Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[sealion]

Don't forget to return it when you go back to school.

 

[redsquirrel]

Have you quite finished editing this post?

yes

 

[DotCommunist]

Nasty forces were emboldened by the brexit vote. We are still yet to see where that will lead. As for the snap election, I didn't see that coming - I assumed May would limp on to 2020. I was one of those positive voices saying it might not all be lost in the lead up to that election, btw. But it was an election that Labour lost. And another of my predictions - that there would be another election within six months - was wrong. As a general rule, we must never forget the depths to which the tories will debase themselves in order to cling to power.

a grasp that seems more precarious than ever and a labour left government nipping at the heels. Lets not get giddy here, its fucking labour still, left or otherwise, but that is where we are at.

 

[DotCommunist]

social and environmental legislation from the same institution

That remit doesn't appear to cover legislating against fracking and the persecution of minority groups by member states but STILL. At least the thought was there

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

yes

Good, glad you got it shaped into the perfection that it is. I'm probably not a socialist, at least not one that'd be acceptable to you. I think the best that can be hoped for is some highly-moderated form of capitalism, so I dunno a social democrat of some sort?

I do agree with you about local organisation though - that is never the wrong thing to do - even just on a community-scale support network basis.

I also think there are venerable old structures like mutuals and co-operatives that probably could do with a bit of a revival. I'm pretty sure that that's something a couple of the Co-Op Party MPs have been working on for Labour

 

[redsquirrel]

I think the best that can be hoped for is some highly-moderated form of capitalism, so I dunno a social democrat of some sort?

Right, so you see a distinction between socialism and social democracy. What about Mandelson, Blair, Progress? You don't seen any conflict between their politics and yours?

And considering that any attempt by the UK (or another other country) to nationalise industries, increase taxes, roll back anti-strike legislation - in short to make any serious moves towards social democracy will be met with the same threats to "the economy" as the UK leaving the EU how do you support such measures?

 

[Raheem]

I get that it's far from given and slim hopes at best, just genuinely see remaining as continuing the slow slide into a post-democratic technocracy where people far more clever than you and I set policy to help spreadsheets look better.

I'm not by any means saying this argument is a big fat nothing, but I think that in order for it to be really compelling you need to greatly exaggerate how open, responsive and transparent the UK political system is, at the same time as greatly exaggerating the scope of EU legislation. The reality is that pretty much everything that gets openly debated in the EU parliament, though I am not suggesting for a moment that it is just trivial stuff, is stuff that, were it not being decided in the EU parliament (distant, hollow and deathly dull as it is, I will agree) would otherwise be done at best by UK statutory instrument with little or no public debate, or else by some civil servant at some level, who may or may not get the opportunity to mention it to the relevant minister between their massage and their interview with John Humphries. Which is not to say it doesn't matter, but that the difference is not really about how wonderful things are in the UK compared to the secretive bureaucracy of the EU.

 

[The39thStep]

????

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Right, so you see a distinction between socialism and social democracy. What about Mandelson, Blair, Progress? You don't seen any conflict between their politics and yours?

What the fuck is this witless shit? MANDELSON!!!!!

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

And considering that any attempt by the UK (or another other country) to nationalise industries, increase taxes, roll back anti-strike legislation - in short to make any serious moves towards social democracy will be met with the same threats to "the economy" as the UK leaving the EU how do you support such measures?

Being in the Single Market - and it really is all about the SM - doesn't prevent any of that?

 

[J Ed]

Being in the Single Market - and it really is all about the SM - doesn't prevent any of that?

Yes it does. The EU single market is incompatible with Labour’s manifesto

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Yes it does. The EU single market is incompatible with Labour’s manifesto

Others disagree. Renewal | EU law is no barrier to Labour’s economic programme

Where does that leave us?

 

[J Ed]

Others disagree. Renewal | EU law is no barrier to Labour’s economic programme

Where does that leave us?

The reality is that, while in the EU, at the very least interpretations of EU law can be used as an additional stick to beat a Labour government with and there will be no shortage of sticks anyway so frankly a Labour government wanting to implement the social democratic reforms outlined in the manifesto would find it easier to do so outside of the EU.

