Having huge swathes of governance back up for grabs after being off the table for decades will force politicians to engage with the public whether they like it or not, and it won't just be PR and TIG style platitudes, it will be fundamental matters of substance because suddenly they will be directly responsible for it again.

No, they'll just put their ideas for those swathes into their next election manifestos, if at all, and then pass them into law via parliament as they do already.

Nobody's doing referendums over anything of any substance ever again after what happened last time unless they are legally obliged to.