Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[pocketscience]

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.

Why is a democratically elected national government influencing its own national policies any more of a fantasy world than a given national government (lets say a l/w Labour UK gov) influencing 27 other nations to change their national policies?

 

[sealion]

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

What point were you making with this shit?

 

[philosophical]

What point were you making with this shit?

Earlier in this thread there was another mock 'Ladybird' cover. It was post 9448.
It acted as a form of commentary on the debate, as do other images such as the 'There Will be Adequate Food' wording mocked up on the '350 million bus".
So if I was making a point it was the same or similar to the other points made by other posters who put up images.
You have selected me to dig out which seems to be a bit uneven handed and even rather nasty on your part, but maybe that's your general modus operandi.

 

[sealion]

You have selected me to dig out which seems to be a bit uneven handed and even rather nasty on your part, but maybe that's your general modus operandi.

Playing the victim again!

So if I was making a point it was the same or similar to the other points made by other posters who put up images.

It's not just me miss the whole class did it too

 

[Kaka Tim]

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.

"a few points off GDP" would mean even greater poverty and a existential crises for the NHS. To salvage some sort of socialist policies out of that you would have to have an old school, centrist, authoritarian regime - imposition of capital controls, seizing assess - basically an isolationist model that nobody is going to vote for. More likely its crises management and then a real danger of the tories getting back in with their eager axe. And a more isolationist UK will also be a further boon for the ugly naitonalism that brexit has released.
The here and now is not about building socialism through some convoluted set of circumstance post brexit (seriously - what are the chance of that? its fucking delusional) - its about keeping the NHS, reducing poverty and giving people decent homes and jobs - brexit will fuck the chances of that big time. precisely because of " a few points of GDP" (i.e. a major recession) followed by reduced economic growth and higher prices.
Yes - the EU as it is currently set up is still pushing for greater neo-liberalsim, but their is also greater resistance to that across the member states - especially post 2008. And those neo-liberal forces will be even harder to resist outside the EU - because the UK will be in a much weaker position and coronations and major economic powers like the USA and china will be pushing for much greater "liberalisation" in return for market access.

Scrap brexit. Stay in for now, do whats possible, see what happens.

 

[kabbes]

"a few points off GDP" would mean even greater poverty and a existential crises for the NHS.

Why?

Did doubling real GDP from the 70s to the present day mean less poverty and a robust, healthy NHS?

What is the actual relationship between GDP and poverty? What is the actual relationship between GDP and public services? Why assume such a direct link when history shows this not to be the case?

 

[philosophical]

Playing the victim again!

It's not just me miss the whole class did it too

Can't you be a bit more original in your defence of your snideness? The 'playing the victim again' line is hackneyed to say the least.
You decided to ask about me posting 'this shit', but not ask others.
I replied.
That you want to compound your snide behaviour by bouncing things back to me strengthens my view that as an individual your modus operandi is to be disrespectful and insulting.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why is a democratically elected national government influencing its own national policies any more of a fantasy world than a given national government (lets say a l/w Labour UK gov) influencing 27 other nations to change their national policies?

That's not particularly what I'm referring to. Working to change the direction of travel within the EU by, among other things, proposing and pushing through policies that EU treaties might be read as prohibiting by, for instance, invoking national interest exceptions. Lots of this stuff has not been tested, and the idea that a UK govt would be slapped down by an all-powerful EU isn't really borne out by recent history. As an example, France simply ignored various rules regarding the euro and borrowing. They were in violation of eurozone rules and the EU did absolutely nothing about it. The EU would not be in a strong position to block clear manifesto commitments. I think some here overstate the EU's power over national govts. They can horsewhip the likes of Greece, but not the likes of France or the UK.

 

[sealion]

disrespectful and insulting.

Fuck off

 

[philosophical]

Fuck off

Laugh out loud time.
After a while away I simply post a ladybird cover mock up.
You have then manipulated a rather mild thing into 'fuck off' in just a few short steps.
Do you have a box of tissues, or the remains of a toilet roll by your side whilst you do this stuff?

 

[sealion]

Laugh out loud time.
After a while away I simply post a ladybird cover mock up.
You have then manipulated a rather mild thing into 'fuck off' in just a few short steps.
Do you have a box of tissues, or the remains of a toilet roll by your side whilst you do this stuff?

