Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

I happen to believe, to quite a large degree, the relentless persuit of neoliberalism by the EU for 30 years is precisely the cause of all this anger, hate, resentment and frustration. And therefore leaving it would help. There is precisely zero chance of reforming the EU, after all. It's baked in with Maastricht and Lisbon, and virtually impossible to undo.

And I respect your view.

I however don't think you can turn the clock back in a global economy, unless all the countries do it (and they won't)

[Lancasterclaret]

I totally agree. It was Lancaster that incorrectly lumped them together. I just wondered if - in the interests of consistency - he would continue to lump them together after the Euro elections, too.

Course, because you know they will both do badly again.

I don't think you are joining the dots here.

I wanted a deal, but its clear we won't get one because of zealots who think stuff that has been comprehensively destroyed everywhere (not just on here)

So its going to be between "No Deal" and "Remain".

Lab lose more by backing "No Deal" (loads more) while the Cons lose more by backing "remain" (loads more)

So at some stage both are going to have to make that decision.

[If it be your will]

.

[SmudgetheClaret]

Enjoy your celebration but all that proves is what everyone already suspected: Brexit voters are a bit thick.

Maybe but also as we suspected remain voters are a bit (a lot) anti-democratic..forget the EU elections bring on the GE the Brexit party will smash it and I think you know it...

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

No, no, no. That's wrong. In a General Election I'll be voting for Corbyn whatever the hell he does with Brexit. That's far more important to me than Brexit evr was (even though I know his 2017 manifesto might as well be used to line the litter tray if we're still in the EU - most of it cannot be enacted under EU rules).

The bit about Corbyn ever winning an election, though. Yes, I fear you might well be correct.

You don't have to worry about the 2017 manifesto, as Lab didn't win.

2022 manifesto will be a lot more interesting.

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't see having a global economy and the pursuit of relentless neoliberalism as the same thing, though. I see them as very separate things, in fact. That's been the problem all along: framing anyone that dislikes the EU as insular, anti-European, and anti-world and therefore stupid (or in my case a 'weird Lexiter'). It doesn't wash.

I bet I'm every bit as 'pro-European' as you are. I like Europe more than I do Britain! (Can even you claim that?) I just don't like the EU, which is a purely political construct. One that is basically Thatcherism on steroids - for ever.

Like both! But the EU will change if the voters want it to. And it will.

[nil_desperandum]

Maybe but also as we suspected remain voters are a bit (a lot) anti-democratic..forget the EU elections bring on the GE the Brexit party will smash it and I think you know it...

Don't know how many times it needs repeating,but:
With our FPTP system UKIP will struggle to get any seats. Even if they get an unrealistic 30% of the national vote.

[aggi]

You are a resident of the capital Aggi, would Lab have lost badly if there had been local elections there last night?

I doubt it. I think the lib dems and greens would have probably taken a bit out of them but not to the same extent as happened in a lot of the country.

[If it be your will]

.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Brexit: Behind Closed Doors - BBC4 tonight. Catch upon IPlayer.

Crikey. I always knew the EU Parliament’s Brexit Steering Group was a contemptible bunch of arrogant wine swilling sods but this programme’s fly on the wall has shown them to be even worse than I thought.

No doubt this will add a further 5% onto Farage’s vote when the word gets out, because it is the waverers in the middle who will be disgusted by it.

They are of course cleverer than May’s team and this programme proves it. But it also shows some things that some of us have long insisted on - that the Irish border is a political creation, that they view us as a colony, that the EU plan on trapping us in for longer than the transition period (joked about over a glass of wine by Guy and his pals), that they think May lies to them.

Inflammatory is an understatement.

[AndrewJB]

Brexit: Behind Closed Doors - BBC4 tonight. Catch upon IPlayer.

Crikey. I always knew the EU Parliament’s Brexit Steering Group was a contemptible bunch of arrogant wine swilling sods but this programme’s fly on the wall has shown them to be even worse than I thought.

No doubt this will add a further 5% onto Farage’s vote when the word gets out, because it is the waverers in the middle who will be disgusted by it.

They are of course cleverer than May’s team and this programme proves it. But it also shows some things that some of us have long insisted on - that the Irish border is a political creation, that they view us as a colony, that the EU plan on trapping us in for longer than the transition period (joked about over a glass of wine by Guy and his pals), that they think May lies to them.

