Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brexit or Bremain - Urban votes

EU

  • Brexit

  • Bremain

  • Abstain


Results are only viewable after voting.
It's not a game.

Yes the big finance companies along with pretty much all the major economic organisations are saying that leaving is economic madness. There are some aspects of their general economic analysis that I'd disagree with, such as austerity, but in this case it's so clear cut how fucking stupid an idea it is economically that we find ourselves on the same side.

So all those fascist organisations supporting the leave campaign... is that just the same thing?

The big finance companies 'ergo banks' were, and are continuing to be 'bailed out' by the UK and EU governments, do you think this will continue in an Independent UK?
Note to RBS shareholders, invest in toilet paper producers now;)
 
Why?

More specifically, why would there be any advantage in being subject to international alliances of capital than part of them, in anything other than theoretical terms?

Or to put it another way, once outside of the trading bloc, why wouldn't we as a nation be even more in hock to global capital, being as we would be a smaller force having to fight harder?

Because as a mass,we'd have a better chance of changing or overcoming the current political consensus than from within a project whose raison d'etre is service to capital.

For someone who used to go on about war so much, your sense of strategy seems somewhat under-developed. ;)
 
I think you may look at the EU in too homogenous kind of way. It's huge site of struggle in itself where different tendencies fight. Generally for labour interests over small, but important bits of the pie. The EU's behaviour towards Greece and towards asylum goes against many of the principles of the more left and socially democratic, but post crash all are far too weak to stump up better solutions, both financially and politically.

The "core" EU's behaviour (regardless of the attitudes of the individual nation-states making up that core) towards Greece (and in a lesser way, to Spain, Italy and Ireland) was totally predictable, given the nature of their economies. As ever, the politicians and the bankers got to believing their own PR, and the Euro-south economies buckled first because their economies were least stable. It was obvious that the ECB would seek to control the situation through managing those economies through "structural adjustments", despite the human cost.

Outside of the EU 'our' low waged high growth model is unlikely to be challenged. If we do our lendors will put us in our place and demand we reduce 'expensive' social protections. What other 'red tape' matters? So in order to make the chaos add up we will see unfettered right wing solutions around benefits and privatisation.

Leaving at this point with the deficit we have I believe will be a disaster and cements right wing protest at the heart of w class politics.

Staying at this point will be a disaster, and I think you give working class politics too little credit. If you're worried about the rise of a right, worry about the so-called "squeezed middle". They're the ones who usually shit their britches and listen to "strong leaders" first.
 
Excellent post from Billy Bragg today.


"Staying in the EU was always going to be a hard sell to those of us on the left. The treatment of Greece and the threat of TTIP suggest that the European Unionis little more than a neo-liberal cartel. The serious lack of accountability and the ridiculous practice of moving the whole parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg make it hard to love. Jeremy Corbyn spoke for many of us when he said he was 7.5 out of 10 in favour of remaining within the EU.

Over the past few days, as the Leave campaign has begun to bang loudly on the anti-immigrant drum, my reasons for voting remain have become crystal clear. The Brexit Brigade - economic libertarians all - have promised that Britain's exit will be no pain and all gain, with no regard of the consequences for those at the bottom of the pile if their economic wishful thinking is wrong. They have no qualms about blaming the working class for all societies ills in the same manner they have scapegoated the immigrants

I have friends on the left who have made a socialist case for voting Leave and, while I understand their arguments, I have wondered how they can share a political platform with Johnson, Gove, Patel, Farage et al. Since Thursday, however, I feel that none of us on the left can be in any doubt who will be emboldened by a victory for Leave. I have spent all my political life fighting against people like Thomas Mair, who, by shouting 'Independence for Britain' as he was arrested, clearly wanted the world to know which side he is on.

This is no longer an economic argument, of even one of national sovereignty. This is a battle for the soul of our country. If we win, we will have to work hard to address the genuine problems that mass immigration causes. We will need to build schools, hospitals and union membership. We will need to give a voice to the forgotten and the marginalised so that they can have some control over their lives and communities. And we will need to reform the EU to make it more about people and less about profits.

None of this will be possible if we vote to Leave. If the libertarians triumph, what's left of our welfare state will be sold to the highest bidder and our workplaces - the most deregulated in Europe - will be stripped of their meagre protections. The Tory Party will be reborn as shiny suited free market zealots. At the same time the forces of division will be emboldened and the lives of our fellow citizens - those who don't fit in with their warped idea of who does and who doesn't belong - will be made a misery. But if we win, then we will have momentum and the chance to utilise it while the Tories tear themselves apart over Europe.

If you are a person of the left, I urge you not to vote Leave next Thursday. If the thought of voting remain is too much to bear, I totally respect that as a principled position and ask you to consider abstaining. Better that than to have helped unleash forces that we have opposed in solidarity with one another over the past decades."

If only Billy were telling us something we don't already know, in order to convince people to vote "remain", he might be some use. All that article does is recycle tropes.
 
remain has cameron and osbourne, but leave has similar or worse tories, plus UKIP, BNP, Britain First, EDL.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any fascist / far right groups supporting the remain campaign.

Make of that what you will, but it's wrong to portray both sides as being as bad as each other in that respect IMO.

To someone who is likely to vote remain, through gritted teeth, this has all the rhetorical power of "Hitler was a vegetarian".
 
Just daft. You are believing their PR about how important they are. Lots of people across all walks of life believe they have a stake in continuing cooperation and trade within the EU. Are they all wrong?

