Is Brexit actually going to happen?
- Thread starter Kaka Tim
- Start date
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
A very poor article if I may say so. Talks about 'principles of democracy' which are not followed by the EU without setting out what they are, no discussion of how the setup varies from a typical nation state one (surprise surprise UK Parliament doesn't sack ministers or governor of BoE either). Maybe we should elect e.g. heart surgeons to solve the 'democratic deficit' there?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
You may.
There are, of course, many more detailed articles on the democratic deficit of the EU (eg. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00650.x ) but I really was hoping that a pro-EU poster would be able to support the notion that the EU is "arguably more democratic" than its member states.
Yet you have no suggestion what.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It isn't quite a question of 'we don't need the banks' (although we absolutely don't, not in their current configuration - they're part of the problem). The point is that the assets of the banks - their loans - could and should have been nationalised for good in 2008. Banking for people rather than banking for bankers - a remutualisation of the system. This is still desperately needed, but the opportunity to do it easily has passed. Now the forces of capital have regathered so such a thing becomes very hard to do even with the political will to do it. There was an option to do it in 2008 - a rare moment when politicians were not merely business managers, when they had real choices about what to do.
I take mauvais's point about fundamentals, but how fundamental is a sector that needs 100s of billions of pounds to be printed to shore it up? How much of that 'fundamental' is in fact a mirage of fictitious capital in the shape of asset price bubbles? The financial sector isn't quite as dominant in the UK economy as some think it is - manufacturing is still bigger. It is dominant in one place - London. How would London cope if the financial sector shrank? Fewer pointless skyscrapers. Far cheaper housing, space to rent for community activities, etc. A bunch of rich bankers no longer there - what kind of loss is it when these people often work huge long hours and contribute the square of fuck all to their local communities outside that? No more billionaire oligarchs buying up whole streets as an investment. Boohoo. Before the latest finance bubble in London, back in the 1990s, the city was a far easier and nicer place to live in a great many ways for most people. It really would be no loss not to have these fuckers around. Yes, a few coffee shops would close, some buildings wouldn't be built, but then, as is regularly pointed out on this thread, London has largely needed to import workers from the EU to fill these vacancies. And in any case, a job market isn't zero-sum - with the bankers gone, other things would open up in the newly vacated spaces. The city would have a chance to renew itself in a non-gentrification manner, in a way that does not push all but the richest out into the margins. Lose a bit of tax? Base rate goes back up a bit perhaps. But if you're paying hundreds less per month in rent/mortgage, you're still way better off. We're being ripped off by the rich at the moment. And the idea that we need their taxes is laughable - if they take 100 pounds from you and pay 45 pounds of it back in tax (ha! it'll be way less than that of course once their accountants have been through it), that still leaves you 55 pounds out of pocket.
philosophical
Well-Known Member
I don't know about nicer and fluffier, or kinder or fairer, there exists those downsides, which are inherent downsides in the domestic system too. It is a matter of preference.
One of the upsides of being oppressed by the wider EU establishment, rather than oppressed by the UK establishment, is the opportunity to be oppressed in 28 countries rather than be confined to just this one.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Oh I can suggest things. Social housing building programmes underwritten by the QE money. Local authorities/ housing associations authorised to borrow against that money on long-term mortgages to build new, high quality, and importantly top of the range eco-wise housing. The rents paid pay off the mortgage over time, thus destroying the money that's been printed and removing any inflationary pressure from it, loads of builders get work, loads of people get a place to live. At the end of the process you have great new housing, loads of people with affordable homes and a bunch of assets in the form of buildings owned communally.
You could hold national architecture competitions to come up with the new designs. Involve everyone in the process. All kinds of possibilities just with that one idea, and there are plenty of others. Moving to a low-carbon economy requires investment and that investment is not forthcoming from market forces alone.
This is not pie in the sky - it's not only easily doable, it's the very easiest way to solve the UK's current housing crisis. Both the easiest and the best way to do it. It's a no-brainer. Or it would be if we had a government that didn't put the interests of the rich first. Nah. Let's build another pointless skyscraper instead, eh?
Last edited:
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Services to the Welsh language.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Out-fucking-standing.
So people who fly a lot and then use their mobiles whilst jet setting are better off under the EU, yet the racist ingrates of the UK still voted out.
If only someone like you had mentioned these wonderful benefits of EU membership before the great unwashed were given their (undeserved) vote.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Yep, and for Cornwall and similar places use all those holiday homes that nobody lives in for 50 weeks of the year. And other buildings that are being left empty, just compulsorily purchase them. Plus rent control again.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yep, and all that. The main point wrt redirecting investment is the move away from the absurd, extremist, false dogma that 'the market will provide'. The market will provide maximum returns for capital, not maximum good for people. In the case of housing, that maximum return for capital is produced by perpetual shortage, as with any essential, finite resource. It is crazy, irrational thinking to contend otherwise.
