Bollocks to Brexit

[ransos]

Or.....let’s forget about reforming the EU. The relevant question is: are we better as a full member out out of it? At this time, that’s the only thing that matters. Murdoch, Dacre and the Barclay brothers have been using cultural hegemony to shape the views of the masses to be anti-EU. From my perspective it’s a huge con-trick to benefit a few of the elite.

They have, but that's only part of the equation. I don't recall any Labour or Conservative government, in my lifetime, making a persuasive case for the EU. On the contrary, they have mostly been apologetic: keen to talk up the rebate, or concessions on a particular directive, rather than how ordinary British citizens benefit from membership. Given that successive government have seemed content for us to dip our toes in, rather than immerse ourselves, it's perhaps not surprising that the anti-EU press have been so bold.

[Iris]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... al-reality

I think I agree. Within the rather narrow confines of choosing not to pursue a crossparty approach and choosing not to accept an existing model and choosing not to approach the negotiations in a spirit of trying to get the best for both sides I think May has got the best deal possible. Obviously I hope that we find a way through to not-leave (or rejoin as soon as possible), but I have a very grudging respect for where she's got to.

[JohnToo]

Or.....let’s forget about reforming the EU. The relevant question is: are we better as a full member out out of it? At this time, that’s the only thing that matters. Murdoch, Dacre and the Barclay brothers have been using cultural hegemony to shape the views of the masses to be anti-EU. From my perspective it’s a huge con-trick to benefit a few of the elite.

I get that the immediate (and existentially serious) issue facing the UK is simply EU or not EU.

But:

“X is better that the alternative of not-X.
Therefore the only thing that matters is to achieve X.
Therefore criticism or questioning of X is a dangerous distraction.”

X could be continued membership of the EU. But X could also have been electing Tony Blair. It’s a dangerous state of mind to get into.

Plus, as I said upthread: if we get a third referendum, winning it is not a foregone conclusion. If we are to persuade people to vote remain, we have at least to hear and understand the valid reasons people have for not liking the EU which were part of the reasons for Brexit.

[LowlifeDes]

A lot of people voted leave in order to stick two fingers up to the government, to establishment, to a society that has ignored them and their needs for ever. Those issues are not going to be addressed, let alone fixed, any time soon.

[JohnToo]

I suspect that the structures don't need too much tweaking - Parliament needs strengthening and given the formal authority to do what it has the informal right to do and propose legislation, but that's almost it. The results of those structures might need more work.

....

I think what is needed goes far further than that. It includes tackling the culture of the commission (which in turn requires thinking about the sort of people who make it up, which won’t happen by accident and needs structural change), it requires thinking not just about allowing parliament to institute policy but more generally where policy does originate from, it requires thinking about the whole three-way (or five if you include the council of the regions etc) commission/parliament/council split which I think adds to the sense of inevitable momentum and lack of accountability and clarity. It requires tackling the way lobbying happens (which may require thinking about geographical location). But it also requires fundamental thinking about how far the aims of the EU require common economic approaches (think Greece, Ireland etc) which I agree is only partly structural.

[JohnToo]

A lot of people voted leave in order to stick two fingers up to the government, to establishment, to a society that has ignored them and their needs for ever. Those issues are not going to be addressed, let alone fixed, any time soon.

Agreed. And in part they saw the EU as being part of that establishment that has ignored their needs, rather than being on their side. As Ransos says, in part they think that because no UK government has dared present a positive case for the EU. In part they think that because it’s partially true.

[Rocky]

I get that the immediate (and existentially serious) issue facing the UK is simply EU or not EU.

But:

“X is better that the alternative of not-X.
Therefore the only thing that matters is to achieve X.
Therefore criticism or questioning of X is a dangerous distraction.”

X could be continued membership of the EU. But X could also have been electing Tony Blair. It’s a dangerous state of mind to get into.

Plus, as I said upthread: if we get a third referendum, winning it is not a foregone conclusion. If we are to persuade people to vote remain, we have at least to hear and understand the valid reasons people have for not liking the EU which were part of the reasons for Brexit.