Inflammatory is an understatement.

I'm hard pressed to believe we watched the same documentary. By all means give us some detail that illustrates your point.

What I took away from it was: It shows how much more open and democratic the EU is (in this case at least) than Britain. The film follows the EU Parliament's Brexit steering group after the referendum, and you can plainly see the tension (from their perspective) between themselves and the Commission - but it remains so that they have a substantial amount of say in what is negotiated. All we have by comparison is a select committee, that can ask questions but has no role in deciding the direction of travel. We have a government that has tried to run the negotiations by themselves, and are disunited, whereas the EU have managed unity from twenty-seven different countries, and between the commission and parliamentary sides.

It shows how Theresa May told them she believed a deal would be struck on withdrawal, and on future trade relations within two years (we know she told the UK public this, but I didn't think she actually believed it), so just how staggeringly unprepared we were.

And it shows that despite Britain's attempt to divide them, the EU countries seem more inclined to stick together - especially with Ireland.

Just going back to Crosspool's points, were they arrogant? Wine swilling - fine, but then I don't see the big issue with that. When you consider how bellicose the British press were being, and also many government ministers - David Davis'; "I'll just tickle their bellies and they'll roll over for us" kind of talk, I'm surprised they weren't more adversarial. You are incorrect that they joked about trapping us in the transition period forever, because no such arrangement had yet been agreed. And I didn't see the Irish border question as being at all just political. Bear in mind the documentary showed Verhofstadt actually travelling to Ireland to see things for himself. I thought the EU took the issue more seriously than Rosindell, who is filmed saying basically: "It's your problem"

Looking forward to the second part tonight.

[summitclaret]

Change UK can't get a logo approved and now aren't fielding a candidate for the Peterborough bye election. Assume they are scared of being battered by the brexit party and the Lib undems.

[AndrewJB]

Brexit: Behind Closed Doors - part two was another fascinating, though depressing insight. I know that it's been edited down from probably hundreds of hours of footage, but a definite narrative emerges, and one that works with the facts as we here can understand them.

[Lancasterclaret]

That's the problem, it won't. It simply can't. The EU Commission's primary responsibility is to uphold the treaties of the EU, namely Maastricht and Lisbon. The only conceivable way we can even begin to undo things like the Third Energy Package, the Fourth Railway Package, Public Procurement Rules, and State Aid legislation (all of which logically follow the treaties) would be to revoke Maastricht and Lisbon. This requires unanimous agreement of 28 countries, all simultaneously electing left wing governments. It will never, ever happen.

The principle difference between Thatcher and the EU is that we at least had a 5-yearly opportunity to vote Thatcher out. Whereas Maastricht and Lisbon last forever. Even if the EU Parliament was heavily left wing, they would still still powerless to control the EU commission, whose duty is to uphold the treaties. 'Remain and reform' is so obviously a myth, from any practical perspective, I can't believe it was ever used as a rallying cry. It's a total lie.

The only practical way to escape Maastricht and Lisbon is to leave the EU, and if we sign May's wretched deal, we're not even unilaterally allowed to do that anymore, either.

(Edit - ah, f*** it. I've gone and talked myself into voting for the Brexit Party again...)

That isn't true though is it?

You are effectively saying that the EU can never change, and that its impossible to change it. In the nicest possible way, that is the stuff that Farage and UKIP trot out.

If enough countries, MEPs and the voting populations want it to change, then it will do.

[AndrewJB]

That's the problem, it won't. It simply can't. The EU Commission's primary responsibility is to uphold the treaties of the EU, namely Maastricht and Lisbon. The only conceivable way we can even begin to undo things like the Third Energy Package, the Fourth Railway Package, Public Procurement Rules, and State Aid legislation (all of which logically follow the treaties) would be to revoke Maastricht and Lisbon. This requires unanimous agreement of 28 countries, all simultaneously electing left wing governments. It will never, ever happen.

The principle difference between Thatcher and the EU is that we at least had a 5-yearly opportunity to vote Thatcher out. Whereas Maastricht and Lisbon last forever. Even if the EU Parliament was heavily left wing, they would still still powerless to control the EU commission, whose duty is to uphold the treaties. 'Remain and reform' is so obviously a myth, from any practical perspective, I can't believe it was ever used as a rallying cry. It's a total lie.

