UK music industry, bands, work permits and Brexit

[Wilf]

'What was it for' is a kind of non-question, particularly for people on the left. There was only ever going to be potential benefits if it had been driven by at least social democratic forces in parliament and, crucially, outside. It wasn't and Labour somehow managed to make things 10 times worse by fucking about and disengaging even further from the communities they have now lost in the election (with their preference for playing foolish parliamentary games, having just about no line on the whole thing. Right through to Corbyn's quite astonishing 'I'll re-negociate the deal but won't tell you if I'll vote for my own deal'). It's not just that wasn't a lexit, there was instead a process to pass the whole thing on to boris johnson. All the 'what was it for'/'what would you do about the border' type questions are non-questions. What could 'we' do about those things now - what could we ever do about them?

 

[elbows]

I'll wait and see exactly what deals and arrangements they manage to set in stone before the wheels fall off their political project. A lot of the detail will drag on for years, and I cannot predict dramatic events.

If they dont manage to get everything stitched up before they are a spent force, then there is still potential for other political forces to use brexit for their own ends in future.

 

[Steel Icarus]

Yeah, it's arguably both too late to keep complaining about the FACT of Brexit and also too early to see what damage it does to this latest bunch of wankers in charge. Brexit, let's not forget, has already brought down two governments.

 

[Wilf]

Yeah, it's arguably both too late to keep complaining about the FACT of Brexit and also too early to see what damage it does to this latest bunch of wankers in charge. Brexit, let's not forget, has already brought down two governments.

Agree with all that, though the fact that it's already done for May (twice) probably reduces the willingness of tory MPs to rebel over any coming disasters. Anyway, they've got the parliamentary maths on their side now. As you say, daft to predict anything at this point, but I also don't see Labour getting their shit together or making themselves relevant to working class communities any time soon.

 

[ska invita]

Brexit, let's not forget, has already brought down two governments.

that's one way of looking at it...or another is that it has twice transformed the previous one into a more right wing and electorally successful incarnation.

 

[kabbes]

“What was it for?” is itself a question that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of those who voted for it, I feel. It supposes that the default position should be to be in the EU and that good reasons must be found to justify coming out of it. But those on the opposite side of the debate feel the exact opposite to this. For them, not being in the EU is the default and they are expecting to hear good arguments before they will be persuaded to alter this default. What they hear about easier trade and travel is clearly not enough to justify tying themselves politically and legally to other nations.

 

[scifisam]

And still the old "they didn't know what they were voting for"

Of course they didn't. How could anyone possibly have known what they were voting for when even now we still don't know what leaving the EU actually entails? Even right now we don't know important things like what level of freedom of movement there will be once the transition period's over.

It's got nothing to do with intelligence - it's literally impossible for anyone to have known what they were voting for or against when it came to what leaving the EU would be like. People voted on general principles, not based on sound knowledge about what would happen.

I mean, if you're claiming you knew four years ago whether or not there'll be freedom of movement then you know more than anyone involved in the actual negotiations.

 

[sim667]

I mean, if you're claiming you knew four years ago whether or not there'll be freedom of movement then you know more than anyone involved in the actual negotiations.

TBH it was clearly obvious there wasn't going to be..... so you can say "it was impossible to know" until you're blue in the face, but be honest, everyone knew, it was what the leave vote was largely driven by.

 

[scifisam]

TBH it was clearly obvious there wasn't going to be..... so you can say "it was impossible to know" until you're blue in the face, but be honest, everyone knew, it was what the leave vote was largely driven by.

I don't think that's true. Full freedom of movement, sure, we all knew that was going to stop and it's one of the reasons some people voted for it, for varying reasons, but we still don't know what extent of freedom of movement will be permitted after the transition period.

I don't see how anyone can say people voted for or against Brexit knowing what leaving the EU would be like. Nobody knew, and that's a factual statement. Remainers didn't know what leaving would be like, either, and still nobody knows, because we're still in the transition period. Brexiters didn't really know what they were voting for when choosing to leave the EU, and remainers didn't know what they were voting against when choosing not to leave the EU. It wasn't purely down to the vile lying campaigns either, it's just that it's a novel situation.

 

[Marty1]

Of course they didn't. How could anyone possibly have known what they were voting for when even now we still don't know what leaving the EU actually entails? Even right now we don't know important things like what level of freedom of movement there will be once the transition period's over.

It's got nothing to do with intelligence - it's literally impossible for anyone to have known what they were voting for or against when it came to what leaving the EU would be like. People voted on general principles, not based on sound knowledge about what would happen.

I mean, if you're claiming you knew four years ago whether or not there'll be freedom of movement then you know more than anyone involved in the actual negotiations.

Great article from 2018 which outlines why leaving the EU was always a necessity as basically the U.K. would have been absorbed into a federal EU of pure shit.

Columnists | Express.co.uk

Express columnists. The Daily Express and Sunday Express columnists among them Ann Widdecombe, Vanessa Feltz, Frederick Forsyth. Opinion and analysis from columnists

www.express.co.uk

 

[scifisam]

Great article from 2018 which outlines why leaving the EU was always a necessity as basically the U.K. would have been absorbed into a federal EU of pure shit.

