Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[gosub]

i think it might be a little more radical than an article 50 extension.

I hope not.

 

[Pickman's model]

I hope not.

i think it might be. as we press ever nearer to the denoument of these cack-handed negotiations the utter bankruptcy of the government becomes more and more apparent, and the difficulty of extricating the uk from the embrace of the eu similarly becomes clearer. the eu has not covered itself in glory these past two years. neither has the uk administration. the way the government's been saying one thing and thinking another, which culminated in the resignation of david davis after the chequers debacle, i wouldn't in the slightest be surprised if the withdrawal of article 50 - and without a second confirmatory referendum - returned to the agenda in the next few months.

 

[gosub]

i think it might be. as we press ever nearer to the denoument of these cack-handed negotiations the utter bankruptcy of the government becomes more and more apparent, and the difficulty of extricating the uk from the embrace of the eu similarly becomes clearer. the eu has not covered itself in glory these past two years. neither has the uk administration. the way the government's been saying one thing and thinking another, which culminated in the resignation of david davis after the chequers debacle, i wouldn't in the slightest be surprised if the withdrawal of article 50 - and without a second confirmatory referendum - returned to the agenda in the next few months.

Please don't make me cite Barry Gardiner

 

[JHE]

24/ 25 documents.

A few days ago there was a leak saying that the government was going to announce that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the British govt would guarantee the rights of EU27 citizens resident in the UK, as under the provisional agreement on citizens' rights. The leak was not denied. However, that seems to be the one paper that has not been published. Don't know why.

Meanwhile, in Spain - a country with about 300,000 British residents, according to official figures - the British Embassy continues to ignore the risk of a no-deal Brexit. Of course some people think the Embassy should be pressing the new Spanish govt to say what its policy will be if there's no deal, but the ambassador and his staff are stubbornly silent. Don't know why that is either.

 

[Pickman's model]

Please don't make me cite Barry Gardiner

please don't make me sight barry gardiner

 

[gentlegreen]

Farrago is apparently going to be touring the country on a battle bus.

Nigel Farage back in politics to challenge Theresa May's Brexit

 

[kabbes]

A few days ago there was a leak

First they came for our cabbages, now they come for our leeks??

 

[danny la rouge]

First they came for our cabbages, now they come for our leeks??

But I did not speak out because I was not a brassica.

 

[not-bono-ever]

A few days ago there was a leak saying that the government was going to announce that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the British govt would guarantee the rights of EU27 citizens resident in the UK, as under the provisional agreement on citizens' rights. The leak was not denied. However, that seems to be the one paper that has not been published. Don't know why.

Meanwhile, in Spain - a country with about 300,000 British residents, according to official figures - the British Embassy continues to ignore the risk of a no-deal Brexit. Of course some people think the Embassy should be pressing the new Spanish govt to say what its policy will be if there's no deal, but the ambassador and his staff are stubbornly silent. Don't know why that is either.

Manley is a career FCO bod and well smart - smart enough to keep quiet until this wretched government gives him some hard policy to work with.

What he says in private over some vino collapso with his Spanish counterparts will be another matter. At the minute intra diplomat chatter is all like “ what the fuck is going on Your government ?”

Usually the response is a shrug. A discreet diplomatic shrug

 

[SpookyFrank]

I know it's bad manners posting links to twitter but, would be interested to hear what people here think of the reasoning in this thread. Lots of what he says (and is arguing against) reminds me of things i've read on here since the referendum.
(you have to click on it to read the whole thing obvs)

OK firstly capitalism doesn't 'propel us into the future', we move towards the future at just the same speed regardless of the prevailing political system because that's the very nature of the concept of time. Secondly make your fucking mind up about whether our lives are getting better or worse thanks to capitalism. Thirdly what about 'tech' that's a potential threat to established commercial enterprises, which is often actvely repressed under capitalism?

Fourthly whatever it is you think you're on about it's pretty low to try and blame it on Charlie, who is far too dead to defend himself.

 

[Pickman's model]

View attachment 144800

OK firstly capitalism doesn't 'propel us into the future', we move towards the future at just the same speed regardless of the prevailing political system because that's the very nature of the concept of time. Secondly make your fucking mind up about whether our lives are getting better or worse thanks to capitalism. Thirdly what about 'tech' that's a potential threat to established commercial enterprises, which is often actvely repressed under capitalism?

Fourthly whatever it is you think you're on about it's pretty low to try and blame it on Charlie, who is far too dead to defend himself.

glad i didn't read beyond the pile of steaming shite which was the first tweet in the series.

 

[SpookyFrank]

glad i didn't read beyond the pile of steaming shite which was the first tweet in the series.

I thought I'd ignore his opening salvo about doing his research by getting drunk with other bougie twats and give him the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong to do so, dead fucking wrong.

 

[andysays]

View attachment 144800

OK firstly capitalism doesn't 'propel us into the future', we move towards the future at just the same speed regardless of the prevailing political system because that's the very nature of the concept of time. Secondly make your fucking mind up about whether our lives are getting better or worse thanks to capitalism. Thirdly what about 'tech' that's a potential threat to established commercial enterprises, which is often actvely repressed under capitalism?

Fourthly whatever it is you think you're on about it's pretty low to try and blame it on Charlie, who is far too dead to defend himself.

Have you ever read any Marx?

What Adler's saying in that tweet (haven't read any of the rest of it, which may all be nonsense) does actually have some basis in Marx's writing.

Someone more familiar with it than me may even be able to point to the specific quote or quotes.

 

[redsquirrel]

I can't see a fault in his arguments against the 'socialism in one country' anti freedom of movement type lexit case that i think I've seen put forward by people on this thread. That's what I was asking about. But never mind.

