Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Santino]

Santino you asked what Scotland had to trade, not the UK.

Combustible...tories, labour and libdems...the yoon parties.

Is Scotland in the UK?

 

[J Ed]

Anyone else noticed an uptick in prominent people and also just random social media comments about Russian interference in Brexit? Has some new evidence of it come to light which I have missed?

 

[free spirit]

Anyone else noticed an uptick in prominent people and also just random social media comments about Russian interference in Brexit? Has some new evidence of it come to light which I have missed?

yes, the parliamentary committee report

There are many potential threats to our democracy and our values. One such threat arises from what has been coined ‘fake news’, created for profit or other gain, disseminated through state-sponsored programmes, or spread through the deliberate distortion of facts, by groups with a particular agenda, including the desire to affect political elections.

Such has been the impact of this agenda, the focus of our inquiry moved from understanding the phenomenon of ‘fake news’, distributed largely through social media, to issues concerning the very future of democracy. Arguably, more invasive than obviously false information is the relentless targeting of hyper-partisan views, which play to the fears and prejudices of people, in order to influence their voting plans and their behaviour. We are faced with a crisis concerning the use of data, the manipulation of our data, and the targeting of pernicious views. In particular, we heard evidence of Russian state-sponsored attempts to influence elections in the US and the UK through social media, of the efforts of private companies to do the same, and of law-breaking by certain Leave campaign groups in the UK’s EU Referendum in their use of social media.

In this rapidly changing digital world, our existing legal framework is no longer fit for purpose. This is very much an interim Report, following an extensive inquiry. A further, substantive Report will follow in the autumn of 2018. We have highlighted significant concerns, following recent revelations regarding, in particular, political manipulation and set we out areas where urgent action needs to be taken by the Government and other regulatory agencies to build resilience against misinformation and disinformation into our democratic system. Our democracy is at risk, and now is the time to act, to protect our shared values and the integrity of our democratic institutions.

IIRC they have also called for an FBI style investigation of the Russian links and source of Arron Banks £8million+ donations to the leave campaign.

 

[redsquirrel]

No it wasn't. Are you being deliberately obtuse? i said economic shocks result in spending on services being slashed - that doesn't mean overall gov spending goes down - because of increased spending on welfare payments.

I don’t want to get bogged down in dead ally but you really didn’t. I’ve quoted you, your original claim was

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,

And it’s worth noting that even on this point ideology is creeping in, the government supporting the disadvantaged is not a public service.

And how the fuck does noting that - historically - sudden declines in GDP over the past 50s years always result in said cut backs put me in that basket - its a factual observation.

(my emphasis) No it’s an ideological claim.

the relevance is that having labour in charge does not mean they will deal with an economic shock any differently to the tories.

But I’ve not made any such claim so this is an irrelevance.

Is the economy "better" now? Well its different - the 70s economy was a more heavily industrialised, there was relatively higher pay, less inequality, there wasn't a housing crises. the economy of the 90/00s was bigger, but had become more service based, more based on property prices and debt - so less sustainable - as we saw in 2008. But what does that tell us? That reducing GDP to 1970s levels will bring back coal mining and lots of council houses?

(my emphasis) I don’t know, that’s the point, you’re the one subscribing to the religion.

But I do note you’ve now got “bigger/smaller” economies as well as “weaker” and more “leftist” ones. So how is the present economy larger than the one in the 70s?

You're arguing that growing GDP is a blunt measure and does not dictate better conditions for the population overall etc - . Well yes - absolutely - and their are plenty of examples of this.

But you also seem to be arguing that therefore a sudden drop in GDP will equally not cause an increase in poverty, inequality and cut backs. Which it absolutely does.

No I’m arguing the purpose of economics is the justification and extension of the exploitation of labour. And that by making an economic argument you are supporting the very system you claim to oppose. Thatchers’s quote is absolutely spot on, she understood what economics was.

Read butchersapron posts on this thread, read kabbes posts here. As kabbes said

…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?

Or as stethoscope more pithily put it.

Won't somebody think of our economy?

Well, actually I'm a libertarian communist, so no.

 

[DexterTCN]

Is Scotland in the UK?

That's the question isn't it. Seems like, for many brexiters, it's not a problem to sell out Scots needs or Northern Ireland's needs so long as it suits England.

So I'm not sure if anyone is in the UK apart from England because everyone else is expendable, everyone else's needs are irrelevant.

