Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Kaka Tim]

yes voting can make a difference - but it has to be allied to wider, popular movements outside of parliament - that's why the 1945 labour government was able to establish the welfare state, NHS etc - and why it was difficult for much of that be reversed for many decades.
With brexit the difference is that only a small part of the elected politicians actually support it - and significant interest groups outside of parliament oppose it ranging from the CBI to the labour party membership and the TUC. The pro-brexit forces have no organised mass movement behind them.
WRT EU reform - the effects of 2008 crash is still working its way through european democracys and it has seriously weakened the traditional established parties - particularly the "centrist" one. This has seen the rise of reactionary populist movements - but also more radical leftists ones in greece, spain, the UK (!) and - to a lesser extent - in france. Basically - everything is in flux - and its now possible that parties similar to corbyns labour party could take power in other european countries - and this was not the case 10 years ago.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I don't want it reversed.
I'm also sceptical about what exactly has been broken and in who's benefit

Asking this means the conversation remains at a standstill though, there are opportunities. Which is the best you can hope for from one vote. Movement.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the possibility of EU reform is there - the EU is ultimately formed by its members, and those are primarily chosen through elections. The unelected layer is currently supported and given legitimacy by a conservative majority in the European parliament, but that could change.

Like many here I thought the Labour party was incapable of and beyond change - turns out that was wrong. There's still a lot that needs to happen there of course, but the wheels are in motion and many of the barriers to reform are falling. Once the wheels of history start turning things can change quickly.

Of course its foolish to put all faith in reformism, but to me grass roots and top down power are not mutually exclusive - we need them both. The problem the left has is a scarcity of people, power, and time, which makes the choice where to concentrate effort more strategic and often ineffective, as its spread too thin.

As to WTO, IMF, WorldBank, these are clearly impossible to "reform". And I guess the difference is democracy. I think Chomksy has formed my opinion on this - he's no starry-eyed reformist, but he makes the case that we fought long and hard for the vote, its an important victory, and it remains a tool which can crack power structures. Its not the only tool, but its far from an insignificant one.

This basically. The idea that the EU is incapable of reform therefore must be destroyed well nobody's tried to reform it. Get governments that want to reform it and you might see something different. And that absolutely does not mean you only put faith in that and don't believe in bottom up reform. Point there for me is that brexit is not in any way bottom up reform. It does not represent even a challenge to austerity. The scapegoating of immigrants for problems caused by austerity represents a perverse victory to the very worst aspects of the forces that brought austerity about in the first place.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

People are forgetting a lot has happened since the days of Thatcher, Neoliberalism isn’t *just* Britain’s will, it’s been stamped like fuck into EU law as well.

 

[pocketscience]

yes voting can make a difference - but it has to be allied to wider, popular movements outside of parliament - that's why the 1945 labour government was able to establish the welfare state, NHS etc - and why it was difficult for much of that be reversed for many decades.
With brexit the difference is that only a small part of the elected politicians actually support it - and significant interest groups outside of parliament oppose it ranging from the CBI to the labour party membership and the TUC. The pro-brexit forces have no organised mass movement behind them.

I wouldn't even class the last 2 GEs as meaningful in that sense. History will view the 2015 GE results as an ulterior motive to get a referendum and the 2017 snap election was simply bizarre in that neither major party even mentioned the EU in the run-up. Both just go to show how out of step the (mostly remain) politicians are.
So frankly it's bollocks that (the current batch of) MPs need to support, and even ratify Brexit. You could argue that there should be another election now with enough debate about the brexit topic to make it meaningful - but sorry, that was the 2016 ref.

WRT EU reform - the effects of 2008 crash is still working its way through european democracys and it has seriously weakened the traditional established parties - particularly the "centrist" one. This has seen the rise of reactionary populist movements - but also more radical leftists ones in greece, spain, the UK (!) and - to a lesser extent - in france. Basically - everything is in flux - and its now possible that parties similar to corbyns labour party could take power in other european countries - and this was not the case 10 years ago.

I disagree. There's no flux. There's a very steady progression towards a right-wing neoliberal political hegemony across Europe. One that won't loosen it's grip as easily as you think.

 

[teuchter]

In the last few pages alone SpackleFrog and Smokeandsteam have outlined a number of possibilities of how the UK leaving the EU could provide benefits to workers.

Not really. Just the usual waffly stuff. That or full on revolution.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

There’s maybe a side helping of flux though surely.
*waves hands for teuchter’s benefit*

 

[pocketscience]

It does not represent even a challenge to austerity. The scapegoating of immigrants...

Weird how you dismiss one aspect of the brexit vote yet use another as if fact there.
Can't be denied that austerity politics are on the back foot since brexit (across the EU too)

 

[ska invita]

Legally, they can’t. One state can block any amendments. All have to agree or the changes can’t go through.

Yeah but Blair pulled up the ladder to block reform within Labour and that's slowly being reversed too. Laws can be changed if there's the majority to do it.

Anyhow, as poketscience said, the vote has happened...i don't want it reversed. I haven't heard anyone on here backing Mays deal though? Or berating those MPs trying to stop it. Are we doing this or not?

