Jump to content

UK Politics - From Russia with Love


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Given Corbyn I'm pretty sure no one is pretending you don't exist anyone. They know you are there, they just think you are morons. At least the nativist position makes sense given their values. The left-wing pro-Brexit position is incoherent. It's aligning yourself with UKIP in a bid to do one of the stupidest things ever with basically zero supportable reason for why it will actually improve anything.

A quick look at history would reveal that, traditionally, British opposition to the European project was a left-wing position (and I'm not just talking about the Bennite wing of Labour either). That would be rather curious if such a position were incoherent. Rather, if one sees the EU and its predecessors as an inherently right-wing organisation... it makes sense for the Left to oppose it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

  On the issue of Leave/Remain, I agreed with Nigel Farage and George Galloway, both of them pretty unsavoury people.  I also agreed with Frank Field, Nigel Evans, and Gisela Stuart, pretty decent people.

:huh:

A man who advocates the return of National Service, a climate change denier and a Labour MP who supported GW Bush's re-election in 2004 are your picks for 'pretty decent people'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

A quick look at history would reveal that, traditionally, British opposition to the European project was a left-wing position (and I'm not just talking about the Bennite wing of Labour either). That would be rather curious if such a position were incoherent. Rather, if one sees the EU and its predecessors as an inherently right-wing organisation... it makes sense for the Left to oppose it. 

Traditionally a lot of things have been different. In the US the Republican party fought against slavery originally after all. Shit changes with time. The only question is what exactly is left-wing about Brexit right now, today? What about this specific policy goal is a coherent left-wing position?

The position is incoherent because there is no demonstrated way in which Brexit actually, you know, helps anyone or advances any left-wing agenda. Is the British left-wing against the Irish Peace Process now? Maybe they hate freer movement of labour? They like them some xenophobia now maybe? Research funding is now a  neo-liberal plot?

Like, what's the goal here exactly? Cause so far it seems like your entire articulated position is that the EU is a neo-liberal organization therefore Brexit, which is fucking underpants gnome logic. There's no connection between left-wing policy goals and Brexit. And the effects on all sorts of other issues are not what one would call good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Traditionally a lot of things have been different. In the US the Republican party fought against slavery originally after all. Shit changes with time. The only question is what exactly is left-wing about Brexit right now, today? What about this specific policy goal is a coherent left-wing position?

The position is incoherent because there is no demonstrated way in which Brexit actually, you know, helps anyone or advances any left-wing agenda. Is the British left-wing against the Irish Peace Process now? Maybe they hate freer movement of labour? They like them some xenophobia now maybe? Research funding is now a  neo-liberal plot?

Like, what's the goal here exactly? Cause so far it seems like your entire articulated position is that the EU is a neo-liberal organization therefore Brexit, which is fucking underpants gnome logic. There's no connection between left-wing policy goals and Brexit. And the effects on all sorts of other issues are not what one would call good.

@Roose Bolton can answer for himself, however, one issue that the Labour Leave Campaign (who were big in Luton) highlighted was that the European Court of Justice is hostile towards trade unions, and routinely rule against them in employment disputes. I can see how that would annoy some left wing trade unionists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

We were variously promised a "Punishment Budget" , an 18% fall in house prices, and an upsurge in support for Scottish independence in the event of a Leave vote.  In the event, the budget deficit has fallen since the vote, house prices have remained static, and the SNP lost 21 seats in 2017.

George Osbourne promised a punishment budget if he remained Chancellor, but as soon as Cameron revealed he was going, Osborne knew he was for the chop as well. House prices falling was a surreal idea. Too much UK property is owned from outside the EU and the pressures inside the country are so strong that Brexit wouldn't really have an impact. Scottish independence did have something of an upsurge, but the problem was that it had been too soon since the last referendum and the SNP came across as opportunistic, so lost some of the support they had (if they'd kept it on the lowdown until now, or after Brexit itself had taken place, they might have had more luck).

Quote

What we were voting on was Leave or Remain, with no clear definition of what either position meant

Fixed that for you.

Quote

@Roose Bolton can answer for himself, however, one issue that the Labour Leave Campaign (who were big in Luton) highlighted was that the European Court of Justice is hostile towards trade unions, and routinely rule against them in employment disputes. I can see how that would annoy some left wing trade unionists.

Withdrawing protections and labour rights provided by the EU, so a Conservative British government can then weaken trade unions at their leisure even more than they have so far, is a self-defeating left-wing position. The NHS will also be weakened by Brexit (we've seen it already) and I believe the left-wing position is that the NHS is a good thing, so how that circle is squared.

