Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Brexit actually going to happen?

Will we have a brexit?


  • Total voters
    362
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)
I'll sidestep the issue of how one considers an EU/non-EU person as I make no such kinship distinction mentally at all. But to reverse the argument, there is no need to mention the treatment of Laotians in order to oppose the impending change in the treatment of Latvians. Saying that the fact that a Latvian who came here under one set of expectations is about to be treated in a very different way is a bad thing to be opposed in no way implies any kind of endorsement of the way a Laotian is treated.

The same goes for the freedom of movement argument. That there is not freedom of movement everywhere for everyone is not an argument against opposing the removal of a set of limited freedoms of movement that do exist.

Back in 1962 when they stripped the right to come to the UK from citizens of the Commonwealth, a similar argument could have been made that these restrictions were simply the same, or in reality still a bit better than, those imposed on non-Commonwealth people, so it's not such a big deal. That's not an argument anyone wants to be making, surely?
 
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)
Yeah that's what I said, you've got me.:facepalm:
Haven't got the energy
 
Yeah that's what I said, you've got me.:facepalm:
Haven't got the energy
I'm sorry but that is what you said, it's right there in black and white.
The article here reckons they're as important as Laotians. They're not.
Now it might not be what you meant, we've all posted a reply quickly and then realised what we've written is not quite what we meant. But it absolutely is what you wrote.
 
I'll sidestep the issue of how one considers an EU/non-EU person as I make no such kinship distinction mentally at all. But to reverse the argument, there is no need to mention the treatment of Laotians in order to oppose the impending change in the treatment of Latvians. Saying that the fact that a Latvian who came here under one set of expectations is about to be treated in a very different way is a bad thing to be opposed in no way implies any kind of endorsement of the way a Laotian is treated.

The same goes for the freedom of movement argument. That there is not freedom of movement everywhere for everyone is not an argument against opposing the removal of a set of limited freedoms of movement that do exist.

Back in 1962 when they stripped the right to come to the UK from citizens of the Commonwealth, a similar argument could have been made that these restrictions were simply the same, or in reality still a bit better than, those imposed on non-Commonwealth people, so it's not such a big deal. That's not an argument anyone wants to be making, surely?
I'd agree with all of the first and third paragraphs (though I would point out again that Timoney is not making any argument counter to this). The attacks of this government of those that have migrated from the EU are appalling, and so are the attacks on those that have migrated from outside the EU. The second paragraph I partly agree with.
 
Wren-Lewis's last point - empathy for EU migrants - probably counts a lot for a small number of people with direct personal involvement or a strong sense of ethical obligation, but it isn't a priority for most voters

I do have direct personal involvement. Like a lot of people I know. I don't know what he means by ethical obligation.

From Arse To Elbow: The Progressive Vote

A lot of this article is about the middle class. I don't find it that relevant in my context.

This analysis I do agree with:

It is now clear that some on the right and centre of the party see opposition to Brexit, and specifically the call for a second referendum, as a short-cut to their goal of defeating the left, essentially by co-opting the new membership to a "sensible" platform that combines staying in the EU with a programme of redistributive justice and public sector investment (the more fundamental issues of economic power raised by

Chatting to a New Labour ex Cllr in Lambeth that is how he sees it I reckon.
 
Last edited:
On identity.


The "question of identity" isn't really a question but a presumption, and one that trivialises actual conflicts of identity in places such Northern Ireland. For all the talk of a divided nation and ruined Christmas dinners, Britons are not being obliged to choose an identity in an environment where the consequences can be fatal.


From Arse To Elbow: The Progressive Vote

Yesterday I met my friend , originally from Northern Ireland, now in Brixton. A Remainer. Like a lot of people in Northern Ireland. So are these people like me just a minority to be dismissed as small number of people?
 
Don't be fucking stupid. Your whole reading of this piece is mental. It's not about value it's about electoral blocs. You're not an idiot.

Don't throw me over to stupid hype rhetoric.
 
just read this:
From Arse To Elbow: The Progressive Vote

on brexit and labour

Myself I don't care about Labour, not even about Corbyn the "stupid people" liar any more. So I read that article as a critique of brexit more than one of Labour. I did not like these bits...

Arse to Elbow said:
The "question of identity" isn't really a question but a presumption, and one that trivialises actual conflicts of identity in places such Northern Ireland. For all the talk of a divided nation and ruined Christmas dinners, Britons are not being obliged to choose an identity in an environment where the consequences can be fatal. Yes, an MP was assassinated in 2016, but the idea that people are taking their lives in their hands when they mention Brexit in an unfamiliar pub is ridiculous. Regarding yourself as European is an affinity, like being a liberal, rather than a socially-imposed identity, like being brought up as a Catholic or as a native German-speaker. Citizens of the UK will be no less European outside the EU than the citizens of Norway or Switzerland

Being or even feeling European is just not something anyone wants to shoot each other over. Complaining that people identifying as European (rather than just being it as a matter of fact) 'trivialises' sectarian and identarian conflicts elsewhere suggests that identity is only important when it creates conflict, not when it doesn't. So if you want to be listened to, just start shooting people. Then your struggle for identity will be one that can be trivialized, rather than just being trivial. That's fucking toxic.