That both sides have managed to fold in the interests of "people from all walks of life" into their campaigns is hardly surprising, and hardly news.
That some people misread the folded-in interests as being the primary interests is hardly surprising either, given that the media on both sides consistently attempt to mask their own interests with those of "the people".
 
We've done this already. I'm not having a pop but did you read the relevant entry?

Yes we did, and I did. The most relevant bit seems:

In the established party-political sense, Liberal is now clear enough. But liberal as a term of political discourse is complex. It has been under regular and heavy attack from conservative positions, where the senses of lack of restraint and lack of discipline have been brought to bear, and also the sense of a (weak and sentimental) generosity. The sense of a lack of rigour has also been drawn on in intellectual disputes. Against this kind of attack, liberal has often been a group term for PROGRESSIVE or RADICAL (qq.v.) opinions, and is still clear in this sense, notably in USA. But liberal as a pejorative term has also been widely used by socialists and especially Marxists. This use shares the conservative sense of lack of rigour and of weak and sentimental beliefs. Thus far it is interpreted by liberals as a familiar complaint, and there is a special edge in their reply to socialists, that they are concerned with political freedom and that socialists are not. But this masks the most serious sense of the socialist use, which is the historically accurate observation that liberalism is a doctrine based on INDIVIDUALIST (q.v.) theories of man and society and is thus in fundamental conflict not only with SOCIALIST (q.v.) but with most strictly SOCIAL (q.v.) theories. The further observation, that liberalism is the highest form of thought developed within BOURGEOIS (q.v.) society and in terms of CAPITALISM (q.v.), is also relevant, for when liberal is not being used as a loose swear-word, it is to this mixture of liberating and limiting ideas that it is intended to refer. Liberalism is then a doctrine of certain necessary kinds of freedom but also, and essentially, a doctrine of possessive individualism.

This says about "liberal" being a pejorative by socialists and Marxists.I know you (and he) feel it equates with weak and sentimental beliefs but in that sense I feel it's *just* being used as a pejorative and doesn't add any clarity to a criticism.

All in all, I think I largely find it difficult because I'm used to criticism of "liberal" from the right, and when I see the word I think of the Oxford-dictionary style definition rather than the political one.

1Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas:

I see that Chomsky uses it much like you do, though, so perhaps I ought to get used to it. It just seems to be used on urban as equivalent to "neo-liberal", though, and to me there's a sizeable difference between them.
 
Yes we did, and I did. The most relevant bit seems:



This says about "liberal" being a pejorative by socialists and Marxists.I know you (and he) feel it equates with weak and sentimental beliefs but in that sense I feel it's *just* being used as a pejorative and doesn't add any clarity to a criticism.

All in all, I think I largely find it difficult because I'm used to criticism of "liberal" from the right, and when I see the word I think of the Oxford-dictionary style definition rather than the political one.



I see that Chomsky uses it much like you do, though, so perhaps I ought to get used to it. It just seems to be used on urban as equivalent to "neo-liberal", though, and to me there's a sizeable difference between them.
How can i then deal with your liberal whinging?
 
How can i then deal with your liberal whinging?

By being specific about the criticism you're making rather than just saying things like 'liberal whinging'?

Chomsky seems quite specific when he uses the word liberal - as in 'liberal establishment' or 'liberal media'. I think on urban I've seen Cameron et al lumped in as liberals which seems to be taking it a bit far.
 
By being specific about the criticism you're making rather than just saying things like 'liberal whinging'?

Chomsky seems quite specific when he uses the word liberal - as in 'liberal establishment' or 'liberal media'. I think on urban I've seen Cameron et al lumped in as liberals which seems to be taking it a bit far.
I am. And have been for years. Get back what do you mean by liberal. Help liberals. Get asked question again.
 
Nothing else?

that you often get asked about what you mean by the word 'liberal' by people who see themselves as having liberal values, and that they aren't wholly satisfied with the definition you give.

How on earth you got that from nuanced contextual series of definitions that williams offered i don't know. But, being one of those leave types, yeah i can.

No, I got that from "Get back what do you mean by liberal. Help liberals. Get asked question again."

See you from the other side.

Nope you're being too cryptic for me again.
 
that you often get asked about what you mean by the word 'liberal' by people who see themselves as having liberal values, and that they aren't wholly satisfied with the definition you give.



No, I got that from "Get back what do you mean by liberal. Help liberals. Get asked question again."



Nope you're being too cryptic for me again.
I have given you - and other liberals - chapter and verse on why i use the term, what it means today and why it's still in play. In line with liberals across the world you repeat but what does liberal mean? Fuck off.
 
So what are you having a problem with now?

what "see you from the other side" means.

Also that when the word is used as a general insult it loses what value it has - it's like when Republicans talk about 'commies' - they know what they mean and I know what they mean but we don't mean the same thing.

Like I say, Chomsky uses the word as a description rather than an insult which is how I feel it should be used if you're trying to get a point across rather than just throw an insult.
 
what "see you from the other side" means.

Also that when the word as a general insult it loses what value it has - it's like when Republicans talk about 'commies' - they know what they mean and I know what they mean but we don't mean the same thing.

Like I say, Chomsky uses the word as a description rather than an insult which is how I feel it should be used if you're trying to get a point across rather than just throw an insult.
Your lot set a tyre burning ditch - me and people like me on the other side. A word from you on that? No. That's the other side.
 
Your lot set a tyre burning ditch - me and people like me on the other side. A word from you on that? No. That's the other side.

Which comes back to my other question: is what you mean by a liberal actually someone who doesn't believe in violent revolution?
 
Back
Top Bottom