Columnists | Express.co.uk

Express columnists. The Daily Express and Sunday Express columnists among them Ann Widdecombe, Vanessa Feltz, Frederick Forsyth. Opinion and analysis from columnists

www.express.co.uk

No, that's theory about what remaining might have been like, posted by someone writing for the Express.

Nobody knew what leaving would be like. The referendum was rushed through by Cameron because he was so confident remain would win. If it had been planned properly for longer, with more information available, then even if the vote went the same way we would have been in a better position to negotiate the deal, because the people who actually do the negotiations would have had time to prepare.

That's not the way it worked because politics doesn't work like that these days. It's not like there's ever been a halcyon time where everything worked well, but our current governments are particularly shit.

 

[Marty1]

No, that's theory about what remaining might have been like, posted by someone writing for the Express.

Nobody knew what leaving would be like. The referendum was rushed through by Cameron because he was so confident remain would win. If it had been planned properly for longer, with more information available, then even if the vote went the same way we would have been in a better position to negotiate the deal, because the people who actually do the negotiations would have had time to prepare.

That's not the way it worked because politics doesn't work like that these days. It's not like there's ever been a halcyon time where everything worked well, but our current governments are particularly shit.

Well, this could be debated till the cows come home but the reality now is - we’re out and it’s already starting to hurt the EU without our sizeable membership fee - none of the remaining countries want to pay more to the EU budget to make up for the deficit.

The next questions should be:

Which country is next to gtf out?

And - when will the EU finally disappear up its own arse?

 

[kabbes]

People who voted remain — and I was one — also didn’t know what they were voting for. The EU has evolved rapidly and continues to do so. We have no idea what the EU in five years time will look like and what they will expect of their members.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

“What was it for?” is itself a question that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of those who voted for it, I feel. It supposes that the default position should be to be in the EU and that good reasons must be found to justify coming out of it. But those on the opposite side of the debate feel the exact opposite to this. For them, not being in the EU is the default and they are expecting to hear good arguments before they will be persuaded to alter this default. What they hear about easier trade and travel is clearly not enough to justify tying themselves politically and legally to other nations.

That's not the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is what is it for, as in what is this, the thing that is happening, for. And to those who want this thing, this thing that is actually happening, if they can't give an answer to that question, why do they support it? And I ask that really specifically to those who support it from a l/w perspective, because the idea that they object on some basic gut level to the UK tying itself politically and legally to other nations isn't a l/w position that I recognise. It's a nationalist position. What do they say to those being fucked over by the process of this Tory-led brexit, this thing that is actually happening? What justification do they give that makes it worth it?

 

[Humberto]

That's not the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is what is it for, as in what is this, the thing that is happening, for. And to those who want this thing, this thing that is actually happening, if they can't give an answer to that question, why do they support it? And I ask that really specifically to those who support it from a l/w perspective, because the idea that they object on some basic gut level to tying themselves politically and legally to other nations isn't a l/w position that I recognise. It's a nationalist position. What do they say to those being fucked over by the process? What justification do they give that makes it worth it?

Because people vote for more rights? More say, rather than become a hostage to fortune without their say. Seems sensible.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because people vote for more rights? More say, rather than become a hostage to fortune without their say. Seems sensible.

That's what this is for? This tory-led brexit is for more rights? That's not sensible. It's quite mad.

 

[Humberto]

That's what this is for? This tory-led brexit is for more rights? That's not sensible. It's quite mad.

I know. The world is mad and getting madder. That didn't start on Brexit vote day. They've just given a landslide to the Tories.

 

[scifisam]

People who voted remain — and I was one — also didn’t know what they were voting for. The EU has evolved rapidly and continues to do so. We have no idea what the EU in five years time will look like and what they will expect of their members.

Yep. The reason I said that people who voted "not to leave" weren't informed about what leaving really entailed, is because leaving was the issue, really, and none of us of any persuasion were well-informed about that. Once we're out, we're out, but a remain vote could have left the door open to another referendum, in like you say, five years' time.

 

[Proper Tidy]

That's not the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is what is it for, as in what is this, the thing that is happening, for. And to those who want this thing, this thing that is actually happening, if they can't give an answer to that question, why do they support it? And I ask that really specifically to those who support it from a l/w perspective, because the idea that they object on some basic gut level to the UK tying itself politically and legally to other nations isn't a l/w position that I recognise. It's a nationalist position. What do they say to those being fucked over by the process of this Tory-led brexit, this thing that is actually happening? What justification do they give that makes it worth it?

Because the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic and is run by an unelected executive, with succession of one member state weakening the EU and european capital as a whole to the benefit of european - and wider - labour, sounds a fairly left wing position to me

 

[kabbes]

That's not the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is what is it for, as in what is this, the thing that is happening, for. And to those who want this thing, this thing that is actually happening, if they can't give an answer to that question, why do they support it? And I ask that really specifically to those who support it from a l/w perspective, because the idea that they object on some basic gut level to the UK tying itself politically and legally to other nations isn't a l/w position that I recognise. It's a nationalist position. What do they say to those being fucked over by the process of this Tory-led brexit, this thing that is actually happening? What justification do they give that makes it worth it?

