Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Smokeandsteam]

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?

Yes. Here is the frustration and the missed opportunity.

In respect of Corbyn's Labour there has been a resounding failure to even open up a debate about what might be possible. On either option. Given that both Corbyn and McDonnell come from a long left social democrat position that has always opposed the EU on democratic and policy grounds it's even more frustrating that the best they've able to come up with is the abysmally vague and limited '6 test' strategy of Starmer.

As for the unions, with a few exceptions, they've simply collapsed into repeating the threats of the CBI/IoD/multinationals and other neo con remainers about the dangers of exit. Not one union leader has even attempted to explain how remain might have to be on different terms and how that might be achieved. Their position is simply remain. This failure is understandable if you take the view, as I do, that the capture of the EU by neoliberal economics is so complete that the EU would collapse before the nexus of relations and structures that have grown up to execute the plan could be unpicked, but they clearly don't hold that view.

It is incumbent on them, or it should be, to explain how another 50 years of EU membership might be better for their members (and millions of ex members languishing on the dole or precarious work where unions are absent) than the last 50.

As for the commentariat and thinkers around the movement there has been a deep paucity of ideas about precisely the questions and issues thrown up by the vote some of which danny la rouge has set out. In many cases they have resorted to basic lies and misrepresentations about the EU, what it is and what it does that makes their analysis barely distinguishable from Clegg and Blair.

If you wanted a better example of the collapse of the labour movement, intellectually and in terms of vision and ambition, then here it is.

From the moment the result was announced Corbyn and what's left of the labour movement could have set out a vision - either remain and reform, or a post EU social democratic future - and then spent the last two years arguing for it, explaining it, campaigning for it and counterposing it to the Tory version. If the popular impulse of ''change" had been tapped into May and the Tories would either be gone or about to go. Instead, the time has been spent passively and the field clear for the two wings of the administrative cadre of the ruling class to fight it out and there is a popular view that the two shit options they are squabbling over are the best we can do alongside attendant feelings of boredom, exasperation and a growing sense of a political class stitch up.

 

[danny la rouge]

Seems like a cop out to me. Back Brexit but none of the deals.

That’s not my position, though.

The problem with the way this has been polarised is that when people try to argue a position which rejects that polarisation as false, people can’t fit it into their model.

I tried to argue above, and throughout my contributions to the thread, as clearly as I could how I see this. But if you’re determined to have two poles, try this: I don’t back a) a neoliberal vision of the future or b) a neocon one.

Into a) goes May’s deal and remain, and into b) goes the ERC’s frothing Singapore model, or whatever it is they’re saying now.

I don’t back either neoliberalism or neoconservatism. That’s my “backing” out of the way.

Now, separately, to my analysis of why the government, parliament, has to honour the result of the referendum: because there is no good procedural reason not to.

But let’s imagine we (and I’m not sure who this is) don’t care about that. Let’s imagine the ends justifies the means: the UK just needs to get back into the E.U.; well, first those supporting that need to answer why. And then they’d need to weigh that against the probable damage. And then if they decided it was worth the risk, then they’d need to demonstrate how it could be won this time. (And not by calling people thick and racist again).

So, no, I don’t think overturning, or attempting to overturn, the outcome of the referendum can be supported.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes. Here is the frustration and the missed opportunity.

In respect of Corbyn's Labour there has been a resounding failure to even open up a debate about what might be possible. On either option. Given that both Corbyn and McDonnell come from a long left social democrat position that has always opposed the EU on democratic and policy grounds it's even more frustrating that the best they've able to come up with is the abysmally vague and limited '6 test' strategy of Starmer.

As for the unions, with a few exceptions, they've simply collapsed into repeating the threats of the CBI/IoD/multinationals and other neo con remainers about the dangers of exit. Not one union leader has even attempted to explain how remain might have to be on different terms and how that might be achieved. Their position is simply remain. This failure is understandable if you take the view, as I do, that the capture of the EU by neoliberal economics is complete and that the EU would collapse before the nexus of relations and structures that have grown up to execute the plan could be unpicked but they clearly don't hold that view.