The only practical way to escape Maastricht and Lisbon is to leave the EU, and if we sign May's wretched deal, we're not even unilaterally allowed to do that anymore, either.

(Edit - ah, f*** it. I've gone and talked myself into voting for the Brexit Party again...)

I think you're giving too much of a 'free market' reading of all of this, and ignoring the huge degree of wriggle room we actually have. The party I belong to - the Greens - would never be so pro-remain if remaining meant they could never deliver on their own manifesto (which is fairly similar to of Labour when it comes to trains, power, and so on).

In 2008 the government threw massive cash injections into the financial services sector - and not to all the companies equally, but more to specific ones. An industry which the EU acknowledge us as the leading member, and I can't recall a single hand held up against this under the rules you note above. When it comes to rail, we already subsidise it by four times what the government did under British Rail. The franchises are time limited, so our government could cut subsidies hugely before the next auction, and then take it over.

If the EU has a neo liberal tendency within it, we need to stay and help address the balance.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Elizabeth]

Voting populations wanting change - now why hasn't anyone thought of that before. Sounds honourable and straightforward, what could go wrong

[Lancasterclaret]

Once you've read about the roles, obligations, and democratic accountability of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council, it's impossible to see a realistic pathway to fundamental change.

If you think my conclusion is incorrect, you'll have to clearly explain that pathway for it to have traction. Saying "It will do" and calling me Farage simply isn't good enough. So what is your step-by-step plan to reform the EU? Does it involve revoking Maastricht and Lisbon? Disbanding the EU Commission? Handing legislative proposal power to the European Parliament? Go on, what? And how will it come to pass?

Remainers have spent 3 years mockingly screaming at Brexiters "SO WHERE'S YOUR BREXIT PLAN????" Okay. So where's the plan for the 'remain and reform' ticket that millions voted for? I've never seen one. There isn't one. It can't be done.

Of course there are ways, but it does depend on what sort of timescale you are prepared to give it. It took a long time to get to Maastricht, and then a long time to get to Lisbon. it would take a long time to get to somewhere else, but its perfectly possible.

If you genuinely believe that its impossible (reform AND Lab plans 2017) then fair enough, but I've read enough on both to think that you are wrong.

[If it be your will]

.

[Greenmile]

"Of course there are ways"
"I've read enough on both to think you are wrong"

Not really the step-by-step EU reform plan I'm looking for. I need something meatier, something like "Here is how we go about revoking an EU treaty" or "This is the path to curtailing the power of the (unelected) EU commission"

Something like that. Can you point me to something of this nature?

Do you believe that the EU has fundamentally changed from the trading bloc we joined in the 70s? Almost every brexiter - and most remainers - I speak with say this is the case.

If so, you can’t also believe that the EU is incapable of fundamental change.

Your request for specific pathways is a little beyond me, I’m afraid, but surely you can see the logic of the above.

[Lancasterclaret]

"Of course there are ways"
"I've read enough on both to think you are wrong"

Not really the step-by-step EU reform plan I'm looking for. I need something meatier, something like "Here is how we go about revoking an EU treaty" or "This is the path to curtailing the power of the (unelected) EU commission"

Something like that. Can you point me to something of this nature?

What exactly do you have in mind?

[aggi]

I think you're giving too much of a 'free market' reading of all of this, and ignoring the huge degree of wriggle room we actually have. The party I belong to - the Greens - would never be so pro-remain if remaining meant they could never deliver on their own manifesto (which is fairly similar to of Labour when it comes to trains, power, and so on).

In 2008 the government threw massive cash injections into the financial services sector - and not to all the companies equally, but more to specific ones. An industry which the EU acknowledge us as the leading member, and I can't recall a single hand held up against this under the rules you note above. When it comes to rail, we already subsidise it by four times what the government did under British Rail. The franchises are time limited, so our government could cut subsidies hugely before the next auction, and then take it over.

If the EU has a neo liberal tendency within it, we need to stay and help address the balance.

I can't remember the exact situations but the UK government certainly had to make some amendments to its aid to banks in order to get it past the EU. Wasn't that the reason that TSB was spun off from Lloyds for instance?