Not particularly sure how to link this back to brexit, except to say that brexit does nothing to push us away from this extremism. In Europe at least, the UK has been the prime driver of the extremism for decades, and has taken it much further than anywhere else. We have a low-tax, low-provision economy (34% GDP in tax compared to 40%+ in most other northern European countries except Ireland, which is also low-tax, low-provision), a much smaller public sector than most, massive economic inequality, low social mobility, bulging prisons, and a worsening crisis for the poor and in social provision for, well, everyone except the very richest. The real conversation ought to involve ways to move away from this and, frankly, towards a model that is closer in many respects to those of many other European countries, which would be a pretty good start. Leaving the EU produces pressures to continue even further down the extremist path by empowering those who nakedly seek a race to the bottom and a hire-em-fire-em US-style economy - the kinds of wankers like Liam Fox who imagine the UK as the bridge between the US and Europe. Brexit means many different things to many different people, but we all know what it means to the pro-brexit wing of the tory party, which may be about to be handed a very significant win.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
The Blair Labour government brought in the minimum wage that doesn't mean that it wasn't neo-liberal. The fact that capital may be forced to accede to (or will even willing endorse) regulations that some business owners* may oppose is not counter to neo-liberalism.
It is illuminating, and entirely in character, that the two supposed examples of EU acting against capital you've chosen** are based on people as consumers, as individuals. The actions of the EU on people as workers, as a social group are ignored.
*and business owners does not equal capital, I would have thought such someone so shit hot on economics as yourself would understand this.
**neither of which are "clearly negative" to capital.
They did. That's why Leave won.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Who are the "unwashed"?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I've lived in London for years but Plymouth is my home town. My brother is still there. A Remainer in area where Brexit won vote.
When I was growing up there rich Londoners bought houses in South west. Local population were reduced to service industry for them in countryside. I know I did that for a while. It was resented quietly. Class is an issue in countryside.
In seventies when I grew up in Plymouth the largely working class population in Docklands all had relatively good jobs in hindsight. I go back there now and it looks poorer. And it is. Child poverty rate in Devonport is obscenely high.
Revealed: Shocking rates of child poverty in Plymouth
Child poverty rate where I grew up is now almost 40%.
Plymouth is divided spatially by class. Always was. My and my brother grew up in blue collar Docklands. That area voted Leave. Plymouth is one of the left behind areas.
My brother ( faced possible redundancy several times recently) and wife work in public sector. Only thing that keeps town like Plymouth going.
As my brother realises its not EU that is the problem its years of Tory government. And New Labour didn't do much either.
Me and brother see part of reasons why people vote leave. But it was wrong target.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Shit, I forgot that workers don't take flights - too busy taking care of their pit ponies or something.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
Workers are also consumers. If you are considering whether the EU is a good thing, it is a little silly in my view to focus solely on the impact of one dimension of their lives.
Really not interested in debating semantics and dick sizing over how you define words btw.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Your individualistic view of people perfectly encapsulates your politics and why it is every bit as regressive and anti-worker as the ERG, UKIP, etc.
Defence Secretary outlines expansionist British nationalist military project; Australia and NZ etc will be looking to the UK for leadership. Defence Secretary accused of ‘naked ambition’ over plans for new military bases - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk
Dangerous lunatics at the heart of government, or just more the same by the British state?
Dangerous lunatics at the heart of government, or just more the same by the British state?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
There should be a Brexit bollocks thread and this ^^ could be the op
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
Just sending a message to the core voters.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Those nasty wacists that voted the wrong way.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Nice, following up with a sneer at the millions of Britons for whom a sojourn to foreign parts is not even on their radar.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Desperate to erect this straw man to stop any criticism of brexshit.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Talk me through it.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
It's just posted to get a reaction. Not that I would know about that kind of thing
ska invita
back on the other side
A few thing I didn't like about that piece but this stands out particularly strongly to me
Its not about Latvians being equal to Loatians, that's a false but telling equivalence.. it's about people legally living in the UK, who may not be British passport holders but have full citizens rights, and are defacto British Citizens.... They're not migrants, they're people who have at one time migrated, but they're now in practice UK citizens.
And to not care about fellow citizens IS callous, at best. How can it be otherwise? Unless they're considered always just Latvians, always Other, always a step from being kicked out. Not real Brits.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
You put words in people's mouths, then argue against them, to try and stop any criticism of brexshit.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
This is a very strange argument.
For a start it is not correct to say that people who have migrated from the EU to the UK have full citizens rights, for example many will not be entitled to vote in a GE.
But more importantly your argument makes legality and citizenship the basis on which empathy should be extended. So what about those migrants that aren't UK citizen's, either de facto or de jura, that may have entered the country illegally? Are they to be extended a lesser degree of empathy?
EDIT: You've also misread Timoney's argument he states
and goes onto say (in the same paragraph as the one you've quoted)Timoney said:
Timoney" said:
Last edited:
ska invita
back on the other side
They have my solidarity and are part of the same legal national unit I live in (the UK), so of course I care about them as much as anyone else affected by the jurisdiction of our parliament and the outcome of my voting decisions on them.
The article here reckons they're as important as Laotians. They're not. My vote does not affect the people of Laos. And to think they are shows up the mental distinction between real Brits and foreigners/migrants.
But I must be that little weird minority troubled by "ethical obligation". Or I'm someone who doesn't start off classifying people from the EU as migrants with less of a right to be here.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Jesus. I'm actually amazed that you can come out with the above. That EU migrants are more "important" than other migrants. You think this is internationalism? FFS.
This is more of the regressive politics you've tied yourself to by dying at the stake for the supposed freedom of movement designated by an neo-liberal supra-state.
(And as I've mentioned in the edit above you've totally misinterpreted Timoney's argument)
This is more of the regressive politics you've tied yourself to by dying at the stake for the supposed freedom of movement designated by an neo-liberal supra-state.
(And as I've mentioned in the edit above you've totally misinterpreted Timoney's argument)
Similar threads