It is incumbent on them, or it should be, to explain how another 50 years of EU membership might be better for their members (and millions of ex members languishing on the dole or precarious work where unions are absent) than the last 50.

As for the commentariat and thinkers around the movement there has been a deep paucity of ideas about precisely the questions and issues thrown up by the vote some of which danny la rouge has set out. In many cases they have resorted to basic lies and misrepresentations about the EU, what it is and what it does that makes their analysis barely distinguishable from Clegg and Blair.

If you wanted a better example of the collapse of the labour movement, intellectually and in terms of vision and ambition, then here it is.

From the moment the result was announced Corbyn and what's left of the labour movement could have set out a vision - either remain and reform, or a post EU social democratic future - and then spent the last two years arguing for it, explaining it, campaigning for it and counterposing it to the Tory version. If the popular impulse of ''change" had been tapped into May and the Tories would either be gone or about to go. Instead, the time has been spent passively and the field clear for the two wings of the administrative cadre of the ruling class to fight it out and there is a popular view that the two shit options they are squabbling over are the best we can do alongside attendant feelings of boredom, exasperation and a growing sense of a political class stitch up.

Exactly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

the government, parliament, has to honour the result of the referendum

How?

 

[Winot]

You've got to hand it to them - UK politicians have simultaneously failed to deliver a neoliberal outcome, failed to deliver a neocon outcome, and failed to deliver a socialist outcome. Everybody's equally happy.

 

[danny la rouge]

How?

What was the result?

 

[Ranbay]

121 and a 1/2 days to go!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What was the result?

No, I'm asking how they do it. The result was 'leave'. How? The terms of leaving aren't just up to the UK government or parliament. At what cost should this be done? Any cost? Should a war be fought over it if need be? What are the limits here?

This is just another version of the simplistic 'just get on with it' nonsense May is pretending everyone is telling her.

 

[Wilf]

Yes. Here is the frustration and the missed opportunity.

In respect of Corbyn's Labour there has been a resounding failure to even open up a debate about what might be possible. On either option. Given that both Corbyn and McDonnell come from a long left social democrat position that has always opposed the EU on democratic and policy grounds it's even more frustrating that the best they've able to come up with is the abysmally vague and limited '6 test' strategy of Starmer.

As for the unions, with a few exceptions, they've simply collapsed into repeating the threats of the CBI/IoD/multinationals and other neo con remainers about the dangers of exit. Not one union leader has even attempted to explain how remain might have to be on different terms and how that might be achieved. Their position is simply remain. This failure is understandable if you take the view, as I do, that the capture of the EU by neoliberal economics is complete and that the EU would collapse before the nexus of relations and structures that have grown up to execute the plan could be unpicked but they clearly don't hold that view.

It is incumbent on them, or it should be, to explain how another 50 years of EU membership might be better for their members (and millions of ex members languishing on the dole or precarious work where unions are absent) than the last 50.

As for the commentariat and thinkers around the movement there has been a deep paucity of ideas about precisely the questions and issues thrown up by the vote some of which danny la rouge has set out. In many cases they have resorted to basic lies and misrepresentations about the EU, what it is and what it does that makes their analysis barely distinguishable from Clegg and Blair.

If you wanted a better example of the collapse of the labour movement, intellectually and in terms of vision and ambition then here it is.

From the moment the result was announced Corbyn and what's left of the labour movement could have set out a vision - either remain and reform, or a post EU social democratic future - and then spent the last two years arguing for it, explained it, campaigned for it and counterposed it to the Tory version. Imagine what this might have achieved. Instead, the time has been spent sat back as the two wings of the administrative cadre of the ruling class have fought it out and there is a popular view that the two shit options they are squabbling over are the best we can do.