That seem about right? You tell me what the UK is made up of. Because for most others 'the UK' is just a codeword for England. None of you give a fuck about the component parts of the UK.

But for an actual answer Scotland is an equal partner in the UK as defined by the Act of the Union 1707, it is not a part of the UK.

 

[Kaka Tim]

big wodge of picky pedantry and deliberate obtuseness

ffs - whatever.

but the point still stands - brexit - particularly one that results in trade barriers going up - will result in spending on education, health, investment, infrastructure, wages, sundry LA services etc etc - being slashed which will mean more poverty, more hardship, more unemployment, less life chances for millions of people - especially people at the bottom. Cos that's what always happens - without fail - or has the last 10 years of austerity passed you by?

That's true whether you believe in conventional concepts of what constitutes "the economy" or not.

 

[redsquirrel]

That's a pretty pathetic response. Even if you don't want to engage with what I've written, the posts of butchers and kabbes are clear and deserve better than a 30s dismissal.

That's true whether you believe in conventional concepts of what constitutes "the economy" or not.

And this just shows that you aren't actually reading what people are posting. It's not about "conventional concepts" it's the whole bloody shebang.

 

[DexterTCN]

That's a pretty pathetic response.
And this just shows that you aren't actually reading what people are posting. It's not about "conventional concepts" it's the whole bloody shebang.

It's not that people aren't reading what you post, I assure you.

 

[andysays]

That's the question isn't it. Seems like, for many brexiters, it's not a problem to sell out Scots needs or Northern Ireland's needs so long as it suits England.

So I'm not sure if anyone is in the UK apart from England because everyone else is expendable, everyone else's needs are irrelevant.

That seem about right? You tell me what the UK is made up of. Because for most others 'the UK' is just a codeword for England. None of you give a fuck about the component parts of the UK.

But for an actual answer Scotland is an equal partner in the UK as defined by the Act of the Union 1707, it is not a part of the UK.

A lot of this reads like chip-on-shoulder nonsense to me, and misses Santino's point that your list of potential Scottish exports also count, at least at the moment, as potential UK exports.

But on the legal constitutional issue which your reference to the Act of the Union 1707 suggests: Did Scotland have to give permission as an equal partner for the UK to join the EEC?

 

[kabbes]

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).

I forgot I meant to come back to this.

Impacts to “the economy” chiefly get reported on the basis of “growth”. Growth is measured as change in GDP. GDP is measured in practice as NDI (net domestic income) with adjustment. NDI is wages plus corporate profit plus loan and rent income plus some other private sector things. Nationalisation reduces corporate income with no compensatory increase in private income and so appears in the figures as a contraction in GDP and hence damage to “the economy”.

Thus is how and why economics is ideological. The metrics get reported as if they are neutral facts but they are not. Contractions can be socially good. Whilst growth (such when it comes from privatisation) can be socially bad. An increase in corporate profit that outweighs wage reduction counts as growth. And all these things are how we’ve managed real growth for 40 years whilst average wages have dropped.

What’s the relevance to the EU? Well, the EU is a factor in this antisocial “growth”. Yes, Brexit will contract GDP but since in reality this is unwinding the antisocial growth it is far from clear that this means more inequality or less government income.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I backed scots indy the first time round and would do again, no love the union here. I remember at the time there was uncertainty over how post indy scots eu membership would go, would they need re-apply or would there be another mechanism for it etc.

I’m still waiting to see how everything pans out. Big Yes supporter before, but I think- and Johnathon Shafi has pointed this out too... I know I know Bastani’s pal- say if Corbyn gets in Yes could be hijacked by blairites. I think that’s already happening cause all we are hearing from Yes groups at the moment is “just stay in the EU.” Original themes like social justice and making a break from the status quo abandoned for shite like Progressive Scotland Vs Racist England. And a lot of people aren’t comfortable with it- working class remain voters as well as all the leave voters(a third of Yes voters!) in my limited experience, but very much ignored conversations since Scotland voted remain and that’s all we need to know. This is a very much Highland perspective though, I think the view in glasgow might be different. Highland voted 47 Yes, 45 leave btw.

 

[Kaka Tim]

That's a pretty pathetic response. Even if you don't want to engage with what I've written, the posts of butchers and kabbes are clear and deserve better than a 30s dismissal.
And this just shows that you aren't actually reading what people are posting. It's not about "conventional concepts" it's the whole bloody shebang.

Look - the lexit argument makes no sense to me - and circular arguments and mutual point scoring are really not doing it for me.