 

[The39thStep]

Interest comment

A senior EU official involved in the Brexit negotiations is quoted as saying:

“The idea that Conservatives would legislate a race to the bottom is a myth and no one really believes it, even if some Tories have helped create it. The real fear is state subsidies under a Jeremy Corbyn government. British policy has remained unchanged for generations but now there is a real chance of a left-wing government reversing it. We have to protect ourselves and the single market.”

The EU fears Britain could steal a competitive advantage by subsidising manufacturing industries and that a shift to public ownership could damage European companies involved in privatised public services or utilities such as energy. Included in the EU’s armoury will be a “non-regression clause” that, in effect, fixes Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation and free market policies into a withdrawal treaty.

Now, the Express points out, this "non-regression clause" has been joyfully accepted by the Conservative government:

Theresa May’s controversial Chequers plan has essentially killed off Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell’s dream of a socialist utopia built on huge “state aid” subsidies and attempting to renationalise a number of industries.

Her White Paper effectively prevents a future Labour Party government led by Mr Corbyn from pumping millions of pounds of public money into British industry by promising to remain on a “level playing field” with the European Union.

 

[pocketscience]

Others disagree. Renewal | EU law is no barrier to Labour’s economic programme

Where does that leave us?

Not that eu competition lawyer Tarrent again. His arguements were trashed in the article BA linked to back in march:

This, if you pretend the fields endorsement at the top doesn't exist, is very good - and it has the E.P Thompson anti-EEC line that i was groping for during the campaign and just couldn't find:

“For when an altruistic glint gets into the bourgeois eye one can be sure that someone is about to catch it"

The Lexit ‘mythbuster’ that never was

‘Busting the Lexit myths’, the new paper from Open Britain (OB), contains some pertinent and accurate analysis, but sadly a fair few straw men and sleights of hand. Overall, it doesn’t do what it says on the tin - those ‘myths’ are still standing.

Busting the ‘Lexit myths’ entails demonstrating the following: EU democracy is in fine health, the EU’s treatment of Greece was fair and reasonable, TTIP was a great idea, the single currency is a sound economic project which has not devastated the lives of millions across southern Europe, the EU has not enforced austerity across the periphery, we don’t actually make much contribution at all to EU budgets, and the EU in no way imposes privatisation and market liberalisation. For all its gloss, research and considerable resources, the OB paper doesn’t achieve this, nor does it come close.

The OB paper is broken down into sections, ‘myths’, so we’ll respond in kind.

 

[Raheem]

Yes it does. The EU single market is incompatible with Labour’s manifesto

That's far from the worst lexiter article I've read on the subject. Most of it is perfectly correct. But there's a key assertion it makes, that the Fourth Railway Package makes competitive tendering compulsory, that isn't entirely true, and it changes everything. To be clear, I'm of the opinion that the FRP is a work of complete shit, and I do not blame the author for opposing it. But it allows loopholes in its competitive tendering rules. Firstly, the government can exempt all local and regional rail. For national services, it can exempt them if this "would result in an improvement in quality of services or cost-efficiency", in its opinion. Lastly, the FRB allows "vertical integration" of rail services, meaning it is permissible to create one state-owned national rail provider, which probably no private company would bid for even if it were put out to competitive tendering.

 

[JimW]

I'm not by any means saying this argument is a big fat nothing, but I think that in order for it to be really compelling you need to greatly exaggerate how open, responsive and transparent the UK political system is, at the same time as greatly exaggerating the scope of EU legislation. The reality is that pretty much everything that gets openly debated in the EU parliament, though I am not suggesting for a moment that it is just trivial stuff, is stuff that, were it not being decided in the EU parliament (distant, hollow and deathly dull as it is, I will agree) would otherwise be done at best by UK statutory instrument with little or no public debate, or else by some civil servant at some level, who may or may not get the opportunity to mention it to the relevant minister between their massage and their interview with John Humphries. Which is not to say it doesn't matter, but that the difference is not really about how wonderful things are in the UK compared to the secretive bureaucracy of the EU.

I'm not making an argument that our system is better, only that we have more chance of changing it.

 

[redsquirrel]

What the fuck is this witless shit? MANDELSON!!!!!

You've specifically said that you want a broad based coalition, I'm asking how you how far this coalition extends. Not sure what is witless about that.

Being in the Single Market - and it really is all about the SM - doesn't prevent any of that?