The difficulty in addressing their concerns is when they turn out to be fantasies. For example ‘the EU isn’t democratic’, ‘the EU never did anything for the UK’, ‘ free movement of labour depresses wages’, ‘the EU caused the Greek economic crisis’. There’s a whole host of negative unfounded accusations about the EU spread by the right wing media and politicians. To start with, I’d argue, we need some truth and a little more critical thinking on behalf of the public.

[The Real Ravenhurst]

I suspect that the structures don't need too much tweaking - Parliament needs strengthening and given the formal authority to do what it has the informal right to do and propose legislation, but that's almost it. The results of those structures might need more work.

Also, your periodic reminder that "democratic" is not the opposite of "right wing/corporatist dominated". People, time and time and time again have supported right wing parties who represent the interests of corporates. The best parties have recognised that those interests can easily be aligned with the interests of the people - because corporations are run by people, employ people and owned by people. And I don't just mean the superwealthy.

[Edit]
And if we're talking about political and structural reform, don't we have a rather more urgent task at home? Local government is a neutered dogs breakfast of impotent, often corrupt petty fiefdoms, the government of the nations and regions is variously obsessed with nationalism, unable to function because of entrenched positions, underpowered and in the case of the largest part of the country utterly absent, while national government has been pushed by party interests and a voting system that renders many of us irrelevant into a sea of short-term jockeying. And that's without talking about the world's second largest legislative chamber, which is also among the world's least accountable.

It won't surprise you if I say that I don't agree with very much of this (except for a lot of the later edit). I don't really think that corporations are just collections of people at all. For those who believe that the purpose of government is just to balance the needs of markets and corporations with the rights of workers and citizens and the need to safeguard the environment, it goes without saying that the EU looks like an essentially benign entity that takes both parts of that seriously and arguably isn't doing a bad job of it. It's also probably just about democratic enough for what it does - as you rightly identify, too much democracy and you run the risk that people will start having ideas about what it is that government should actually do and who should be a part of it, rather than just getting to choose between different flavours of executive which might tilt the balance in one direction or the other. But of course it's always one direction and not the other, and if you're on the sharp end of it it's not so much a tilt as a baton across the kidneys.

And yes, people often choose obviously obnoxious right-wing demagogues over centrist* managerial types, competent or otherwise. Understandably, in my view - they have the better stories. It doesn't help to insist that these are the only two options, and those of us who don't want the first will just have to swallow the second.

*I suspect you don't like that word - I don't use it, in this instance, to provoke, but because I think 'moderate' is a misnomer and 'liberal' is ambiguous. I'm open to alternatives. Whatever you call them, I think it is, to put it mildly, not their moment.

[Dunckel]

So the document Mogg published today is called " Fact not Friction". That title clearly means nothing but it invites readers to interpret the line as 'fact not fiction', so suggesting that May's agreement is built on lies without actually stating it, and never having to back up the claim. Standard slight of hand and sliminess.

[ransos]

Apparently, technology will solve border problems. I must've imagined the long queues of road freight as I crossed from Germany to Switzerland last summer.

[Rocky]

Apparently, technology will solve border problems. I must've imagined the long queues of road freight as I crossed from Germany to Switzerland last summer.

Words of wisdom from the Prof (Mrs R): If a solution is inherently impossible without a new IT system, it will still be impossible despite a new IT system.

[Iris]

It won't surprise you if I say that I don't agree with very much of this (except for a lot of the later edit). I don't really think that corporations are just collections of people at all. For those who believe that the purpose of government is just to balance the needs of markets and corporations with the rights of workers and citizens and the need to safeguard the environment, it goes without saying that the EU looks like an essentially benign entity that takes both parts of that seriously and arguably isn't doing a bad job of it. It's also probably just about democratic enough for what it does - as you rightly identify, too much democracy and you run the risk that people will start having ideas about what it is that government should actually do and who should be a part of it, rather than just getting to choose between different flavours of executive which might tilt the balance in one direction or the other. But of course it's always one direction and not the other, and if you're on the sharp end of it it's not so much a tilt as a baton across the kidneys.