Serious suggestion - can we start a new thread exploring the left argument for brexit? - cos all im getting is unicorns. I just dont see how brexit will do anything other than make life shitter for most people. Id love to be even vaguely convinced otherwise.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I forgot I meant to come back to this.

Impacts to “the economy” chiefly get reported on the basis of “growth”. Growth is measured as change in GDP. GDP is measured in practice as NDI (net domestic income) with adjustment. NDI is wages plus corporate profit plus loan and rent income plus some other private sector things. Nationalisation reduces corporate income with no compensatory increase in private income and so appears in the figures as a contraction in GDP and hence damage to “the economy”.

Thus is how and why economics is ideological. The metrics get reported as if they are neutral facts but they are not. Contractions can be socially good. Whilst growth (such when it comes from privatisation) can be socially bad. An increase in corporate profit that outweighs wage reduction counts as growth. And all these things are how we’ve managed real growth for 40 years whilst average wages have dropped.

What’s the relevance to the EU? Well, the EU is a factor in this antisocial “growth”. Yes, Brexit will contract GDP but since in reality this is unwinding the antisocial growth it is far from clear that this means more inequality or less government income.

You say above that wages make up part of GDP , so what's to say the shrinkage won't happen there?. Hardly unwinding antisocial growth.

 

[kabbes]

You say above that wages make up part of GDP , so what's to say the shrinkage won't happen there?. Hardly unwinding antisocial growth.

They haven’t grown there, so why should they shrink there? People are already paid the least companies can get away with.

In fact, some of the arguments for Brexit have surrounded the wage reductions that mobility of labour brings with it. Unwind that and things could go the other way.

But the truth is that none of this has really been modelled or spoken if because economists are so desperately keen to focus on GDP, growth in which is increasingly driven by corporate superprofits, not wages.

 

[free spirit]

I forgot I meant to come back to this.

Impacts to “the economy” chiefly get reported on the basis of “growth”. Growth is measured as change in GDP. GDP is measured in practice as NDI (net domestic income) with adjustment. NDI is wages plus corporate profit plus loan and rent income plus some other private sector things. Nationalisation reduces corporate income with no compensatory increase in private income and so appears in the figures as a contraction in GDP and hence damage to “the economy”.

Thus is how and why economics is ideological. The metrics get reported as if they are neutral facts but they are not. Contractions can be socially good. Whilst growth (such when it comes from privatisation) can be socially bad. An increase in corporate profit that outweighs wage reduction counts as growth. And all these things are how we’ve managed real growth for 40 years whilst average wages have dropped.

What’s the relevance to the EU? Well, the EU is a factor in this antisocial “growth”. Yes, Brexit will contract GDP but since in reality this is unwinding the antisocial growth it is far from clear that this means more inequality or less government income.

According to the ONS that's only one way they measure GDP, they also use "all the money spent on goods and services, minus the value of imports (money spent on goods and services produced outside the UK), plus exports (money spent on UK goods and services in other countries)".

As nationalised rail / electricity or whatever would still be charging for their service I don't see why this would be excluded from the GDP calculation. And in your original version of how it's measured - people working for those industries would still be being paid and included that way.

That aside, Brexit will not just impact statistically on GDP, it will do so because of it's very real impact on the real world economy of wages, profits, sales of goods, the entire shebang. How much of an impact is yet to be seen, and really depends on what sort of a deal they come up with, but it will be a real impact not just a statistical anomaly and that's what people are concerned about.

So yes GDP is a bit of a shit way of measuring the economy, and the real impact that has on people's lives, but it's also useful to have a comparative timeseries such as GDP that goes a long way back in time to get a snapshot of what's happening even if other variables need to be taken into account to really get a fuller picture of it. I'd need some more convincing though that what you say about nationalisation and GDP is actually correct, as it flies in the face of my understanding of it (not that it matters to the substance of whether nationalisation is a positive thing or not, but it's good to understand how the metrics work).

As an example of why I'm thinking that nationalised industry is counted as part of GDP, here's a quote from the IEA about the pre-thatcher economy.

"“By the late 1970s, the nationalised industries accounted for 10pc of Britain’s GDP, 14pc of investment and 8pc of employment,”

 

[redsquirrel]

Look - the lexit argument makes no sense to me - and circular arguments and mutual point scoring are really not doing it for me.

Serious suggestion - can we start a new thread exploring the left argument for brexit? - cos all im getting is unicorns. I just dont see how brexit will do anything other than make life shitter for most people. Id love to be even vaguely convinced otherwise.

