Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[DotCommunist]

Not necessarily lying just taking the easy on the conscience and self image road to keeping foreigners out.

racism so secret its secret from themselves, I see.

So the number one stated reason from leavers both tory and labour and non of the above is false, they were lying to themselves and just wanted forrins out? This isn't far off philosophical's 'distain' sic for all brexit voters who are to him axiomatically racist.

 

[butchersapron]

racism so secret its secret from themselves, I see.

So the number one stated reason from leavers both tory and labour and non of the above is false, they were lying to themselves and just wanted forrins out? This isn't far off philosophical's 'distain' sic for all brexit voters who are to him axiomatically racist.

When the remainers voted in favour of the EU's aggressive expansion extension and militarisation of murderous border regimes they finessed it in their minds into support of internationalism? They couldn't handle their own racism and so had to convert it into something lovely.

 

[danny la rouge]

I didn't realise that would all collapse if we left. Maybe next year we will change our mind on taking in some of the refugees stuck in Italy rather than our current policy of taking none.

It's not exactly quiet either.

Can you really not see the double standards you're applying?

 

[Pickman's model]

Can you really not see the double standards you're applying?

if it wasn't for double standards he'd have no standards at all

 

[Anju]

Can you really not see the double standards you're applying?

No. I'm just applying my limited understanding of the situation to my views on the EU. Some posters here seem to see the EU interference and funding of non EU border security as a sinister plot to create 'fortress Europe'. Sort of the exact opposite of the Kalergi plan, fave conspiracy of the anti EU right.

I understand that a large part, maybe all, of the motivation is to keep access to resources and stop the flow of refugees to Europe for political reasons. I just don't see what the alternative is. Do we wait for people to reach the EU and then put them in camps? Do we just let anyone who makes it here stay. We could monitor all the free Tommy demos and deport his supporters whilst giving the same number of refugees citizenship.

I just believe that at least part of the EUs approach to refugees and non EU migration in general is well intentioned. They are not just funding camps and maybe over time some of the other initiatives will work to reduce the number of people who are forced from their homes.

What's your preferred option?

 

[butchersapron]

No. I'm just applying my limited understanding of the situation to my views on the EU. Some posters here seem to see the EU interference and funding of non EU border security as a sinister plot to create 'fortress Europe'. Sort of the exact opposite of the Kalergi plan, fave conspiracy of the anti EU right.

I understand that a large part, maybe all, of the motivation is to keep access to resources and stop the flow of refugees to Europe for political reasons. I just don't see what the alternative is. Do we wait for people to reach the EU and then put them in camps? Do we just let anyone who makes it here stay. We could monitor all the free Tommy demos and deport his supporters whilst giving the same number of refugees citizenship.

I just believe that at least part of the EUs approach to refugees and non EU migration in general is well intentioned. They are not just funding camps and maybe over time some of the other initiatives will work to reduce the number of people who are forced from their homes.

What's your preferred option?

The alternative right now on here is for you to put some effort into finding out what is actually happening and how and why. Rather than this vacuous ill-informed waste of everyone's time.

 

[danny la rouge]

I just believe that at least part of the EUs approach to refugees and non EU migration in general is well intentioned

Like I said, double standards. Stuff the EU does = "well intentioned" and not racist. Even when the effects are appalling and miles from the stated intentions of liberal democracy.

Stuff people who voted Leave say (no matter what it is) = Not well intentioned and racist. Even when they think it isn't.

 

[Anju]

The alternative right now on here is for you to put some effort into finding out what is actually happening and how and why. Rather than this vacuous ill-informed waste of everyone's time.

I'm not the one posting quotes from writers who don't think millions of people having to flee their homes qualifies as a crisis.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not the one posting quotes from writers who don't think millions of people having to flee their homes qualifies as a crisis.

You've utterly misunderstood the point that the author is making about the promotion of the idea of a 'refugee crisis' to meet certain agendas:

It was thus not by chance that the ‘refugee crisis’ exploded with spectacular violence in Greece, bringing it to the centre of public attention throughout Europe. I put the term in inverted commas to emphasize that there is nothing neutral about its adoption. Why was it that the arrival of around a million ‘refugees’ or ‘migrants’—again, the choice is significant—in a polity of 510 million, should have been, in and of itself, a ‘crisis’? In reality, its representation as such, above all by the EU authorities and member states, powerfully seconded by media commentary, was fully a part of the problem. The spectacle of humanitarian disaster—images from the summer of 2015 of a child’s body washed up on the beach, the mass arrivals on the Greek islands, the crowds at Budapest Station—briefly brought into the light of day a long-repressed reality. Its matrix lay in the lethal character of the liberal-capital ‘Fortress Europe’ regime which the EU has been building for decades, and its relation to the neighbouring zones of North Africa and the Middle East, where the EU powers have been major protagonists in the wave of wars and civil disruption that drove such numbers to flee.

