<sigh> You put it better than I could but yes, I get convinced by Leave arguments very regularly but always come back to this. The tiny crack that might open on the left sometime in the future or the huge and very visible chasm on the right, full of slimy things with fangs. <sigh>
Must be a distinction between disruptions due to capital's own failures and a check to one of.its projects by the exercise of democratic rights, however flawed the process.
I tend to take the view that the devil is already here. Its why Labour can't get me to vote for them using the same tactic. 'oh but the tories will' they are and would do anyway. And so would you but slower
I have no real argument with that, I think your prediction is as good as any (although, offtopic, I'm somewhat doubtful the boundaries will really be reorganised, too many vested interest turkeys would have to vote for christmas).
Why would there be new elections? Cameron goes, a new person - probably Johnson - takes over. There is precedent, such as Thatcher ousted, that didn't lead to elections, even before fixed terms.
just been reading this post on the other thread and although I don't agree with the idea that abstention is nobheadish, the right to vote includes the right not to and a plague on both yer houses is valid. But I thought it made some good points.
Except that there are now fixed terms. You can't just call an election when you want - there's now a procedure, one that would likely prove fatal to the sitting govt. And Major didn't call an election, neither did Brown, neither did Callaghan. Changing PM mid-term, either voluntarily or through some kind of internal coup, was well-established even before fixed terms, for govts with small, large or non-existent majorities.
So you limp into the election and lose it. You can't call an election without first undermining your own administration and admitting crisis. What govt would do that?
yes thats the fourth horseman, the threat of penury and the bonfire of workers rights. Well, as before the tories are bulling through an anti union bill. Has the EU spoken up for the rights of workers here? The financial crash that is predicted to be on the way by worried heads in articles I've read won't be because of leaving the EU. It'll be because none of the things that caused the last crash were rectified. Certainly not the bizarre revolving door where any regulatory body for the financial industry shares its staff with the companies it regulates. So really, we've done two horsemen. Next one up should be War I think. Thats how every remain argument has gone, when all else has failed to convince talk about war.
A leave vote is likely to make things harder, not for certain but more than likely. A lot of jobs are involved in export, of which 40% goes to EU countries, and inward investment could dry up or go into reverse with jobs following, depending on the settlement with the EU that might eventually be reached. Neither Leave nor Remain can be certain what would happen on a Leave vote because it is uncharted territory.
ask belboid, its is phrase. I see it, after all the arguments as a fuck you- not you personally-to the business and political class who want to keep screwing me and mine. Plus, I don't believe the lies about immiseration, the new hitler arising or any of the other guff.
I'm abstaining but I found this amusing (apologies if it's already on one of the 111 pages)
What kind of spanner, and where in the works? Which bits of capitalism are disrupted, and with what consequences for them and the rest of us? I agree with newbie on this - there's way too much vague hand-waving over this, and I'm afraid your 'spanner in the works' is just as vague as anything else.
I too would like to know the answer to this.
mm, I don't think it is, you know. There is something to be said for it, but that'll have to wait till I'm not at work.
I think the original phrase queried was "disruption to capital" not "disruption to capitalism" which aren't necessarily the same thing.
I think it is worse than that. The Blairites, Labour establishment and media are all geared up to blame Corbyn if there is a Brexit. It will be their green light to challenge him. Plus Labour, Greens, Lib Dems and Plaid will all be associated with a massive defeat. Cameron will be gone. The Tories will not want an election because they do not want to risk Farage's UKIP calling the shots in a hung parliament. UKIP would be best placed to gain seats in an election with labour and Tories in disarray. UKIP will also benefit from a message of"betrayal" on the subject of immigration whatever the referendum result and subsequent new Tory leader. If Brexit leads to economic turmoil- as I type the Stock Markets have just plunged based on latest polling tending to Brexit - the media/establishment narrative likely to be "safety/stabilisation" and punish the losers - ie new Tory leader "getting a grip" rather than election uncertainty. However if things get really grim the Boris/Gove govt could call an election with the intended result of getting UKIP inside the tent pissing out. Grim
it would cause massive disruption. Not least cos we'd have to have another reff, altho you disagree that that would happen as per our discussion the other day. But even if an exit was honoured it'd be ages fucking around and tory infighting. I'm failing to see the downsides. And nobody trot out the horsemen again, I've read the arguments on horseback and they are scary but like revelations, not true. As to the question of how the w/c take advantage of that spanner, well, I don't have all the answers, but I do know what the EU are, how they operate and what current conditions are for change. IE non existent. Projects dead.
apols I must have got you mixed up with whover wrote it