Sorry but this comment shows that you aren't understanding my posts (which may be my fault) - I'm not making a "lexit" argument! In fact I think I've hardly made any arguments in favour of Leave on the whole of this thread.

The point I'm making (or at least trying to make) is that the basis on which you are arguing, an economic one, is one that is necessarily in favour of capital. That's the what's the capitalism is, the economic exploitation of labour as opposed to the extra-economic (i.e. force) exploitation. Understanding this, approaching the question of Brexit from this position doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot think that the UK remaining in the EU would be (or have been) better.

 

[sleaterkinney]

They haven’t grown there, so why should they shrink there? People are already paid the least companies can get away with.

In fact, some of the arguments for Brexit have surrounded the wage reductions that mobility of labour brings with it. Unwind that and things could go the other way.

But the truth is that none of this has really been modelled or spoken if because economists are so desperately keen to focus on GDP, growth in which is increasingly driven by corporate superprofits, not wages.

Or the current government could strip more conditions away from workers, or there could be less jobs as exports suffer.

 

[DexterTCN]

A lot of this reads like chip-on-shoulder nonsense to me...

We're going off topic but no, not promoting grievance and don't have a grudge. Wanting out of a relationship doesn't have to be acrimonious.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Keep at it anyway RS/Kabbes I’m learning a lot from your arguments

 

[CRI]

Nothing to worry about I'm sure.

Councils preparing for social unrest amid Brexit uncertainty

Nearly 30 councils have responded to a freedom of information request for their Brexit plans, with some expressing mounting incredulity and exasperation at having to plan to deliver local public services against a backdrop of highly uncertain Brexit negotiations with Europe and within government

Yesterday, Sky News revealed that Dover District Council and Kent County Council have both independently suggested that a plan for a 13-mile Brexit lorry park on the southbound M20 motorway could be needed for four years or more.

Pembrokeshire County Council, meanwhile, has released to Sky News its internal Brexit risk register detailing 19 ways it thinks Brexit will have an impact. All but one of them is listed as negative, with seven coded red - "likely to have a high impact" - including "the imposition of border controls" and the "ready availability of vital supplies - foodstuff and medicines". There is one "positive" listed: that people might move away so there will be less demand on council services.

Almost all councils expressed significant concerns about how the treasury will replace crucial EU structural and regional funds - particularly now the PM has promised any money that might materialise after Brexit to the NHS.

Dithering incompetent fuckwits.

The government is pondering when to release its own preparedness notices for Brexit. Some MPs want the reports released sooner rather than later to help the country prepare for a possible no deal scenario in eight months' time.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Sorry but this comment shows that you aren't understanding my posts (which may be my fault) - I'm not making a "lexit" argument! In fact I think I've hardly made any arguments in favour of Leave on the whole of this thread.

The point I'm making (or at least trying to make) is that the basis on which you are arguing, an economic one, is one that is necessarily in favour of capital. That's the what's the capitalism is, the economic exploitation of labour as opposed to the extra-economic (i.e. force) exploitation. Understanding this, approaching the question of Brexit from this position doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot think that the UK remaining in the EU would be (or have been) better.

right yes ok - there is an valid argument that conventional economic discourses are inherently ideological - that they exclude and constrain other, counter or alternative discourses - and yes talking about GDP as the only measure of value does exactly that - and leads to the almost invisible hegemony of capitalist discourses.
But - this stuff has real world consequences - because decisions are taken based on world views rooted in those discourses and on the reality of how resources are allocated and utilised. So rather than going back to first principles im trying to cut to the chase by saying brexit will shrink the economy - and that will result in shitter conditions and less resources for the mass of the population - especially those at the bottom of the pile - because that is what has always happened in similar situations in the past.

 

[not-bono-ever]

No more GDP plz

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

right yes ok - there is an valid argument that conventional economic discourses are inherently ideological - that they exclude and constrain other, counter or alternative discourses - and yes talking about GDP as the only measure of value does exactly that - and leads to the almost invisible hegemony of capitalist discourses.
But - this stuff has real world consequences - because decisions are taken based on world views rooted in those discourses and on the reality of how resources are allocated and utilised. So rather than going back to first principles im trying to cut to the chase by saying brexit will shrink the economy - and that will result in shitter conditions and less resources for the mass of the population - especially those at the bottom of the pile - because that is what has always happened in similar situations in the past.