What butchersapron and pocketscience said. Who on U75 has put forward any such argument? This is, yet again, another one of your inventions.

 

[JimW]

Agree with andysays, while making it a good/bad dichotomy makes Marx sound as dim as Adler there's plenty in the former's writing about the transformative nature of capital/the bourgeoisie that highlights "progressive" aspects, like the classic bit from the manifesto:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

 

[JimW]

Mind, I personally quite like the idiocy of rural life.

 

[Humirax]

if people working at humirax ltd are told that if labour win then their jobs might be at risk, do you not think a few of them might vote tory?

Working class people voting Tory is a good example of what I mean.

 

[Pickman's model]

Working class people voting Tory is a good example of what I mean.

i wait until you find yourself able to critically engage with what i've posted.

 

[sealion]

I have never once in my life thought about voting Tory and will never understand why people do.

If you are one of those decanted from the community you lived and worked in you might think and feel differently. Fucked over by the same people you've voted for most of your life.

London’s Local Elections 2018: The Consequences of Voting
Secure Homes for All? The Labour Party Manifesto on Housing

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[Humirax]

 

[Humirax]

If you are one of those decanted from the community you lived and worked in you might think and feel differently. Fucked over by the same people you've voted for most of your life.

London’s Local Elections 2018: The Consequences of Voting
Secure Homes for All? The Labour Party Manifesto on Housing

I don't see how voting Tory will bring about any kind of solution

 

[Humirax]

i wait until you find yourself able to critically engage with what i've posted.

I already have, you just don't seem top have noticed.

 

[Pickman's model]

I probably already have, you just don't seem top have noticed.

i think you'll find you haven't.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Voting for anything is always a bit of an anti climax. Eurovision aside

 

[Humirax]

i think you'll find you haven't.

How so?

 

[Pickman's model]

How so?

i thought you'd been exposed to critical thought. if you have been then go back and critically engage. and if you haven't then have a look here

 

[Humirax]

whatevz

 

[Pickman's model]

whatevz

yeh i didn't believe you had a critical thought in your head.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ofcourse really I'm referring to most of the English as the majority of the rest of Britain knew what what they were doing. Serious lack of critical thinking in England, which is why we not only still have capitalism but a Tory government. I know most of the electorate doesn't vote Tory, but far too many people do and I'll never understand it. The only explanation is a lack of critical thinking.

What is it then?

People were conned, causing them to vote the wrong way- if they had adequate critical thinking abilities that wouldn't have happened.

Still waiting for your answer . . .

Seems to amount to the same thing to me

Good question

So how come we got where we are now, even though we were denied the information?

Why can't they do the same? Seems to be a lack of critical thinking to me, it's the only real explanation I can come up with. I'm aware of how people are manipulated from an early age but I was, and I broke out of it, why can't they?

I see what you mean, but are they really unrepresentative considering that the majority of the electorate votes for them time after time?

What I mean is- people like us managed to suss the system out- we found an alternative- why can't most people?

Why do they insist on keep propping up the system?

We had to seek out the information, which is what we did- but most people don't bother.

It's as if theres somethign wrong with people themselves, if they are going to insist on trying a system that doesn't work over and over again and not seek out the information we found- it could be said that they don't deserve their emancipation. Or that trying to 'empower them' (which can only really be done by themselves) is a waste of time.

Anyway, you guys have stopped replying to me and I have probably gone off topic so I guess I'll leave it there.

I can only speak from experience aswell. Where I live there is no anarchist movement and most people firmly believe in capitalism, most of them vote tory and support brexit and have no time for anti-capitalist politics let alone anarchism. They rely on the mainstream media for their 'info' and if any of them seem to agree with me they are supporters of UKIP or, even on a couple of occasions- the BNP!

What I meant was that I talk to them and we agree on things and then I find out they are Ukippers later on in the conversation.

Looks about right if you ask me

You have a point but I still get frustrated with people. I and those I care about have to suffer the consequences of lazy thinking (or uninformed thinking) and I have never once in my life thought about voting Tory and will never understand why people do. I am surrounded by people where I live who think and behave in a totally alien way to me and it seems alot of the time to be hopeless trying to offer them the opportunity to become informed, they can be very stubborn and think they know best even when I can see that everything around them is a mess.

Also being open about being an anarchist sometimes seems risky in these times and is something so alien to alot of people so I go about trying to spread anarchist ideas in a discreet way.

Or, shall we say, in not an obvious, so visible way.

I'm just honest and open about how I feel (which is clearly a mistake). Don't tell me you never get frustrated with people, you must be the better, superior anarchist than me, which is why the anarchist movement is no doubt doing so well- oh, wait a minute!!

So basically people don't tend to be exposed to critical thinking or are'nt encouraged/taught to think critically, so they don't. Unless they are people like us.

Working class people voting Tory is a good example of what I mean.

I don't see how voting Tory will bring about any kind of solution

I already have, you just don't seem top have noticed.

none of these posts looks in any detail or with any critical thinking at why people continue to vote, and continue to vote tory.

there are a number of reasons why people continue to do the thing you deplore, for example the way people are educated. people are taught that people died for the right to vote, therefore we have to exercise the right to vote. never mind that people die for all manner of causes, that death in itself isn't evidence a cause is right. people vote because it offers them some small measure of control over their lives, where so much is wholly out of their control. the way people vote has never been free, even though now it is ostensibly secret. people's friends, family and employers, their class, all play a part in who they might vote for. the media, too. the class they might like to be - people who are working class but aspire to be middle class might vote tory.

there's more thought - aye, and more critical thought - in what it's taken me 90 seconds to think about and type than in all your 20 or more messages quote. whereas in all your guff you've said people are uneducated, perhaps uneducable...