Well, at least you tried i suppose. But to pretend that the author is callously disregarding the plight of refugees in a piece largely spent attacking the EU for turning the Mediterranean into a graveyard for refugees is pretty fucking appalling.

The Mediterranean has become a mass grave, one attracting little attention or particular feeling, at least until the surge of refugees and migrants in these last years, following the intensification of warfare in the Middle East. It’s understandable that the Babels team should see the Mediterranean as ‘the theatre of a new kind of war, the one the European Union is waging against migrants’.

...Again, the Europeanization of borders, the construction of Fortress Europe, is a major factor in this callous waste of tens of thousands of lives, a mass mortality without precedent in European history in time of ‘peace’.

 

[ska invita]

anyway a thread about potential civil war here a new british civil war? complete with poll

I think I may have been understood by you...I don't expect the UK to go Balkan, nor roundhead, I meant a civil war in cultural terms. Though the potential for things to get gnarly on the streets is there too.

Nor was I being as simplistic as to say a yes no referendum lead to war...I was painting a more impressionistic picture that referendum such as this create deeply divisive social situations. Of course the Czechoslovakian and Yugoslavian examples could just be pure coincidence...I thought it interesting nonetheless.

 

[danny la rouge]

But to pretend that the author is callously disregarding the plight of refugees in a piece largely spent attacking the EU for turning the Mediterranean into graveyard for refugees is pretty fucking appalling

If the obverse is the halo effect, so that everything the EU does is cast in a good light, then it follows that the other side of the coin is the reverse: everything that critics of the actions (actions, no matter what they are, remember, that are evidence of goodness) of the EU say has to be cast in a bad light.

 

[Anju]

Like I said, double standards. Stuff the EU does = "well intentioned" and not racist. Even when the effects are appalling and miles from the stated intentions of liberal democracy.

Stuff people who voted Leave say (no matter what it is) = Not well intentioned and racist. Even when they think it isn't.

I don't see any rhetoric from the EU demonising or dehumanising migrants or refugees, though yes there is plenty of that from some member states and the media. I did see plenty of that during the referendum campaign. So that's my problem. Everything from the EU is public and framed as an attempt to help the situation and while some of it is clearly not working I don't see the evidence that it is a racist conspiracy. What I see is most EU countries having more non EU born migrants than EU born migrants, Germany putting a lot of resources into settling all the asylum seekers they have given a home to, the EU closing camps in Libya.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't see any rhetoric from the EU demonising or dehumanising migrants or refugees, though yes there is plenty of that from some member states and the media. I did see plenty of that during the referendum campaign. So that's my problem. Everything from the EU is public and framed as an attempt to help the situation and while some of it is clearly not working I don't see the evidence that it is a racist conspiracy. What I see is most EU countries having more non EU born migrants than EU born migrants, Germany putting a lot of resources into settling all the asylum seekers they have given a home to, the EU closing camps in Libya.

Read note #21 in the article and the Streeck piece i link to within on this merkel the merciful myth:

[21] Germany restricted its border with Austria within a fortnight of Merkel’s announcement that the country would ‘show a friendly face’ and allow all the refugees into Germany. See ‘Mother Angela: Merkel’s Refugee Policy Divides Europe’, Der Spiegel, 21 September 2015. By January 2016, Merkel was warning Syrian refugees that their protection under the Geneva Convention only lasted three years, after which they would be expected to return to their homeland: Wolfgang Streeck, ‘Scenario for a Wonderful Tomorrow: Merkel Changes Her Mind Again’, London Review of Books, 31 March 2016.

 

[Anju]

You've utterly misunderstood the point that the author is making about the promotion of the idea of a 'refugee crisis' to meet certain agendas:



Well, at least you tried i suppose. But to pretend that the author is callously disregarding the plight of refugees in a piece largely spent attacking the EU for turning the Mediterranean into a graveyard for refugees is pretty fucking appalling.