Fuck off

 

[butchersapron]

He actually posted "laugh out loud".

 

[MightyTibberton]

That's not particularly what I'm referring to. Working to change the direction of travel within the EU by, among other things, proposing and pushing through policies that EU treaties might be read as prohibiting by, for instance, invoking national interest exceptions. Lots of this stuff has not been tested, and the idea that a UK govt would be slapped down by an all-powerful EU isn't really borne out by recent history. As an example, France simply ignored various rules regarding the euro and borrowing. They were in violation of eurozone rules and the EU did absolutely nothing about it. The EU would not be in a strong position to block clear manifesto commitments. I think some here overstate the EU's power over national govts. They can horsewhip the likes of Greece, but not the likes of France or the UK.

In this video: Grace Blakeley, who is a pro-Brexit economist from the IPPR, says sort of the same thing: ie, that "it's not massively the state aid rules" because there's a debate about the extent to which EU "law" is actually law.

Her argument is that the most important positive (and potentially left-wing) effect of Brexit (she wants a "hard but managed Brexit") is that in leaving the single market we would be able to control the movement of capital within the UK economy and in and out of the UK economy.



If sharing Novara Media stuff makes me non-grata in some way, well, there you go. . . I had this on this morning and that question turned up fairly concurrently with its discussion here.

 

[free spirit]

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.

why would either of those measures harm the economy?

IMO they'd do the opposite, and the argument that they would harm the economy is just a neoliberal myth that's pretty simple to disprove - neither measure harmed the post war economy in the UK that performed far better than the neoliberal version of the last few decades.

Personally I'm against measures / policies that would cause significant reductions in the standard of living for the majority of people in this country, particularly those in the most precarious of circumstances.

If a measure such as imposing a much higher level of corporation tax or anti-taxavoidance measures were to significantly reduce the disposable income / net wealth of the richest few percent of the country and that also led in some way to a temporary reduction in GDP then I'd still be in favour of it despite the notional reduction in GDP, as long as it was implemented in a way that didn't result in mass capital flight from the UK that led to a big negative impacts for people's jobs or something similar (which I'd view as being entirely possible to do).

 

[kabbes]

To avoid getting sidetracked into an economic debate about the impact of political decisions on measures of output, can we just agree that socialist policies are preferred by socialists even if they are expected reduce measures of national output, and that this is not a bad thing?

 

[Kaka Tim]

Why?

Did doubling real GDP from the 70s to the present day mean less poverty and a robust, healthy NHS?

What is the actual relationship between GDP and poverty? What is the actual relationship between GDP and public services? Why assume such a direct link when history shows this not to be the case?

history very clearly shows that every recession and economic hit since forever - and certainly over the last 50 years - has resulted in slashing of public spending, unemployment and wage squeezes. The NHS needs above inflation increases in funding year on year due to changes in demographics and in advances medical technology, new treatments etc. NHS spending as a share of GDP is - i think - slightly lower than in the 70s - but still consumes a lot more resources than then in real terms. Post brexit trade deals will make the uk very vulnerable to the NHS being privatised.

"Make the rich pay" - for sure, but getting their wealth is not just a case of issuing a dictat - it will involve a fierce political battle and involves time and political strength - i.e a decent majority in parliament, a strong trade union movement, widespread popular support.

A (hypothetical) labour government will not be in the same position as in 1945 where it had a landslide majority and inherited a very centralised, government controlled economy and a much higher degree of self sufficiency than today. It will be weak and attacked on all sides.

I just think its magical thinking that brexit will open up opportunities for a more leftist economy - it will lead to an increasingly isolated UK, with a weaker economy, with a resurgent far right and far less able to resist the raptors of capital especially if there further economic shocks (another banking crash, climate shit, energy crises who knows?) And even if labour take control, they could very easily be turfed out by the tories within a few years.

 

[pocketscience]

That's not particularly what I'm referring to. Working to change the direction of travel within the EU by, among other things, proposing and pushing through policies that EU treaties might be read as prohibiting by, for instance, invoking national interest exceptions. Lots of this stuff has not been tested, and the idea that a UK govt would be slapped down by an all-powerful EU isn't really borne out by recent history. As an example, France simply ignored various rules regarding the euro and borrowing. They were in violation of eurozone rules and the EU did absolutely nothing about it. The EU would not be in a strong position to block clear manifesto commitments. I think some here overstate the EU's power over national govts. They can horsewhip the likes of Greece, but not the likes of France or the UK.