A strong contingent of Brexit voters (both left and right-wing) seem to have voted on the basis that they would rather be ruled by a semi-democratically elected government in London rather than a semi-democratically elected government in the EU, but without explaining how this is dramatically superior given the negatives, such as Britain's massively weaker trade and international negotiation abilities as a lone wolf operator rather than a key and influential part of the second-most-populous and richest trading bloc on the planet.

At the moment the only plausible outcome for a Brexit that actually results in an improvement of the UK's economic position (for a few) requires the gutting of legal protections so Britain can become a tax haven. Trade unions will get short shrift in such an environment.

A post-Brexit Britain is also highly unlikely to consider ideas such as a universal income or other steps necessary to protect against the onset of the post-capitalism paradigm, storing up substantial problems for a generation or two down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

Withdrawing protections and labour rights provided by the EU, so a Conservative British government can then weaken trade unions at their leisure even more than they have so far, is a self-defeating left-wing position. The NHS will also be weakened by Brexit (we've seen it already) and I believe the left-wing position is that the NHS is a good thing, so how that circle is squared.

A strong contingent of Brexit voters (both left and right-wing) seem to have voted on the basis that they would rather be ruled by a semi-democratically elected government in London rather than a semi-democratically elected government in the EU, but without explaining how this is dramatically superior given the negatives, such as Britain's massively weaker trade and international negotiation abilities as a lone wolf operator rather than a key and influential part of the second-most-populous and richest trading bloc on the planet.

At the moment the only plausible outcome for a Brexit that actually results in an improvement of the UK's economic position (for a few) requires the gutting of legal protections so Britain can become a tax haven. Trade unions will get short shrift in such an environment.

A post-Brexit Britain is also highly unlikely to consider ideas such as a universal income or other steps necessary to protect against the onset of the post-capitalism paradigm, storing up substantial problems for a generation or two down the road.

Sooner or later, the Conservatives will be voted out of office.  A Labour Leaver might well take the view that an incoming Labour government, unconstrained by the European Court of Justice, or the rules against State aid, would have greater freedom to implement a left wing programme than it would have within the EU.

Britain is, I think, unlikely to become a tax haven.  Libertarians who want to slash and burn the State are a minority even within the Conservative party, let alone Labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small disclaimer ahead of my response, I am under some stress atm, so my response will likely be even less kind that it'd would'Ve been otherwise.

6 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The difference is that one can actually vote out a British government if it destroys the welfare state. One can't vote out the EU - an organisation neoliberal to its core, and utterly contemptuous of democracy. 

Oh, boy. You know the far right accuses the EU of being a communist comspiracy to end the sovereign national state as we know it? It can't be both, and in reality it is neither.

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

Experts can provide facts and opinions.  They can't determine how one should vote.

As you obviously displayed. If you can't back up your arguments/claims then don't expect it to be treated equally.

 

7 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Exactly, just because I sometimes reach a different conclusion to an expert that doesn’t mean I’m ignoring them. You never hear these experts say “you have to listen to me and do what I say as I know best” (even if they might be thinking it). 

There’s a good reason not to just totally put your faith in experts- they generally don’t predict major world events, like the global recession or the rise of the populist right.

Yes, we get it your are tired of experts and their arguments, as you are as smart as them, you don't know it for a fact, but you just know it's true.

On 7.5.2018 at 7:59 PM, mankytoes said:

As someone who has studied Politics, you know the biggest myth? That these issues are too complex for intelligent people to understand, and you have to follow us “experts”. We dress things up in unnecessary jargon. I’m not saying anyone can follow this stuff, but an educated person who can think critically can. Was the EU formed on an existing demos? How do these organisations fare historically? Has the EU reached the form aimed for at its’ founding? Have the flaws that caused the Euros collapse been solved?

As someone who studied politics you ought to have asked the first question in the beginning. Cui bono? (who benefits in more contemporary English). Then you may have also gone through the different dimensions of politics: politics, policy, polity. (and I think missed one, but on the other hand I haven't studied politics, and to don't claim to). But I suppose you did not.

The Euro has collapsed? Somebody should have told me. I am that close to calling you Dmitry.

Anyway for the sake of argument what's the EU and what's its point. European cooperation (economic and otherwise), solving disputes peacefully? Yes, I think it has been quite succesful. The ECJ as peaceful dispute solving mechanism deserves a mention in particular.

So now back to the who benefits from Brexit. It surely won't be trade unions or the average worker in the UK.

Outside political scientists, most credible economists and institutions sad it's bad to terrible idea, most legal scholars familar with the matter agreed it's a bad idea (e.g. check Prof. Michael Dougan of Liverpool University, he explained and predicted most shit that's gone down thus far pretty accurate).