To me, there's no lexit to be had at the moment, regardless of whether leaving the EU opens up possibilities in the future. But equally that doesn't push me into remain or seeking to find crumbs of comfort in the EU's minimal workers rights etc. So what you say puts the focus back where it should be, the failure to develop an alternative. Corbyn/Momentum are at once less than and no more than social democrats. They feel like shades of the old Labour left, playing out things like rail nationalisation as a mere tribute act. But then there's not much else, certainly nothing about breaching the organisational boundaries of the labour party, working in communities, organising. It's this kind of stuff, what should be the basics of any kind of class politics, that's missing - it shouldn't be about choosing the 'right side' in a disconnected 'eu vs brexit' debate (as you say) because there isn't one. I'm not saying that an organised and confident labour movement should have no opinion on brexit, but that most of all it should coming to that debate as an organised and assertive movement. Otherwise, we end up with McDonnell and Corbyn simply plotting whether to intervene with referenda calls at one minute to midnight or one minute and 30 seconds to.

 

[Pickman's model]

121 and a 1/2 days to go!

jelly and ice cream on brexit day

 

[danny la rouge]

No, I'm asking how they do it. The result was 'leave'. How? The terms of leaving aren't just up to the UK government or parliament. At what cost should this be done? Any cost? Should a war be fought over it if need be? What are the limits here?

You’re doing what ska invita did above, only more so. You’re miscategorising.

I think my answer to ska is quite clear enough, and I’ve no intention of going down this rabbit hole.

 

[Wilf]

No, I'm asking how they do it. The result was 'leave'. How? The terms of leaving aren't just up to the UK government or parliament. At what cost should this be done? Any cost? Should a war be fought over it if need be? What are the limits here?

This is just another version of the simplistic 'just get on with it' nonsense May is pretending everyone is telling her.

It just isn't.

 

[ska invita]

That’s not my position, though.

The problem with the way this has been polarised is that when people try to argue a position which rejects that polarisation as false, people can’t fit it into their model.

I tried to argue above, and throughout my contributions to the thread, as clearly as I could how I see this. But if you’re determined to have two poles, try this: I don’t back a) a neoliberal vision of the future or b) a neocon one.

Into a) goes May’s deal and remain, and into b) goes the ERC’s frothing Singapore model, or whatever it is they’re saying now.

I don’t back either neoliberalism or neoconservatism. That’s my “backing” out of the way.

Sorry you do - by voting Leave during the referendum you vote for these deals. By arguing for Brexit during this referendum you back its implementation. You may not "back" them politically or ideologically, but you back them to be implemented by the party in government. You give authority for them to be enacted.
The argument was clear: its worth this happening for a greater socialist good, its worth backing a right wing led and reactionary brexit because the working class are choosing their own path etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc Why the squeemishness about it now its getting to the end game?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It just isn't.

It has to happen. The clock's ticking. It's either whatever deal can be mustered over the next few months or crashing out. That's it, even if both of those are really shit options. Cos the referendum. Like democracy ended on 26 June 2016.

That's pretty much exactly the line May is taking.

 

[Ranbay]

jelly and ice cream on brexit day

My freezer is stocked! is yours?

 

[danny la rouge]

Sorry you do - by voting Leave during the referendum you vote for these deals.

As a point of information, I must once again point out that I voted Remain.

 

[danny la rouge]

But to add to that, I'd say that the question asked was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

And an X to be put by either of the following options:

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

It did not say "Leave the European Union and become Singapore", or anything else.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

It has to happen.

It doesn't. And the odds are at the moment that it won't. Once May's deal goes down a remain supporting Parliament will require an extension for whatever comes next. As this is looking more and more likely to require a 2nd referendum (or a People's vote as it's being spun as) then I suggest this will be agreed by the EU.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But to add to that, I'd say that the question asked was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

And an X to be put by either of the following options:

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

It did not say "Leave the European Union and become Singapore", or anything else.

And there was no plan in place for how option b) would work. It isn't democracy to then say that whoever is in power at the time should have a free hand to create whatever brexit deal they want as a result of this one-line referendum.

That is a sharp point of difference from the Scottish Indy ref, for instance: the argument for the referendum was the majority in the Scottish parliament of a party with a referendum in its manifesto and a plan for how to implement the 'change' option. I would still argue there that this is not the end of the matter because the SNP's wishlist is not just up to them. It's also up to the negotiators from the rUK. But at least there was a plan there to be voted on and a group ready and democratically mandated to take on the task of attempting to follow that plan if the 'change' option is voted for. Neither of those conditions existed with the brexit vote. That is a serious democratic deficit.