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

It's gone like this: Rome 1957 > Maastricht (1992) > Lisbon (2007) with each building on the last.

The second two of these are what concreted in the neoliberalism. For ever. They were conceived and implemented in an age when everyone assumed the markets had all the solutions. They are virtually impossible to undo. I suppose a shift even further towards the belief in free markets with another treaty building on the existing ones is possible (though very unlikely, considering the continent-wide EU sceptisism since the 2008 crash), but to actually undo, and take a step back towards something approximating to EEC, is practically impossible. These treaties were designed to be permanent, the only way out is to leave.

Now they are practically impossible. You are shifting!

The possibility is there though, which is the main thing

[aggi]

I've just been looking at the candidates for the Euro elections and realised how far downhill UKIP have gone. They were clearly courting the extreme vote when they thought it was a good idea to recruit Tommy Robinson and they've decided to carry that even further with their candidates.

I can see the vast majority of their vote being cannibalised by the Brexit Party with only the far right wingers going with UKIP.

[Greenmile]

It's gone like this: Rome 1957 > Maastricht (1992) > Lisbon (2007) with each building on the last.

The second two of these are what concreted in the neoliberalism. For ever. They were conceived and implemented in an age when 'everyone' assumed the markets had all the solutions. They are virtually impossible to undo. I suppose a shift even further towards the belief in free markets with another treaty building on the existing ones is possible (though very unlikely, considering the continent-wide EU sceptisism since the 2008 crash), but to actually undo, and take a step back towards something approximating to EEC, is practically impossible. These treaties were designed to be permanent, the only way out is to leave.

So the EU has fundamentally changed, but it is “practically impossible” to fundamentally change the EU? Is that what you’re saying?

[Lancasterclaret]

I've just been looking at the candidates for the Euro elections and realised how far downhill UKIP have gone. They were clearly courting the extreme vote when they thought it was a good idea to recruit Tommy Robinson and they've decided to carry that even further with their candidates.

I can see the vast majority of their vote being cannibalised by the Brexit Party with only the far right wingers going with UKIP.

Good article on this on twitter.

UKIPs existence has made the Brexit Party seem less extreme, which is hoovering up Conservative votes and even some Labour ones.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status ... 4493425669" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

I've just been looking at the candidates for the Euro elections and realised how far downhill UKIP have gone. They were clearly courting the extreme vote when they thought it was a good idea to recruit Tommy Robinson and they've decided to carry that even further with their candidates.

I can see the vast majority of their vote being cannibalised by the Brexit Party with only the far right wingers going with UKIP.

UKip seems popular in Padiham though, so it clearly resonates with some people.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

On this page I've used "impossible to see a realistic pathway" "Practically impossible" and "The only practical way is to leave" I actually thought I'd been careful in my choice of words.

Yes there is a way. As far as I can tell, one single way: All 28 nations simultaneously elect Eurosceptic parties. Then suddenly anything is possible. The chances of that are not zero, but close to zero. Massive majorities in 27 countries would not be enough. Nor would an EU parliament where 100% of MEPs were rampant Corbynistas, or 100% Boris's. The treaties are far too resilient for that to be enough.

No, I was being flippant so I apologise.

But we are back to the evolving of the EU to what it is now. It won't stay that way.

And its a long term thing, it always has been.

I fully respect your views btw because you've based it on evidence based research (rare enough on here!) and I fundamentally disagree with them.

I just hope that whatever happens, we are still a member of it (or have rejoined)

[If it be your will]

.

[Greenmile]

Practically impossible to change it back, yes. For that you need to revoke Maastricht and Lisbon. Any suggestions?

Yes - here’s a suggestion. Let’s not give up our place at the table where decisions are made. How’s that sound?

Edit - here’s another suggestion. Let’s not vote for far-right parties in the hope that this will somehow help us implement left-wing policies.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yes - here’s a suggestion. Let’s not give up our place at the table where decisions are made. How’s that sound?

Edit - here’s another suggestion. Let’s not vote for far-right parties in the hope that this will somehow help us implement left-wing policies.

This is the one thing that I can't agree with ITBYW on. At all. Its so, so dangerous to do stuff like this.

[If it be your will]

.

[RingoMcCartney]

EU/ reform.