I never said it did, that's irrelevant to what I asked. Moves to social democracy will also be opposed because of the damage they will do to "the economy" so are you opposed to them or not?

 

[kabbes]

The point redsquirrel has repeatedly made and had ignored is that socialist bedrocks such as nationalisation of an industry and wealth redistribution via high taxation would also undoubtedly harm “the economy” because of the way “the economy” is defined and measured. So, he wants to know, are you against all things that harm “the economy” or only this specific thing that harms “the economy”?

I think it’s an entirely fair question for anyone arguing Brexit is bad because it harms “the economy”

As to whether Brexit results in fewer secure jobs or wage deflation in real terms — well, the evidence for that is much scantier. Because when all these think tanks talk about “the economy” and how much Brexit will hurt it, they aren’t measuring or even referencing security of wage or labour power. They’re simply projecting national output.

 

[MightyTibberton]

Some internal Labour Party stuff going on:

Corbyn's Brexit policy likely to be challenged at Labour conference

 

[philosophical]

Don't forget to return it when you go back to school.

Is there some kind of point you're trying to make?

 

[philosophical]

Are you feeling OK?

What does it matter to you?

 

[teuchter]

The point redsquirrel has repeatedly made and had ignored is that socialist bedrocks such as nationalisation of an industry and wealth redistribution via high taxation would also undoubtedly harm “the economy” because of the way “the economy” is defined and measured. So, he wants to know, are you against all things that harm “the economy” or only this specific thing that harms “the economy”?

I think it’s an entirely fair question for anyone arguing Brexit is bad because it harms “the economy”

The answer to that question is not very complicated, for me.

I'm against things that are likely to 'harm the economy' unless they provide something of benefit in return.

I'd support higher taxation because it seems plausible that it would allow a reduction in inequality even if it might have a negative effect on some measure like GDP.

I don't see any plausible benefits of Brexit that are likely to outweigh the negative effects.

 

[pocketscience]

That's far from the worst lexiter article I've read on the subject. Most of it is perfectly correct. But there's a key assertion it makes, that the Fourth Railway Package makes competitive tendering compulsory, that isn't entirely true, and it changes everything [...]

Sorry, but it is entirely true.
Even Tarrent doesn't contest the fact that tendering is a mandatory requirement in his 'myth busting' paper:

Bidding rules for rail passenger franchises do not prevent state ownership: The EU’s Fourth Rail package requires companies to competitively tender for rail passenger services. This does not prevent a bidder from being state owned...

But it allows loopholes in its competitive tendering rules.

So your first assertion that compulsory tendering isn't entirly true is wrong. What you're saying is that there's a loophole in the (entirely true) compulsory tendering process ---> i.e Tarrent's line.
We discussed this up-thread. It's a ridiculous strategy to think that you can skew the tendering process to enable a state operator to win, or simply make the assumption the state operator will win due to their economy of scale advantage.
The tendering process will open up the possibility of private companies underbidding and driving the prices down to uneconomical levels just to win contracts in order to break up the state operator and/or bankrupt it. That's the system we have now. we want away from that. Right?

Firstly, the government can exempt all local and regional rail. For national services, it can exempt them if this "would result in an improvement in quality of services or cost-efficiency", in its opinion. Lastly, the FRB allows "vertical integration" of rail services, meaning it is permissible to create one state-owned national rail provider, which probably no private company would bid for even if it were put out to competitive tendering.

What if that 'private company' were a local UK based subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn or SNCF. Do you think a new British Rail could get it's foot in the door of competitive tendering against either of those?

Why do you think the EU went to all the effort to create four iterations of a regulation package, solely intended to privatise 'its' internal rail markets, if they wanted to allow nationalisation to prosper.

- Its overarching goal is to revitalise the rail sector and make it more competitive vis-à-vis other modes of transport.
- Directive 2016/2370/EU amending Directive 2012/34/EU, which deals with the opening of the market of domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure ('Governance Directive')
-The market pillar will complete the process of gradual market opening started with the 1st railway package. It establishes the general right for railway undertakings established in one Member State to operate all types of passenger services everywhere in the EU, lays down rules aimed at improving impartiality in the governance of railway infrastructure and preventing discrimination and introduces the principle of mandatory tendering for public service contracts in rail.