Crisis is normally used as part of a call to action and more likely to illicit a positive response from people. Also he makes a point about the difference between using refugee and migrant but just leaves it there with no examples of which was used when or where. Poor examples sloppily used.

 

[danny la rouge]

some of it is clearly not working

You really should re-read the articles linked to. The EU is at best turning a blind eye to horrific abuses, and at worst actually paying for them to take place.

 

[butchersapron]

Crisis is normally used as part of a call to action and more likely to illicit a positive response from people. Also he makes a point about the difference between using refugee and migrant but just leaves it there with no examples of which was used when or where. Poor examples sloppily used.

You genuinely have no idea what you just tried to read do you?

I feel the same after reading your oddly un-argued disconnected unsupported (evidentially or logically) series of posts today.

 

[butchersapron]

You really should re-read the articles linked to. The EU is at best turning a blind eye to horrific abuses, and at worst actually paying for them to take place.

He never read it - note 'refugee crisis' appears 3 short paragraphs in.

 

[danny la rouge]

He never read it

No need to. The EU = well intentioned and not racist.

 

[Anju]

Read note #21 in the article and the Streeck piece i link to within on this merkel the merciful myth:

No time to read it now but I will do.

 

[Anju]

He never read it - note 'refugee crisis' appears 3 short paragraphs in.

I just read the parts you posted.

 

[butchersapron]

I just read the parts you posted.

Then you have no right to make such an ill-informed series of posts about the content or intentions of the article.

 

[toblerone3]

No. I'm just applying my limited understanding of the situation to my views on the EU. Some posters here seem to see the EU interference and funding of non EU border security as a sinister plot to create 'fortress Europe'. Sort of the exact opposite of the Kalergi plan, fave conspiracy of the anti EU right.

I understand that a large part, maybe all, of the motivation is to keep access to resources and stop the flow of refugees to Europe for political reasons. I just don't see what the alternative is. Do we wait for people to reach the EU and then put them in camps? Do we just let anyone who makes it here stay. We could monitor all the free Tommy demos and deport his supporters whilst giving the same number of refugees citizenship.

I just believe that at least part of the EUs approach to refugees and non EU migration in general is well intentioned. They are not just funding camps and maybe over time some of the other initiatives will work to reduce the number of people who are forced from their homes.

What's your preferred option?

Good post. The concept of an international border porous to the transit of goods but impermeable to the movement of people is immoral in the context of massive inequalities of wealth and long term in unsustainable. But Open Borders are the death of the Nation State/welfare state. This is a global issue, and while the EU does not have an answer to it, it is streets ahead of Britain and the type of nation envisaged by Brexiteers. Britain should have been engaging with the "fortress Europe" issue far more, but instead it chose to hide (not having an immediate borderland) and now is thinking that it can run away completely. Its myopic to bring "fortress Europe" into the Brexit debate, because in or out of the EU the immigration issue will not go away.

 

[redsquirrel]

Perfect example of what i meant above by "easily passed over and forgotten news". Exquisite idiotic timing.

Yep, this deliberate blindness is disgusting. Pricks calling people racist and then refusing to see the actions of the EU even when they are shown them directly.

EDIT: BTW cheers for the links butchersapron

 

[Santino]

Its myopic to bring "fortress Europe" into the Brexit debate, because in or out of the EU the immigration issue will not go away.

The more I read this sentence, the less sense it makes.

 

[Anju]

Then you have no right to make such an ill-informed series of posts about the content or intentions of the article.

Actually I do.

I don't get the aggressive condescending approach from you and various other posters towards many people here. On the one hand you write that Liberals would be outraged if they knew what the EU was up to but then you act as if anyone who hasn't dedicated huge amounts of time to researching the subject, and agrees with you, is stupid. It makes no sense unless it's something to do with enjoying the possession of special knowledge. Why not just explain things as you see them so that the liberals can be outraged about the EU rather than just you and a few others.

The only EU intervention that I was aware of was in Libya and that was in the context of the EU working to improve conditions. Before that I had seen stories about slave markets, sexual abuse and organ harvesting all with no mention of the EU. For the vast majority of people the whole EU is racist idea makes no sense and for a lot of people it is the exact opposite, an organisation forcing multiculturalism on people. Basically the impression left from mostly MSM is that the camps/prisons already existed and EU efforts were aimed at improving conditions.

 

[butchersapron]

No you don't. You don't get to make claims dismissing the contents of an article that you haven't read.