And yes, people often choose obviously obnoxious right-wing demagogues over centrist* managerial types, competent or otherwise. Understandably, in my view - they have the better stories. It doesn't help to insist that these are the only two options, and those of us who don't want the first will just have to swallow the second.

*I suspect you don't like that word - I don't use it, in this instance, to provoke, but because I think 'moderate' is a misnomer and 'liberal' is ambiguous. I'm open to alternatives. Whatever you call them, I think it is, to put it mildly, not their moment.

I think there's a lot of misrepresentation (deliberate or otherwise, I don't know) of what I'm saying in this post - the disease of responding to what you think the poster is saying rather than what they are saying is apparently an irrepressible virus.

To take things in turn - if corporations aren't just collections of people, what are they? Unless you posit some sort of sentient intelligence (which is just unicornism as bad as the ERG's) any human institution is just a collection of humans. Certainly there are emergent properties which are less than benign or even harmful - but the solution necessarily involves some sort of human intervention.

Quite who is supposed to believe that "the purpose of government is just to balance the needs of markets and corporations with the rights of workers and citizens and the need to safeguard the environment" I don't know. The purpose of government is to provide as good a life as possible for as many of the people as possible for as long as possible.

[edit] I can almost stretch from the short-hand I wrote about right-wing government who "represent the interests of corporates" to some of that, but only almost. Because "represent the interests of corporates" is short-hand for something like "represent the interests of the owners of capital and the managers of corporates who have done well out of managing corporates". Which is quite different. And quite how a market is supposed to have needs is utterly beyond me. A market is a mechanism of exchange. It is a tool. Hayekians spout bollocks like "markets want to be free" - but that's (a) bollocks and (b) clearly a metaphor.[/edit]

I'd quite like to know where I identify that "too much democracy and you run the risk that people will start having ideas about what it is that government should actually do and who should be a part of it, rather than just getting to choose between different flavours of executive which might tilt the balance in one direction or the other", because to the best of my knowledge that's a sentiment I've never expressed. I'm all in favour of people having ideas about what it is that government should actually do and who should be a part of it. What I'm against is people who declare that only what they claim to be democracy is actually democracy - because that's fundamentally anti-democratic.

I'd also quite appreciate an explanation of who, where, has claimed that there is a choice only between obnoxious right-wing demagogues and moderate/centrist/liberal types. Clearly there is also a choice of left-wing leaders - and you can decide for yourselves whether they tend to be, or individual examples are, benign or obnoxious or completely and utterly clueless or unbelievably wonderful. There is also clearly a choice of leaders who choose to derogate authority downwards completely (although I've never yet known a situation in which that's actually held for very long), and a choice of leaders who are simply pragmatists who look for what works (although, again, that doesn't tend to be very successful for very long).

As for whether it's the moment for moderates - it's certainly true that at the moment the spread of opinion is broader than it has been for a while. But the centre of gravity, and the mode of the distribution of opinion in democratic countries is still basically somewhere in the middle. May is a classic moderate on the right, and isn't doing nearly as badly as some people thought she would. Corbyn and McDonnell (and it's McDonnell who's the real leader - Corbyn is merely the front man) are both authoritarians towards the left, but still quite a long way towards the centre, who have performed (temporarily, I suspect) the remarkable feat of gaining the support of right-wing protectionist unions as well as left-wing populist and internationlist grassroots organisations. A truly left-wing leadership wouldn't feel the need to try and persuade the managers of capitalism that they were actually benign, and certainly wouldn't have supported tax cuts.

[Iris]

And if the previous post sounds too negative - that's not my intention. I recognise there is a spread of reasonable opinion. But I remain convinced that the world is very complex. Any solution presented as simple is therefore likely to be wrong, wherever it comes from on the political spectrum.

[Dunckel]

[Rocky]

IMG_20181125_165011.jpg

The Prof has had her say: