Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Pickman's model]

Norway plus or whatever it's called doesn't mean genuine free movement, it means 'free movement' as defined by the neo liberal terms of the EU within the EU and EFTA and excluding those from outside the EU

yeh, which is what 'free movement' within the debate about the eu, leaving the eu and that. lots of things mean different things in different contexts. i don't know why this should surprise you.

 

[Pickman's model]

i'm happy with "free movement" personally, and would be happy with Norway over May's deal.

may's deal is dead in the water.

 

[ska invita]

And I think it is. I still don’t back it.

Labour Party doesnt have the luxury to rise above it all like that - they have to make a choice, walk through corridors and vote (aka "back"), debate a position on TV etc, and that's what we're discussing, particularly why they aren't doing so with conviction.

 

[Pickman's model]

Labour Party doesnt have the luxury to rise above it all like that - they have to make a choice, walk through corridors and vote (aka "back"), debate a position on TV etc, and that's what we're discussing, particularly why they aren't doing so with conviction.

don't know why you expect politicians to have principles, after all the evidence to the contrary

 

[andysays]

...yes, we've done this over and over, but we know what it means in terms of a Norway style deal, which is the context.

You appeared to be pointing to some kind of distinction between Norway+ which you equated with 'free movement' and the May deal, which you equated with 'no free movement'.

I don't think it's actually meaningful or accurate to distinguish between them in that way.

 

[andysays]

yeh, which is what 'free movement' within the debate about the eu, leaving the eu and that. lots of things mean different things in different contexts. i don't know why this should surprise you.

And I don't know why you think it does surprise me, TBH

 

[danny la rouge]

Labour Party doesnt have the luxury to rise above it all like that - they have to make a choice, walk through corridors and vote (aka "back"), debate a position on TV etc, and that's what we're discussing, particularly why they aren't doing so with conviction.

You’re conflating several things. Can’t be bothered teasing them all out right now.

But foremost, I’m not “rising above” anything. Saying I don’t support something means exactly that. That I don’t support it. I can discuss things I don’t support. I do it all the time on here.

Secondly, you seem to have assumed that I have said Labour should support “Norway plus”. I didn’t. I did agree that they should call Theresa May on the fact that immigration wasn’t on the referendum ballot paper. I think littlebabyjesus said she should be called on that. I agreed and suggested Labour should be doing at least some of the calling. (Which they won’t because they’re in a big mess over immigration and have been for years).

But it’s a big jump to say that necessarily means anything at all about “Norway plus”. I didn’t say it did, and it doesn’t.

 

[andysays]

There still seems to be an assumption running through many of the posts on this and other threads that we are all obliged to choose between two and only two options as set out by someone else - Leave (on the terms of the most extreme Brexiteers) or Remain, Deal or No Deal, and most recently May's Deal or an imagined Norway Plus Deal.

Debate at this level is about as meaningful as a choice between I'm a Celebrity and Strictly Come Dancing - I'm not watching either and I don't see why we should accept the simplistic terms of the debate that are presented to us.

 

[brogdale]

There still seems to be an assumption running through many of the posts on this and other threads that we are all obliged to choose between two and only two options as set out by someone else - Leave (on the terms of the most extreme Brexiteers) or Remain, Deal or No Deal, and most recently May's Deal or an imagined Norway Plus Deal.

Debate at this level is about as meaningful as a choice between I'm a Celebrity and Strictly Come Dancing - I'm not watching either and I don't see why we should accept the simplistic terms of the debate that are presented to us.

Or, indeed, that the 'choice' actually represents a meaningful choice in the context of a late capitalist/neoliberal base.

 

[teqniq]

If true, and I imagine it's all too likely, how have they have still managed to be so completely inept?

Theresa May spokesman sparks fresh suspicion of British ‘spying’ on EU officials

 

[Fez909]

Sam Gyimah resigns over Theresa May's Brexit deal

 

[xenon]

Can someone tell me what is "plus" about "Norway plus"? I know this means I am using urban as a cheap way for me to find out stuff but hey, that's what you're all here for, right?

It is a bit like Canada plus . I.e. irrelevant brain fart somethings wankers like Boris Johnson can lucratively fill articles with.

 

[xenon]

Let’s have Lichtenstein plus plus plus to the power of nine

 

[ska invita]

There still seems to be an assumption running through many of the posts on this and other threads that we are all obliged to choose between two and only two options as set out by someone else - Leave (on the terms of the most extreme Brexiteers) or Remain, Deal or No Deal, and most recently May's Deal or an imagined Norway Plus Deal.

Debate at this level is about as meaningful as a choice between I'm a Celebrity and Strictly Come Dancing - I'm not watching either and I don't see why we should accept the simplistic terms of the debate that are presented to us.

Did you feel that way when the Brexit referendum was being campaigned for? I felt similar and didn't vote. On reflection there was a degree of cop out there. I wanted to avoid the terms of the debate too. But reality went on despite me.

I heard a lot of charged arguments on here to vote, with all manner of insults and insinuations on top. At that point there was an assumption running through many of the posts that the choice was crucially important, yet now there's nothing meaningful about it? Sounds like a duck out to me at the point where it becomes a question of facing the reality.

These possible outcomes, that you now say are as important as shit TV shows were what were always on the table, what was always the subject of the vote, and each permutation will have a potentially massive impact, at least on some peoples lives - sounds like not on yours, good for you.

 

[Raheem]

Let’s have Lichtenstein plus plus plus to the power of nine

Then take away the country you originally thought of...

It's weird, but you always end up with EU membership or something pretty much the same, whatever you do.

 

[redsquirrel]

PP is the biggest enabler of and biggest brake on changes to working conditions in the UK. Until the current model is disrupted or eclipsed this will continue to be the case and the range of possibilities will be strictly limited as a result.

No it's not. The post-war consensus was not brought about because of the Labour Party but because of the strength of the workers (hence why we see the similar behaviour across the "the west" under both red and blue governments).

They're not the same thing, and clearly top-down directed left wing politics isn't working either. But if you expect some hypothetical WC resistance to automatically go in a leftwards direction, rather than the many other possibilities, then as I said you've got an inflated sense of the left's position. That's not necessarily tangible organisation & leadership but ideas and presence in any kind of discourse. It's not a prerequisite for a fight but it might be a prerequisite for an outcome that isn't, as just one example, factional nationalism.

What HoratioCuthbert said. I'm not that interested in the left (certainly not if all it means is the Labour Party), I'm interested in increasing the power of workers. And the last sentence indicates that for all your claims you don't trust in the WC. That for you, as for so many others on this thread, they need to be guided, led, taught to follow the correct path.

There is a division here but it's not between Leavers and Remainers, it's between those that see the working class as the only agent that can truly change things. And those that, following the Fabians, believe that the working class cannot be trusted, and thus shouldn't be trusted.

 

[mauvais]

No it's not. The post-war consensus was not brought about because of the Labour Party but because of the strength of the workers (hence why we see the similar behaviour across the "the west" under both red and blue governments).

You're talking about 20th century origins, I'm talking about now. I think you shouldn't underestimate the difference - not least, post-disaster vs post-Thatcher. I wouldn't assert that this is irreversible or an immovable obstacle, but it does need to be acknowledged. You're also perhaps misinterpreting my point to be one of how PP (the Labour Party) brought us to where we are now, which is not what I'm arguing at all. It's merely that PP has, after arriving at that point, become the dominant force for either change or lack of it.

What HoratioCuthbert said. I'm not that interested in the left (certainly not if all it means is the Labour Party), I'm interested in increasing the power of workers. And the last sentence indicates that for all your claims you don't trust in the WC. That for you, as for so many others on this thread, they need to be guided, led, taught to follow the correct path.

There is a division here but it's not between Leavers and Remainers, it's between those that trust the working class and those that fear it.

I do think that, but it's not fear as such and it's not exclusive to the WC in some patronising form, it's just people. Most people of whatever class look for leadership and lean heavily on the ideas and work of others, most people are malleable. It's just as much true of the Guardian reading stereotype as the WC one. Unless we're willing to reboot to neolithic times, it's inevitably thus. And so again when a vacuum is produced, something will fill it, and if you don't want it to be e.g. Yaxley Lennon, there had better be a workable counter. Is there one? This is what I'm on about. Now it's not a binary: you might argue that the fundamentals are already imbued in our history, and they don't need leadership to revive them, and you might be right, but I'm not automatically convinced.

 

[Pickman's model]

If true, and I imagine it's all too likely, how have they have still managed to be so completely inept?

Theresa May spokesman sparks fresh suspicion of British ‘spying’ on EU officials

If they knew all that how did they manage to still negotiate a pile of pony deal?

 

[redsquirrel]

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.

At my workplace we can elect people to committees are you really going to claim that that makes mine (or any other) workplace democratic or that it's workers have a real input into the decisions? Sorry but this is crazy.

National elections in representative democracies are themselves a farce, but now you're arguing that an institution that is specifically designed to remove any democrat control is reformable.

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.

And again back to party politics. And while the LP may have moved back towards some milk and water social democracy it's councils are still attacking workers. If it did get into power it will still attack workers.

As to WTO, IMF, WorldBank, these are clearly impossible to "reform". And I guess the difference is democracy.

The WTO/IMF/World Bank is ultimately formed by its members, and those are primarily chosen through elections. You're own arguemnet for the EU applies to all these organisations too, you've literally just argued they are democratic and reformable.

The fact is that you are so keen to defend what the EU calls "freedom of movement" that over the last two years you've been willing to come out with positions which are not just regressive but actually incoherent and contradictory. Seriously just take stock of where you, someone who calls themselves a socialist, has ended up - arguing for free trade agreements, arguing at the same time that people must vote to keep fascists out and that such a vote indicates support for Neo-liberalism, arguing that the German Greens are left wing.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm about to go out and I'll respond to the rest in more detail but

I do think that, but it's not fear as such and it's not exclusive to the WC in some patronising form, it's just people.

By working class I don't mean C2DE I mean those who's labour is exploited, i.e. the majority of the population.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm interested (genuinely) in why mauvais thinks parliamentary (or party, whatever PP stands for now) politics is now the main force for and check on change. What has changed to make this happen?

I don't think there has been such a change but I'm open to persuasion. From where I'm standing the balance of forces has shifted a fair bit but its still about class struggle. I see the main force for change at the moment as 'the markets' (so capital) and politicians as pretty much powerless to stop or alter it. Just as when labour (note the small l, it's not always about parties) had the upper hand they were forced into changes that cohered with the balance of forces back then.

Can't quote sorry, on my phone and I'm a technophobe who can't figure that shit out.

 

[gentlegreen]

 

[mauvais]

I'm interested (genuinely) in why mauvais thinks parliamentary (or party, whatever PP stands for now) politics is now the main force for and check on change. What has changed to make this happen?

I don't think there has been such a change but I'm open to persuasion. From where I'm standing the balance of forces has shifted a fair bit but its still about class struggle. I see the main force for change at the moment as 'the markets' (so capital) and politicians as pretty much powerless to stop or alter it. Just as when labour (note the small l, it's not always about parties) had the upper hand they were forced into changes that cohered with the balance of forces back then.

Can't quote sorry, on my phone and I'm a technophobe who can't figure that shit out.

In a word, Thatcher. A gross oversimplification, obviously, but that era effectively destroyed natural (e.g. monolithic industrial workplaces) and constructed (e.g. unions) sources of solidarity, ushered in fragmented individualism across our daily lives and knocked the very idea of class, both Marxist and socio-economic, out of the public discourse. I've never known any different, personally.

None of the above is an absolute and nor is it a linear path to total destruction but it's hardly the picture of good health.