Contradiction in terms.






Ask former prime minister, David Cameron.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

Ah, right! Bang on! We're getting somewhere, now.

I have a good and very learned lefty friend that agrees entirely that the EU is rotten, unreformable, neoliberal, undemocratic and unaccountable, corrupt and makes Corbyn's plans impossible. But refuses point blank to talk up the brexit cause for no other reason than it's dangerous. The door will be left wide open to a fascist dictatorship, he reckons.

That, I agree, is a small but horrifying possibility. It is a very good argument to remain - probably the best there is, in fact. A remain campaign based on those grounds would be at least be logical, but it wouldn't win. Which is why they went for the lies of 'remain and reform instead, which is, in fact complete b*******. As is the "You can get around EU law" and "The EU wouldn't prevent the implementation of Corbyn's manifesto".

I'm just addicted to seeing and saying the truth, though. So it doesn't work for me.

Okay, I'll try another tact.

Pretty much every promise made by Leave has been shown to be false, and still a lot of people will vote for it. Regardless. Even though it will make their lives bad (short to medium to long term)

So clearly a lot of people, possibly enough to win an election, don't care about facts and reality, they want unspecified promises and sunlit uplands promises rather than dealing with reality.

So there is a huge market for a right wing chancer who tells them exactly what they want, and he gets voted for.

But now he and his followers have to face reality.........but they won't

They will blame someone else. It can't be the EU anymore because we've left, so it has to be someone else. A smaller group of people than them.

Do I need to go any further?

[dsr]

Okay, I'll try another tact.

Pretty much every promise made by Leave has been shown to be false, and still a lot of people will vote for it. Regardless. Even though it will make their lives bad (short to medium to long term)

So clearly a lot of people, possibly enough to win an election, don't care about facts and reality, they want unspecified promises and sunlit uplands promises rather than dealing with reality.

So there is a huge market for a right wing chancer who tells them exactly what they want, and he gets voted for.

But now he and his followers have to face reality.........but they won't

They will blame someone else. It can't be the EU anymore because we've left, so it has to be someone else. A smaller group of people than them.

Do I need to go any further?

But if you tell all these people that their vote will be disregarded, that's another approach to fascism. People who voted in the majority and are told that their votes do not count because they got it wrong, will not just accept that their "superiors" have the right of it. When people are told that their votes are irrelevant, then obviously there is an opportunity for a politician who tells them their votes will count.

And in any case, it's a false premise. Separatism does not lead to fascism - the last 100+ years are littered with successful examples. Much of eastern Europe; Czechs and Slovaks; Austria-Hungary; Norway-Sweden. No-one accuses the Scottish or Welsh nationalists of fascism. It's when the public separatist will is denied that civil war happens - Ireland and Yugoslavia being the prime examples.

(Incidentally, none of the Remainers promises came true either.)

[aggi]

Looks like Labour are sticking with their position of sitting on the fence https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -elections" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[If it be your will]

.

[AndrewJB]

Here's the 2015 Green Party manifesto (p71) https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/fi ... chable.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We prioritise local self-reliance rather than the EU’s unsustainable economics of free trade and growth... We support the proposal to have an in–out referendum so the British people can have their say. This is because much has changed since the UK joined the common market in 1974

In the 2010 Manifesto they also said the Lisbon treaty is not up to the job. So the greens haven't actually been pro-remain for very long then, having been active Eurosceptics for most of their history? Do you happen to know why they dramatically reversed their position on the EU after 2015?

Jenny Jones (now a Green member of the HoL) campaigned for Brexit, as did other lower profile members. They tended to be older. The 2015 manifesto was still very pro EU on balance. What they would never say is the EU is 100% perfect.

[SmudgetheClaret]

Boom..

69B26D05-3B3A-47C2-9562-87C73060B013.jpeg (1.36 MiB) Viewed 2240 times

[SmudgetheClaret]

Leave or remain you have to admit Farage is a master in debate ! eating Marr for brekky

[AndyClaret]

Leave or remain you have to admit Farage is a master in debate ! eating Marr for brekky

Clean underwear required for Marr, he soiled himself badly with his gotcha questions.

[Lancasterclaret]

He could have come on, done a dump in the middle of the floor and walked out and you two would still think he'd done well.