Also anyway, there's and always was a strong undercurrent of I'm not European I'm British! in the leave campaigns I encountered. Not always stated explicitly but it was always there. And then again, British exceptionalism has been a key part of our 'European project' since 1975.

Arse to Elbow said:
The idea that the EU is non-ideological, that it embodies "rational argument" and implicitly the Enlightenment, is itself pure ideology.

I love this one, as if the idea Britain Knows Better isn't ideological, the whole shit show is ideological. The nation state is ideological. Representative democracy is ideological. Accepting or denying the validity of a referendum is ideological. This is the Newton's cradle analogy I made. Back and forth, tit for tat, the least meaningful thing anyone can say on the subject.

Arse to Elbow said:
Wren-Lewis's last point - empathy for EU migrants - probably counts a lot for a small number of people with direct personal involvement or a strong sense of ethical obligation, but it isn't a priority for most voters for whom empathy with Latvians is no more salient than empathy with Laotians. This doesn't make them xenophobic or callous /...

Yes, it does, and accepting in any way the notion that not having been born within the bounds of this sceptred isle makes your needs and experiences less important than ours is fucked, utterly fucked. As a matter of fact it's a major Leave argument on the left, that Fortress Europe's policies of keeping outsiders outside is thoroughly evil and ought to make any right-thinking person want to leave the EU. And yet, here are the same assumptions: Doesn't matter about Lativans because they're no more important to most people than Laotians, and that's OK because we have personal circumstances that make us vote one way and if that fucks the foreigners' personal circumstances well never mind, they're foreigners. They can just go home.

Did I misread?

And in an apparently left-wing piece ffs.

Then,

Arse to Elbow said:
To claim that empathy with migrants is a major motive is to make the classic error of assuming that what matters to activists is necessarily representative of broader social movements, ironically a criticism routinely levelled at the left. Together with the emphasis on EU patriotism, it also suggests that remainers are driven more by emotion than rational calculation, ...

People even here voted Leave in part because of sympathy with migrants - the ones being excluded from the EU and dying in camps around its margins. So what exactly is this guy's argument, that they lacked rational calculation too?

I mean, I might just stop there because this is just illustrative of the entire Brexit fuck up. It's not actually about leaving the EU, it's just about sticking it to our enemies at home.
 
Last edited:
Hey look, at least I read it. Tried to see around my prejudices, couldn't :thumbs:
I reckon I'm not alone in that though.
 
Myself I don't care about Labour, not even about Corbyn the "stupid people" liar any more. So I read that article as a critique of brexit more than one of Labour. I did not like these bits...



Being or even feeling European is just not something anyone wants to shoot each other over. Complaining that people identifying as European (rather than just being it as a matter of fact) 'trivialises sectarian and identarian conflicts elsewhere' suggests that identity is only important when it creates conflict, not when it doesn't. So if you want to be listened to, just start shooting people. Then your struggle for identity will be one that can be trivialized, rather than just being trivial. That's fucking toxic.

Also anyway, there's and always was a strong undercurrent of I'm not European I'm British! in the leave campaigns I encountered. Not always stated explicitly but it was always there. And then again, British exceptionalism has been a key part of our 'European project' since 1975.



I love this one, as if the idea Britain Knows Better isn't ideological, the whole shit show is ideological. The nation state is ideological. Representative democracy is ideological. Accepting or denying the validity of a referendum is ideological. This is the Newton's cradle analogy I made. Back and forth, tit for tat, the least meaningful thing anyone can say on the subject.



Yes, it does, and accepting in any way the notion that not having been born within the bounds of this sceptred isle makes your needs and experiences less important than ours is fucked, utterly fucked. As a matter of fact it's a major Leave argument on the left, that Fortress Europe's policies of keeping outsiders outside is thoroughly evil and ought to make any right-thinking person want to leave the EU. And yet, here are the same assumptions: Doesn't matter about Lativans because they're no more important to most people than Laotians, and that's OK because we have personal circumstances that make us vote one way and if that fucks the foreigners' personal circumstances well never mind, they're foreigners. They can just go home.

Did I misread?

And in an apparently left-wing piece ffs.

Then,



People even here voted Leave in part because of sympathy with migrants - the ones being excluded from the EU and dying in camps around its margins. So what exactly is this guy's argument, that they lacked rational calculation too?

I mean, I might just stop there because this is just illustrative of the entire Brexit fuck up. It's not actually about leaving the EU, it's just about sticking it to our enemies at home.