So I wouldn't say that PP has become stronger as such, but that the alternatives have gone so it becomes the only recourse. There's yet to be a recovery and reforming of old, large-scale ideas of solidarity to fit the modern landscape. So we see a gov.uk petition or a food bank collection at Tesco instead of organising or a general strike.

This is happens beneath the relationship between government/state and capital, so absolutely capital is the fundamental driver of change, but the discussion has been about how that's handled, mitigated, suppressed or whatever.

 

[butchersapron]

The biggest crisis in PP since '73 - as real crisis of political legitimacy. The things that you mention are not examples of PP - talking endlessly about the positions of parliamentary politicians is. See this shitty thread for that particular cretinism.

And your levels are wrong - capital is driven by this 'other stuff'. It doesn't drive it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Sam Gyimah resigns over Theresa May's Brexit deal

Cleverly timed to have the least possible impact on anything. We've got a canny one here folks.

 

[SpineyNorman]

In a word, Thatcher. A gross oversimplification, obviously, but that era effectively destroyed natural (e.g. monolithic industrial workplaces) and constructed (e.g. unions) sources of solidarity, ushered in fragmented individualism across our daily lives and knocked the very idea of class, both Marxist and socio-economic, out of the public discourse. I've never known any different, personally.

None of the above is an absolute and nor is it a linear path to total destruction but it's hardly the picture of good health.

So I wouldn't say that PP has become stronger as such, but that the alternatives have gone so it becomes the only recourse. There's yet to be a recovery and reforming of old, large-scale ideas of solidarity to fit the modern landscape. So we see a gov.uk petition or a food bank collection at Tesco instead of organising or a general strike.

This is happens beneath the relationship between government/state and capital, so absolutely capital is the fundamental driver of change, but the discussion has been about how that's handled, mitigated, suppressed or whatever.

I don't understand why you think any of that demonstrates a primacy of parliamentary politics. Its incoherent to the point that I don't really know how to respond.

 

[mauvais]

I don't understand why you think any of that demonstrates a primacy of parliamentary politics. Its incoherent to the point that I don't really know how to respond.

If you can't manage more than that, then there's no point bothering with this, is there. You asked.

 

[redsquirrel]

You're talking about 20th century origins, I'm talking about now. I think you shouldn't underestimate the difference - not least, post-disaster vs post-Thatcher. I wouldn't assert that this is irreversible or an immovable obstacle, but it does need to be acknowledged. You're also perhaps misinterpreting my point to be one of how PP (the Labour Party) brought us to where we are now, which is not what I'm arguing at all. It's merely that PP has, after arriving at that point, become the dominant force for either change or lack of it.

Sorry but like butchers and Spiney I find the idea that there is some break point in the 70s/80s where parliamentary politics became the "dominant force for change" wrongheaded.

I do think that, but it's not fear as such and it's not exclusive to the WC in some patronising form, it's just people. Most people of whatever class look for leadership and lean heavily on the ideas and work of others, most people are malleable.It's just as much true of the Guardian reading stereotype as the WC one. Unless we're willing to reboot to neolithic times, it's inevitably thus. And so again when a vacuum is produced, something will fill it, and if you don't want it to be e.g. Yaxley Lennon, there had better be a workable counter.

(my emphasis) You've pretty much just made my argument. You don't trust the power of the workers, or if you prefer people. You do see the need for somebody to lead/guide them to the correct path.

This is the split I mentioned. I think history shows the very opposite - that the greatest gains made by labour have arisen from our own self-organisation and that the attempt of groups to guide/lead labour has at best stymied such gains, at worse resulted in attacks on the working class.

Edited to add:

so absolutely capital is the fundamental driver of change,

What BA said, this is the wrong way around.

 

[Winot]

By working class I don't mean C2DE I mean those who's labour is exploited, i.e. the majority of the population.

If the majority of the population has the same interests in common then democracy is the answer.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Sorry but like butchers and Spiney I find the idea that there is some break point in the 70s/80s where parliamentary politics became the "dominant force for change" wrongheaded

I'd actually go further and say any change since then has been in the opposite direction. What's happening in the brexit negotiations shows that.