 

[Kaka Tim]

there's a difference between polices which have wider benefits other than (short term) maximisation of economic growth as their overriding goal (i.e building council houses, investing in education and higher wages vs deregulated finance, tax cuts and privatisation) - and ones which hobble the overall economy.
Brexit is very much in the latter camp - every time there has been that sort of blow to the economy - from the 70s oil crisis to the 2008 financial crash - it has resulted in slashing of public spending, lower wages and unemployment.
The EU rules and their impact on labours policies is unclear.
However, whilst the neo-liberal dogmatists are have clearly been dominant within the EU, i see the potential for that agenda being pushed back by the a labour led uk plus other members states as greater than the potential for progressive polices being enacted outside the EU with a much weaker economy.

 

[ska invita]

As to whether Brexit results in fewer secure jobs or wage deflation in real terms — well, the evidence for that is much scantier. Because when all these think tanks talk about “the economy” and how much Brexit will hurt it, they aren’t measuring or even referencing security of wage or labour power. They’re simply projecting national output.

So a "few precious GDP points" knocked off the 0.1% growth/record household debt position we're in isn't really about jobs and wages but "simply" about output? Yeah right. Good on pedantry, not so good on reality.

A crash out exit will be a big shock, theres no escaping it, whatever the technical definition of GDP. That's the one im worried about from a poverty-increasing point of view.

Depending on the deal on the table a rule taking Norwegian soft exit would be a much smaller short term negative impact on the real economy id expect but carries a potentially higher reactionary political price.

 

[pocketscience]

However, whilst the neo-liberal dogmatists are have clearly been dominant within the EU, i see the potential for that agenda being pushed back by the a labour led uk plus other members states as greater than the potential for progressive polices being enacted outside the EU with a much weaker economy.

But there's a massive surge towards right wing politics in the EU. For all the "Tory Brexit" soundbites here, the arguement also needs to be balanced in that it would have been a "Right Wing EU Remain"
A Corbyn led UK would be eaten for breakfast in the EU by the current mob.
I see no reason to believe that the trend rightwards in the EU will revere in the foreseeable future.

 

[kabbes]

there's a difference between polices which have wider benefits other than (short term) maximisation of economic growth as their overriding goal (i.e building council houses, investing in education and higher wages vs deregulated finance, tax cuts and privatisation) - and ones which hobble the overall economy.
Brexit is very much in the latter camp - every time there has been that sort of blow to the economy - from the 70s oil crisis to the 2008 financial crash - it has resulted in slashing of public spending, lower wages and unemployment.
The EU rules and their impact on labours policies is unclear.
However, whilst the neo-liberal dogmatists are have clearly been dominant within the EU, i see the potential for that agenda being pushed back by the a labour led uk plus other members states as greater than the potential for progressive polices being enacted outside the EU with a much weaker economy.

Brexit is only in the “no wider benefits” camp if the nation decides it should be that way. It isn’t inherent to leaving the EU that the U.K. necessarily continues on its same path. That’s the point, indeed — options for wider benefits open up that were previously unavailable. Like socialist policies that would be all but impossible whilst remaining in the EU. There’s your wider benefits.

It’s an entirely plausible path for Brexit to cause a few points of drop to GDP whilst also decreasing inequality and increasing wage security, if the nation elects to go that way.

 

[MightyTibberton]

A Corbyn led UK would be eaten for breakfast in the EU by the current mob.

And a Boris Johson-led UK will be served for breakfast to the US...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Brexit is only in the “no wider benefits” camp if the nation decides it should be that way. It isn’t inherent to leaving the EU that the U.K. necessarily continues on its same path. That’s the point, indeed — options for wider benefits open up that were previously unavailable. Like socialist policies that would be all but impossible whilst remaining in the EU. There’s your wider benefits.

It’s an entirely plausible path for Brexit to cause a few points of drop to GDP whilst also decreasing inequality and increasing wage security, if the nation elects to go that way.

What is this fantasy world? If the nation elects? Even assuming a l/w govt could get elected, how do you think wider international capitalist interests will respond to attempts at l/w policy decisions. The idea that an independent UK might have greater freedom of action than a UK working to change things within the EU is not a given by any stretch. Not to mention the nationalist as opposed to internationalist assumptions and aspirations in this post.