On xenophobic and callous; I think you are misreading it entirely. We are getting into “Why is everyone in the U.K. more upset about a terrorist attack in London when 30 people just died in a place they’ve never been to” territory here are we not? And then the inevitable- and in my opinion, very insincere- Performance Empathy that follows from that. Not prioritising the further away tragedy in comparison to something that just happened where you grew up isn’t racist, nor does it mean you don’t care about it at all, it’s just naturally not going to be at the forefront of your mind. So then in the context of going out to vote, even Less so if we are talking about people that can’t afford to feed their kids, don’t know where their next wage will come from etc... empathy with Latvians may not be prioritised over those worries.
Haveiexplainedthatright?
 
Why are we (note, we, not the state or the media whatever) seprating people into We and Latvians anyway? What purpose does that serve? I have a passport, but that's not me, it's a document I need so I can travel. I resent it, I would burn it if everyone else would burn theirs etc. Why are we accepting this assumption that there is any such thing as Latvians, Laotians, and Us?

This is way beyond Brexit though because Remain also makes these assumptions but on a bigger scale.
 
Why are we (note, we, not the state or the media whatever) seprating people into We and Latvians anyway? What purpose does that serve? I have a passport, but that's not me, it's a document I need so I can travel. I resent it, I would burn it if everyone else would burn theirs etc. Why are we accepting this assumption that there is any such thing as Latvians, Laotians, and Us?

This is way beyond Brexit though because Remain also makes these assumptions but on a bigger scale.
Oh come on! I think I’ll pass on that one :)
 
I love this one, as if the idea Britain Knows Better isn't ideological, the whole shit show is ideological. The nation state is ideological. Representative democracy is ideological. Accepting or denying the validity of a referendum is ideological. This is the Newton's cradle analogy I made. Back and forth, tit for tat, the least meaningful thing anyone can say on the subject.
Of course opposition to the EU is ideological, the difference is that it is not being presented, by Timoney or others, as non-ideological.

That simply isn't true of pro-EU/remain positions, see the Bank of England being treated as a neutral body, see the argument that political viewpoints have a truth
Peston said:
“weighing the evidence and saying on the balance of probabilities … this is the truth. It is the role of a journalist to say, ‘we’ve got these two contradictory arguments, I’m now going to advise all of you which is likely to be closer to the truth.’”
 
It wouldn't be a mistake if it was being done for the right reasons and in something approaching a rational way, but it's just not. Maybe the end justifies the means, that can definitely be argued. But as of 1/1/19 I can't see how the end is going to benefit anyone but tax-dodging millionaires around the world, so it's hard to see what justifies what exactly.

Plus also there's every likelihood that the cowardly fuckers in charge of it all will pull the UK out of the EU just far enough to lose its legal influence there, but not a step further. That will be a huge mistake.
 
In the last week we’ve had more comedy Brexit.

It’s banging! Somewhere after the easiest deal in history... Barnier laughing his way to imaginary ferry companies (oh no, is that us)

A Brexit negotiator who didn’t know about Dover. Can you imagine how dumb Brussels is! (Oh is that us again?)

Still, there German Car industry will come to our rescue. (Whoosh! The sound of an Audi in Surrey! Quieter than ever! Posting here!)

The best thing, is the bloke who put £900k into Brexit. He won! Shorted the pound off the back of supporting Taking Back Control, and got £230 million betting the the fail!

Taking Back Control.
 
On xenophobic and callous; I think you are misreading it entirely. We are getting into “Why is everyone in the U.K. more upset about a terrorist attack in London when 30 people just died in a place they’ve never been to” territory here are we not? And then the inevitable- and in my opinion, very insincere- Performance Empathy that follows from that. Not prioritising the further away tragedy in comparison to something that just happened where you grew up isn’t racist, nor does it mean you don’t care about it at all, it’s just naturally not going to be at the forefront of your mind. So then in the context of going out to vote, even Less so if we are talking about people that can’t afford to feed their kids, don’t know where their next wage will come from etc... empathy with Latvians may not be prioritised over those worries.
Haveiexplainedthatright?

The way I read it was that I'm in a minority so can be dismissed. In his view. Be a British person who is one of those who have "direct personal involvement."

Also I know a Latvian here in London.
 
Last edited:
The way I read it was that I'm in a minority so can be dismissed. In his view. Be a British person who is one of those who have "direct personal involvement."

Also I know a Latvian here in London.
That’s not what was written though. Tell me, in your view has this method of regarding everyone as racist until proven innocent worked well up until now?
 
That’s not what was written though. Tell me, in your view has this method of regarding everyone as racist until proven innocent worked well up until now?

Wren-Lewis's last point - empathy for EU migrants - probably counts a lot for a small number of people with direct personal involvement

This is what he says. As a British person with direct personal involvement that is how I read it.
 
Back
Top Bottom