Why do you think i posted it? For you not to bother reading it before commenting - or to help people like you find out what's going on in an easy manner?

 

[redsquirrel]

Basically the impression left from mostly MSM is that the camps/prisons already existed and EU efforts were aimed at improving conditions.

True, but no one has a problem with ignorance. People do have a problem, rightly, with deliberate blindness that involves dismissing a link someone has posted without even having read it. You've been given information about why the above impression is wrong, if you don't want/can't be bothered reading it ok, but then don't expect people to give you any respect.

 

[ska invita]

There are a lot of interpretations of what brexit means and I think your interpretation is one of many. The 'key' factor you suggest, free movement, is one of many opinions. Others mention 'democracy', own trade deals, control of laws amongst the reasons they voted.
Which factor is supposed to take precedent is part of this godawful shit show.

Of course its about free movement...because free movement is the sticking point. May wouldve jumped on a norwegian or swiss model long ago if it werent for the free movement bit. Same with Labours fence sitting.
Look at this today from Labour...its gettting nearer crunch time and theyre going to have to come down on a side:
Pro-Brexit Labour MPs expose rift over EEA membership

Gloria De Piero, the MP for Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, told the Guardian:...

“My constituents aren’t against all immigration, which is how they are sometimes portrayed – they want control of immigration.”

Gareth Snell, who defeated then Ukip leader Paul Nuttall in Stoke-on-Trent Central, used a post for the blog Labour List, to send a similar message. “Most Labour MPs are in seats that voted leave. My constituents could rightly ask whether we have really left the EU if we are still subject to all the rules, regulations and obligations that come from membership,” he wrote. “What message are we, as a Labour party, sending to voters in these seats if we simply turn away from the spirit of the referendum result? What hope can we have to win back those traditional seats we need to win in order to form the next government if we tell the voters in those communities that we know better than they do?”

The MP for Warley, John Spellar, said he was still considering how to vote on the EEA amendment. “It involves free movement – that’s the crucial issue,” he said. “The views of the public were very clear: even among many of those who voted remain, they had major concerns about it.”

etc

im genuinely surprised this is contentious to anyone

 

[philosophical]

Of course its about free movement...because free movement is the sticking point. May wouldve jumped on a norwegian or swiss model long ago if it werent for the free movement bit. Same with Labours fence sitting.
Look at this today from Labour...its gettting nearer crunch time and theyre going to have to come down on a side:
Pro-Brexit Labour MPs expose rift over EEA membership

Gloria De Piero, the MP for Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, told the Guardian:...

“My constituents aren’t against all immigration, which is how they are sometimes portrayed – they want control of immigration.”

Gareth Snell, who defeated then Ukip leader Paul Nuttall in Stoke-on-Trent Central, used a post for the blog Labour List, to send a similar message. “Most Labour MPs are in seats that voted leave. My constituents could rightly ask whether we have really left the EU if we are still subject to all the rules, regulations and obligations that come from membership,” he wrote. “What message are we, as a Labour party, sending to voters in these seats if we simply turn away from the spirit of the referendum result? What hope can we have to win back those traditional seats we need to win in order to form the next government if we tell the voters in those communities that we know better than they do?”

The MP for Warley, John Spellar, said he was still considering how to vote on the EEA amendment. “It involves free movement – that’s the crucial issue,” he said. “The views of the public were very clear: even among many of those who voted remain, they had major concerns about it.”

etc

im genuinely surprised this is contentious to anyone

I see it as there might be a hierarchy of priorities that concern people who voted brexit. It may be true that in the areas you have mentioned immigration control was the number one concern, but leave voters in other areas might have been more concerned about whatever they might describe as sovereignty. It has been suggested many times that in a time of austerity people voted leave because they couldn't inagine their lives could be more miserable, but did not attribute that misery to immigration.
People can say that something was 'very clear' or that a certain issue was a 'major concern', but isn't that suggesting a narrative that suits rather than one that is necessarily true?
Whatever the reason brexit won and the reasons why people voted the way they did matters very little now. What is occurring is a total farce with no 'with one bound he was free' option.

 

[Raheem]

Whatever the reason brexit won and the reasons why people voted the way they did matters very little now.

It matters a great deal. From a leave perspective it matters because it is important not to simply ignore the 52% who voted. From a remain perspective it matters because it is important not to exceed the mandate provided by the referendum.