Wow. This is a new turn in the discussion. Stay in and simply ignore EU law. Let me think how that will work. Where do we draw the line?

Actually, now you mention it, it is quite appealing: Ignore ECJ rulings, ignore the commision. So fuck paying any contributions as well as they don't have any power over us. Genius

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Wow. This is a new turn in the discussion. Stay in and simply ignore EU law. Let me think how that will work. Where do we draw the line?

Actually, now you mention it, it is quite appealing: Ignore ECJ rulings, ignore the commision. So fuck paying any contributions as well as they don't have any power over us. Genius

Have you read the relevant bits relating to, for instance, nationalisation? They include various 'get-outs' regarding national interest. As I said, many of these boundaries have not been tested as there isn't currently an EU govt wishing to test them.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Um.


Edit/ fuck it

 

[agricola]

Wow. This is a new turn in the discussion. Stay in and simply ignore EU law. Let me think how that will work. Where do we draw the line?

Actually, now you mention it, it is quite appealing: Ignore ECJ rulings, ignore the commision. So fuck paying any contributions as well as they don't have any power over us. Genius

It is a perfectly valid point; the vast majority of this idea that the EU tells us what to do (over immigration, privatization, marketization etc) is actually down to our Government seeking to avoid the blame for its own policy decisions. You only have to look at the railways for the truth of that.

 

[pocketscience]

So what's stopping the UK squatting the single market?
i.e: paying no contributions and regulating however we like?

 

[DexterTCN]

So what's stopping the UK squatting the single market?
i.e: paying no contributions and regulating however we like?

Because no-one will buy or sell with us. They have a thing called solidarity.

 

[pocketscience]

Because no-one will buy or sell with us. They have a thing called solidarity.

You can bet your bottom dollor they'll sell. They have this thing called greed.

 

[teuchter]

The 4th railway package was actually watered down from its original proposals, following objections from Germany and France. I believe this is where some of the 'get out clauses' came from. It seems quite plausible to me that a UK government who, say, wanted to pursue nationalisation of the railways, could have successfully pushed for a further watering-down. But the UK didn't because that's not what our government wanted; indeed a lot of the 4RP seems to be inspired by the UK's rail privatisation model which is pretty much the most comprehensive in Europe.

 

[DexterTCN]

You can bet your bottom dollor they'll sell. They have this thing called greed.

You're an absolute moron, aren't you.

Are you aware of the UK (aka English) history with many of these countries...Ireland, Germany, France and so on?

btw on that point...what do you think is going to happen to 'the jungle' at Calais after brexit? You think the French are going to waste their time keeping immigrants away from the UK when we're not trading partners?

 

[MightyTibberton]

It was a Eurosceptic argument for years that the UK was the only country that actually followed EU regulations while the French were drinking leaded petrol and unpasteurising their coffee before breakfast.

 

[SpookyFrank]

btw on that point...what do you think is going to happen to 'the jungle' at Calais after brexit? You think the French are going to waste their time keeping immigrants away from the UK when we're not trading partners?

What's your angle here? Do you actually want those people to be trapped in those appalling shanty towns getting gassed and beaten by our trading partners?

 

[DexterTCN]

What's your angle here? Do you actually want those people to be trapped in those appalling shanty towns getting gassed and beaten by our trading partners?

There's no angle...the French will not continue to keep them there after brexit, why should they?

 

[pocketscience]

You're an absolute moron, aren't you.

Are you aware of the UK (aka English) history with many of these countries...Ireland, Germany, France and so on?

btw on that point...what do you think is going to happen to 'the jungle' at Calais after brexit? You think the French are going to waste their time keeping immigrants away from the UK when we're not trading partners?

ffs, i wasn't being entirely serious about squatting the market.
But then I wouldnt expect you to have picked up on that.
The irony that her majesty employs abusive people like you with the observation skills of a house brick to work her borders, lecturing away about solidarity, calais and shit.
We really are fucked either way.

 

[Santino]

btw on that point...what do you think is going to happen to 'the jungle' at Calais after brexit? You think the French are going to waste their time keeping immigrants away from the UK when we're not trading partners?

There's no angle...the French will not continue to keep them there after brexit, why should they?

This is pretty revolting.