 

[Pickman's model]

It has to happen. The clock's ticking. It's either whatever deal can be mustered over the next few months or crashing out. That's it, even if both of those are really shit options. Cos the referendum. Like democracy ended on 26 June 2016.

That's pretty much exactly the line May is taking.

23/6/16

 

[danny la rouge]

And there was no plan in place for how option b) would work. It isn't democracy to then say that whoever is in power at the time should have a free hand to create whatever brexit deal they want as a result of this one-line referendum.

That is a sharp point of difference from the Scottish Indy ref, for instance: the argument for the referendum was the majority in the Scottish parliament of a party with a referendum in its manifesto and a plan for how to implement the 'change' option. I would still argue there that this is not the end of the matter because the SNP's wishlist is not just up to them. It's also up to the negotiators from the rUK. But at least there was a plan there to be voted on and a group ready and democratically mandated to take on the task of attempting to follow that plan if the 'change' option is voted for. Neither of those conditions existed with the brexit vote. That is a serious democratic deficit.

I think that's a tortuous argument for the result being invalid, if that's what you're arguing*. I'm afraid you haven't made that case.

(*Apologies if that isn't what you're arguing).

 

[mauvais]

But to add to that, I'd say that the question asked was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

And an X to be put by either of the following options:

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

It did not say "Leave the European Union and become Singapore", or anything else.

Do you think it would be reasonable to have another referendum where the options were approval of one or more deals alongside effectively a 'reopen nominations' option that meant they had to try again?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

121 and a 1/2 days to go!

 

[Ranbay]

View attachment 153804

British Babies i hope!

 

[danny la rouge]

Do you think it would be reasonable to have another referendum where the options were approval of one or more deals alongside effectively a 'reopen nominations' option that meant they had to try again?

I think I've said several times that I have no objection in principle to asking for approval or disapproval of whatever deal is put on the table. I favour more rather than fewer plebiscites in principle. What I am suspicious of is the motivations of the "People's Vote" people: they don't want to find out if people support the deal, they want to overturn the 2016 result. I oppose that motivation. For the reasons I've already stated.

 

[belboid]

And there was no plan in place for how option b) would work. It isn't democracy to then say that whoever is in power at the time should have a free hand to create whatever brexit deal they want as a result of this one-line referendum.

did you not notice the General Election that followed?

 

[mauvais]

I think I've said several times that I have no objection in principle to asking for approval or disapproval of whatever deal is put on the table. I favour more rather than fewer plebiscites in principle. What I am suspicious of is the motivations of the "People's Vote" people: they don't want to find out if people support the deal, they want to overturn the 2016 result. I oppose that motivation. For the reasons I've already stated.

I ask because if this is OK, we could fairly easily have a scenario where the majority repeatedly rejected any and all Brexit implementations, which (A50 questions aside) would obviously be Remain by default without ever committing to it as such. At what point down that road would it be OK to give up on a mutually acceptable Brexit?

 

[Wilf]

If there's one fixed point in this morass of shite, it's that we leave. In the free floating venn diagram of different politics, different approaches to how to do things, it's the bit in the middle, the bit that should be clear. Not sure I like where it will take us - I have a suspicion with the organised working class being so weak that things may get worse. But that was the decision. Inventing process to overturn that decision would be the ultimate reassertion of the politics that lead to brexit in the first place.

 

[andysays]

I think that's a tortuous argument for the result being invalid, if that's what you're arguing*. I'm afraid you haven't made that case.

(*Apologies if that isn't what you're arguing).

It's what he's been arguing ever since this thread began, if not longer.

He seems not to realise that no one in the wider world cares whether or not he thinks it's invalid, but hopes that simply repeating that it's invalid over and over again will make us all wake up, as if from a bad dream, and get on with our lives as if it never happened.

 

[Wilf]

I think I've said several times that I have no objection in principle to asking for approval or disapproval of whatever deal is put on the table. I favour more rather than fewer plebiscites in principle. What I am suspicious of is the motivations of the "People's Vote" people: they don't want to find out if people support the deal, they want to overturn the 2016 result. I oppose that motivation. For the reasons I've already stated.

yep.