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Hey it’s Urban Brexit and Party- Greatest Dance Dysptopia Anthems. Worst compilation ever

 

[danny la rouge]

So first of all, I don't disagree that there are opportunities presented by leaving the EU, but the whole question is not whether they exist but whether they'll be availed amongst the disruption

The thing that strikes me and others is that there has not really been an assessment of the costs and opportunities of any of the options by the broader left of centre. Anyone honestly looking at the situation must have been able to see that all the options have the potential to cause problems and that all have opportunities. And that includes left/liberal remainers who are just unwilling to countenance criticism of the EU. They have as a whole fallen into a daft position of presenting the EU as something it isn’t. That it’s democratic, that it’s the anti anti-immigration option, that it’s for workers’ rights, that the slew of neoliberal treaties just aren’t there if you wish hard enough, and so on.

There’s also this, what appears to be, gut reaction that the UK simply has to get back in, no matter what damage is done. Does it, for example, drive people into the hands of the far right? Are we prepared for the outcome if it does? Is getting back in worth that? For what?

And how will rentry be achieved? By simply repeating what was said in 2016? It didn’t work then, why is it going to work now?

And if we decide that actually the risks of remain are too great? That we are where we are, and a cost-benefit analysis says a re-entry is not worth it? Has there been any work done on what the possible benefits are of other options?

The formal labour movement has missed an opportunity. It has largely just fallen behind the uncritical remain impulse in the case of the unions, or in the case of the Labour Party waited to see what the Tories would do.

There was no need to accept that leave means only the vision of May and the pro status quo civil service, or the vision of the neoconservative right. That this was all we could ever do. Those two options or leap back in.

Last time I said this people came back at me with a message of woe. Nothing else could ever have been achieved. Those are the only three options, and have been since 2016.

Well, OK, the clock has now been run down on the leave process. And I fully accept that no big, broad left leave vision movement has been built. But even if we accept that May’s deal can’t be improved on now, once out do we have to stay with a neocon programme or a neoliberal programme? That’s just the shape of society forever?

Well, no. People like Costas Lapavitsas have outlined alternative visions. You may not have his optimism (and frankly I do think there’s some work needed before we have the necessary organisation in place), but it’s just not true to trot out this tale of woe that once the result was known in 2016 we had two options - disaster or re-entry.

Just step back. Step back from the argument our bosses are having. We don’t need to pick one or other side of their simplistically drawn dichotomy. We need to look honestly at what opportunities there might be for us. And build on that instead.

Will that happen? Not if we don’t accept it’s possible.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Yeah but Blair pulled up the ladder to block reform and that is slowly being reversed too. Laws can be changed if there's the majority to do it.

In terms of treaty amendents, no, they really can’t. All states need to ratify it, some states hold refs before they can do so. This is why they had to ask Ireland twice re Lisbon treaty.

 

[ska invita]

Just step back. Step back from the argument our bosses are having. We don’t need to pick one or other side of their simplistically drawn dichotomy. We need to look honestly at what opportunities there might be for us. And build on that instead.
.

First May's deal needs to pass or the opportunity will close, right? Or at least Norway+? Are we agreed on that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

First May's deal needs to pass or the opportunity will close, right? Or at least Norway+? Are we agreed on that?

May's deal passing represents the firm slam of a door on a whole host of opportunities.

 

[danny la rouge]

First May's deal needs to pass or the opportunity will close, right? Or at least Norway+? Are we agreed on that?

Not quite sure what you’re asking.

‘May’s deal needs to pass’ (I mean it won’t In its present form), why?

If you’re asking me to rank May’s deal and Norway+ (not that I’ve read May’s deal, only bits along with reports of what’s in it), then that’s, relatively speaking, Norway+ ahead of May’s deal by some distance. But again, not sure why that’s important to your query.

I’m not sure what opportunity you’re saying closes unless May’s deal is passed.

 

[chilango]

Thersi always opportunity.

Exactly what that looks like might depend upon circumstances - in this case what sort of Brexit, if any, happens.

But right now we're not ready to take advantage of any opportunities that appear.

We weren't ready in the run up to the referendum. That's blindingly obvious.

Are we in a better shape now?

No.

So, I'd argue from the comfort of my particular armchair that our priority is not to bicker about the merits of the different shit options over which we have no control and in which we have no stake but rather that our priority is to get on with the job of "cold accumulation of forces" of, of trying to piece together some sort of ability to respond when opportunity knocks.

 

[ska invita]

So, I'd argue from the comfort of my particular armchair that our priority is not to bicker about the merits of the different shit options over which we have no control and in which we have no stake but rather that our priority is to get on with the job of "cold accumulation of forces" of, of trying to piece together some sort of ability to respond when opportunity knocks.

The first thing is to make sure a Brexit happens. Labour look likely to stop it at the moment. How is Caroline Flint not right?

‘May’s deal needs to pass’ (I mean it won’t In its present form), why?

Why? For all the endless reasons people are arguing its essential to leave the EU.

If you’re asking me to rank May’s deal and Norway+ (not that I’ve read May’s deal, only bits along with reports of what’s in it), then that’s, relatively speaking, Norway+ ahead of May’s deal by some distance.