And when a person takes on a bully there are predictable consequences because they’ve been bullied for years, but that doesn’t mean they should never make a break for it, ever.
Simplistic analogy, I know but I’m using it because it’s not just “lexiters” you are trying to convince, on a europewide scale it’s the poorest you bang on about. They know what’s coming but they try and make a run for it anyway. Because if in the short term the status quo will very likely kill them, why the fuck should they worry about relatively short term punishment from business if there’s a chance -even a slight glimmer of hope- of long term gain- (involving other means of fighting besides just the vote of course- don’t kid yourself it’s only a few on urban that have thought this through)
A lot of the argument around remain is “now is not the time”. That only makes sense if you are comfortable right now, it means fuck all to those who are anything but.

 

[MightyTibberton]

You can also add in a Leave campaign that said repeatedly that everyone would be better off immediately.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

You can also add in a Leave campaign that said repeatedly that everyone would be better off immediately.

Thing is I remember often trying to tell remain voters the EU didn’t actually gift us our workers rights and that the EU ref wasn’t a vote to elect those behind the Vote Leave Campaign. I’m not saying many leave voters weren’t similarly clueless but I’m still waiting to talk to one person who voted leave because they saw something on a bus. Just one IRL! And then I’ll know of... one! Haha

 

[teuchter]

And when a person takes on a bully there are predictable consequences because they’ve been bullied for years, but that doesn’t mean they should never make a break for it, ever.
Simplistic analogy, I know but I’m using it because it’s not just “lexiters” you are trying to convince, on a europewide scale it’s the poorest you bang on about. They know what’s coming but they try and make a run for it anyway. Because if in the short term the status quo will very likely kill them, why the fuck should they worry about relatively short term punishment from business if there’s a chance -even a slight glimmer of hope- of long term gain- (involving other means of fighting besides just the vote of course- don’t kid yourself it’s only a few on urban that have thought this through)
A lot of the argument around remain is “now is not the time”. That only makes sense if you are comfortable right now, it means fuck all to those who are anything but.

This kind of argument simply ignores all the people who are not in a 'the status quo will very likely kill them' category. People who are currently borderline ok but might not be post-Brexit. I don't claim to know what will happen post Brexit but it seems like a big gamble, all in return for the 'slight glimmer of hope'. For people really with nothing to lose - sure, a big gamble with slim chances of success might be worth it. But that's not all or most people in the UK.

There are all sorts of things you could justify with that kind of argument.

 

[teuchter]

Thing is I remember often trying to tell remain voters the EU didn’t actually gift us our workers rights and that the EU ref wasn’t a vote to elect those behind the Vote Leave Campaign. I’m not saying many leave voters weren’t similarly clueless but I’m still waiting to talk to one person who voted leave because they saw something on a bus. Just one IRL! And then I’ll know of... one! Haha

Have you spoken to a lot of leave voters?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Thing is I remember often trying to tell remain voters the EU didn’t actually gift us our workers rights and that the EU ref wasn’t a vote to elect those behind the Vote Leave Campaign. I’m not saying many leave voters weren’t similarly clueless but I’m still waiting to talk to one person who voted leave because they saw something on a bus. Just one IRL! And then I’ll know of... one! Haha

And yet Johnson, Fox and eventually Gove ended up in power after!. Haha.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

i did start some convos when I went home cause my whole family voted leave apart from my mum, all tabloid reading folks for gross generalisation heh. I asked questions that I made sure weren’t leading and let them speak and got a lot of interesting answers - they generally centred around the issue of sovereignty. One said “I don’t understand how Nicola Sturgeon can be pro independence but still wants to remain in the EU” I waited for immigration to come up, expected it! but it didn’t. And they aren’t shy about stuff like that, they go quite nuts about the Burkha but then so do a lot of secular Muslims. I would really like to make a good short film out of it or something similar to what that northern English social worker did or some Lisa McKenzie style stuff, but I never have the time, maybe I will one day . If only just for my benefit because up until recently I was really bad for writing people off on the basis of a statement probably, I was a bit of a snobby wanker I expect. For now, here’s my snapshot

Teuchter, there’s your answer. Of course I’ve spoken to a lot of leave voters- I voted fucking leave ! Leave voters will be more likely to speak to another leave voter than a remainer who has already decided they are thick or racist!

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I should clarify - one auntie has an issue with the burkha, I think all us MacGregors were telling her to STFU on that score- my point is if they had an issue with immigration it would have come out fucking richt awa. Nae filters