What do you think it’s for? And you’re not allowed to say “don’t know” because people voted in their millions for it, and clearly they had something in mind when doing so.

 

[kabbes]

Yep. The reason I said that people who voted "not to leave" weren't informed about what leaving really entailed, is because leaving was the issue, really, and none of us of any persuasion were well-informed about that. Once we're out, we're out, but a remain vote could have left the door open to another referendum, in like you say, five years' time.

Remaining was also the issue. There were two choices on the paper. None of us were well-informed about that choice either. You think that in five year’s time when the EU had started something new, we’d be given another vote? And another in 10 years? And so on? No, this was it for 40 years. Decide now whether you want to be in the EU or out for it for the rest of your life and you don’t know what either option will entail.

There is a horrendous myopia to thinking that only one side has to justify its vote otherwise the other side is the default. It’s myopic because others will agree but have the opposite view as to what that default is.

 

[scifisam]

Remaining was also the issue. There were two choices on the paper. None of us were well-informed about that choice either. You think that in five year’s time when the EU had started something new, we’d be given another vote? And another in 10 years? And so on? No, this was it for 40 years. Decide now whether you want to be in the EU or out for it for the rest of your life and you don’t know what either option will entail.

There is a horrendous myopia to thinking that only one side has to justify its vote otherwise the other side is the default. It’s myopic because others will agree but have the opposite view as to what that default is.

Yes, I do think it would have been possible to have another referendum at some point. There's going to be another Scottish independence referendum, after all. (Not sure when, but it won't be long).

I assume your second paragraph isn't directed at me, since I'm really not doing that at all.

 

[kabbes]

There is no way on earth there was going to be another EU referendum had remain won this. Not for at least 25 years.

 

[Pickman's model]

No. That is a total misrepresentation of what I said. I am asking directly what people think this process, this thing that is actually happening, is for. You might know what it is you voted for. Presumably it wasn't this. I would sincerely hope so. Maybe, just maybe, you might reflect that perhaps you made a bit of a miscalculation back in 2016.

Very sadly, I think the majority who voted tory last year had a very good idea of what they were voting for. Fucked up state we are in.

the majority did not vote tory. you're always doing this, failing to understand what's actually happened. unless - and i don't rule this out - you think 42% of a 66% turnout is a majority.

 

[editor]

Pushing through a non binding vague referendum as a means of political survival and asking people to vote on something that no one could have the slightest clue what the fuck it all meant is another thing I'll never forgive the Tories for. Just about the only definite pledge from the Brexit mob was all that lovely money that was supposed to be cascading into the NHS once we left and that turned out to be a bag of lies.

 

[Wilf]

Pushing through a non binding vague referendum as a means of political survival and asking people to vote on something that no one could have the slightest clue what the fuck it all meant is another thing I'll never forgive the Tories for. Just about the only definite pledge from the Brexit mob was all that lovely money that was supposed to be cascading into the NHS once we left and that turned out to be a bag of lies.

I think you could argue Cameron should have built in a second vote on the agreement (which might have been between leaving on a deal or leaving on no deal, or some further configuration). Doing that would have got rid of much of the shite we've seen in the last 4 years and may have given voters more choice in terms of what kind of brexit they wanted. But there was no way it could be retrofitted without leavers (legitimately) calling foul. In terms of your points about brexiteers lying, that's pretty much par for the course when it comes to politicians and elections. Equally, it was never the case that they were committed to any of the shite they came out with. Neither leave nor remain were formal parties standing for election. Yeah, politicians on both sides lied and continue to lie. But the inescapable point is still that Leave won.

 

[killer b]

There isn't in reality any such thing as a non-binding referendum. Surely the result of the general election proved that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What do you think it’s for? And you’re not allowed to say “don’t know” because people voted in their millions for it, and clearly they had something in mind when doing so.

You still haven't really grasped what I'm saying, have you?

But for a significant number of those who voted for the tories last year, Brexit is for keeping out foreigners. That was Johnson's pitch, and it worked. Never mind that there is no convincing evidence that such people form any kind of majority. Even if they did, of course, that wouldn't automatically make them right, but the political project currently under way is that which was given energy by and claims legitimacy from the referendum result. And anyone who thought any other kind of brexit that wasn't an exercise in immigrant-bashing was ever on the cards is frankly a fool.

 

[killer b]

It probably could have been on the cards tbf. If the anti-brexit lot had got behind Labour's soft brexit plan it could have got over the line one way or another.

 

[scifisam]

Kabbes, I disagree - there's no reason it would have been forever. But we'll never know now.

It probably could have been on the cards tbf. If the anti-brexit lot had got behind Labour's soft brexit plan it could have got over the line one way or another.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the remainers.