So keeping 'freedom of movement'

 

[danny la rouge]

The first thing is to make sure a Brexit happens.

Well, the first thing for whom?

Yes, Brexit needs to happen. But I’m not personally backing any of the deals. Not even Norway+.

 

[ska invita]

Well, the first thing for whom?

Yes, Brexit needs to happen. But I’m not personally backing any of the deals. Not even Norway+.

Seems like a cop out to me. Back Brexit but none of the deals. Deals which were obviously the ones that Brexit was about.

Ive really got to do some work ttfn

 

[chilango]

Why do we need to make sure Brexit happens?

That's not our fight (yet).

 

[ska invita]

Why do we need to make sure Brexit happens?

There are several thousand posts arguing why its so important

 

[chilango]

There are several thousand posts arguing why its so important

Thered a difference between it being importanti and it being something we should be fighting for.

We don't have the capability to fight for much right now and I'm arguing that getting that capability is priority rather than getting lost in someone else's battle.

 

[Wilf]

Apologies if already posted, just catching up... but here's McDonnell suggesting there could be a 2nd ref - and without No Deal as an option (so it would presumably be May's deal Vs remain):

Labour could seize option of second Brexit vote, says McDonnell

Bear in mind this is grauniad desperation to get a 2nd ref - and from something he said at a grauniad event. But still, in light of the discussion had on here yesterday about elites ignoring mandates, this is appalling. Essentially, he's saying 'we've now reached the strategic point where a 2nd ref suits our agenda, but the imagined will of parliament 'pre-trumps' the outcome of that referendum.

“We can’t have no deal on the ballot paper,” McDonnell said. “There’s an overwhelming majority in parliament against that happening, because of the damage.”

Edit: ironically, I think this - having a 2nd ref around 'here's the agreement reached vs staying in' would have been a logical step if, crucially, it had been built into the original legislation from Cameron. However, posing those as the only alternatives as McDonnell is doing shows a shocking level of cynicism.

 

[Pickman's model]

First May's deal needs to pass or the opportunity will close, right? Or at least Norway+? Are we agreed on that?

i think we can all agree it's already passed

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[Raheem]

Apologies if already posted, just catching up... but here's McDonnell suggesting there could be a 2nd ref - and without No Deal as an option (so it would presumably be May's deal Vs remain):

Labour could seize option of second Brexit vote, says McDonnell

Bear in mind this is grauniad desperation to get a 2nd ref - and from something he said at a grauniad event. But still, in light of the discussion had on here yesterday about elites ignoring mandates, this is appalling. Essentially, he's saying 'we've now reached the strategic point where a 2nd ref suits our agenda, but the imagined will of parliament 'pre-trumps' the outcome of that referendum.



Edit: ironically, I think this - having a 2nd ref around 'here's the agreement reached vs staying in' would have been a logical step if, crucially, it had been built into the original legislation from Cameron. However, posing those as the only alternatives as McDonnell is doing shows a shocking level of cynicism.

It would be much worse, though, to put an option on the ballot paper that you have no intention of delivering on.

 

[Pickman's model]

Apologies if already posted, just catching up... but here's McDonnell suggesting there could be a 2nd ref - and without No Deal as an option (so it would presumably be May's deal Vs remain):

Labour could seize option of second Brexit vote, says McDonnell

Bear in mind this is grauniad desperation to get a 2nd ref - and from something he said at a grauniad event. But still, in light of the discussion had on here yesterday about elites ignoring mandates, this is appalling. Essentially, he's saying 'we've now reached the strategic point where a 2nd ref suits our agenda, but the imagined will of parliament 'pre-trumps' the outcome of that referendum.



Edit: ironically, I think this - having a 2nd ref around 'here's the agreement reached vs staying in' would have been a logical step if, crucially, it had been built into the original legislation from Cameron. However, posing those as the only alternatives as McDonnell is doing shows a shocking level of cynicism.

it seems you still have illusions in politicians

 

[Wilf]

It would be much worse, though, to put an option on the ballot paper that you have no intention of delivering on.

But, technically, this isn't about what labour would have no intention of delivering. It's a scenario with the Tories still in power having failed to secure 'the deal' in parliament. But more importantly, the whole process is - and should still be - framed by the decision to put this to the people in 2016. This is saying 'we might put it to the people again, but only giving them certain outcomes and only to get us out of a hole'. It's just about as cynical as everything done by May - more so in fact.

 

[Wilf]

it seems you still have illusions in politicians

 

[hot air baboon]

Apologies if already posted, just catching up... but here's McDonnell suggesting there could be a 2nd ref - and without No Deal as an option (so it would presumably be May's deal Vs remain):

“We can’t have no deal on the ballot paper,” McDonnell said. “There’s an overwhelming majority in parliament against that happening, because of the damage.”

Wolfgang Münchau NOVEMBER 25, 2018

There is an infallible way to identify politicians and commentators who have not read Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. What gives their game away is the complacent and mistaken assertion that a no-deal Brexit is impossible on the grounds there is no majority for it in the House of Commons. The reality is that a campaign to undo the 2016 referendum is virtually impossible without the explicit support of the government.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times