But what do they know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Sooner or later, the Conservatives will be voted out of office.  A Labour Leaver might well take the view that an incoming Labour government, unconstrained by the European Court of Justice, or the rules against State aid, would have greater freedom to implement a left wing programme than it would have within the EU.

Let him be king of charred bones and ashes. All hail PM Corbyn, long may he reign.

As mentioned a few times, GL with UK outside the EU single market competing with low wage, low regulation nations across the world. Yes, I see it will be a race to the top with regards to regulations. Soon India will adopt the UK's standards and laws. I shall never ask why, instead I'll ask why not.

On a seperate note, you kow the ghastly ECJ hasn't told Sweden to can their social state model. So chances are the UK opted not to go down that road, without the ECJ. But hey, I've always been in favour of never letting facts interefere with a good story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Shryke said:

Traditionally a lot of things have been different. In the US the Republican party fought against slavery originally after all. Shit changes with time. The only question is what exactly is left-wing about Brexit right now, today? What about this specific policy goal is a coherent left-wing position?

The position is incoherent because there is no demonstrated way in which Brexit actually, you know, helps anyone or advances any left-wing agenda. Is the British left-wing against the Irish Peace Process now? Maybe they hate freer movement of labour? They like them some xenophobia now maybe? Research funding is now a  neo-liberal plot?

Like, what's the goal here exactly? Cause so far it seems like your entire articulated position is that the EU is a neo-liberal organization therefore Brexit, which is fucking underpants gnome logic. There's no connection between left-wing policy goals and Brexit. And the effects on all sorts of other issues are not what one would call good.

Brexit reasserts parliamentary sovereignty. A future left-wing government can pursue a left-wing agenda without the various undemocratic restraints imposed on it by the EU (the Fourth Railway Package, the Viking Case from the European Court of Justice, the rules against helping local industry, the enforced freedom of movement to undermine unions, the enforced freedom of capital to undermine government power, and so on). And while the UK is not part of the Euro or the Fiscal Compact (hooray for Euroscepticism...), the cornerstones of the EU project are basically enshrining austerity and the outlawing of Keynesianism. Honestly, the Greek Crisis showed the true face of these people, and it isn't pretty.

If you're annoyed that a Tory Government is doing horrible things to the Welfare State... vote them out. That's what elections are for.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

enforced freedom of movement to undermine unions

The notion that freedom of movement is bad for workers is fundamentally chauvinistic, not left-wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So reality is fundamentally chauvinistic because in fact freedom of movement has been bad for workers?

I certainly do not want do defend Brexit (I think it is foolish but I don't care enough to really bother to form a nuanced opinion) but it might be a "wakeup call" not only for Britain but also for the rest of the EU.

Because RBPL is simply spot on wrt to the undemocratic and neoliberal character of the EU both of which became obvious in the Greek crisis. And what is more insidious is that every EU criticism along the lines indicated by RBPL is put into a rightwing/chauvinist camp to silence it. Because obviously nobody wants to be grouped with Nazis. And an enemy of peace... Peace in Europe was not guaranteed by the EU but by the Cold war, so it is fitting that we are bringing the cold war back to have peace in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

So reality is fundamentally chauvinistic because in fact freedom of movement has been bad for workers?

Citation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The difference is that one can actually vote out a British government if it destroys the welfare state. One can't vote out the EU - an organisation neoliberal to its core, and utterly contemptuous of democracy. 

It always amazes me that people from a country run by neoliberals since the 1980's look at the hodgepodge of conservatism and technocracy that is the EU and think it is worse it that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Brexit reasserts parliamentary sovereignty. A future left-wing government can pursue a left-wing agenda without the various undemocratic restraints imposed on it by the EU (the Fourth Railway Package, the Viking Case from the European Court of Justice, the rules against helping local industry, the enforced freedom of movement to undermine unions, the enforced freedom of capital to undermine government power, and so on). And while the UK is not part of the Euro or the Fiscal Compact (hooray for Euroscepticism...), the cornerstones of the EU project are basically enshrining austerity and the outlawing of Keynesianism. Honestly, the Greek Crisis showed the true face of these people, and it isn't pretty.

If you're annoyed that a Tory Government is doing horrible things to the Welfare State... vote them out. That's what elections are for. 

A future left wing UK government can now pursue a left-wing agenda of the sort you are talking about only if they ignore economic reality. Not so much the Singapore model, as the Venezuela model. And from all I have seen of Corbyn, this is a frighteningly plausible scenario.

Incidentally, if you mean the Viking windfarm case, I don't think that reached the ECJ?

The enshrining of austerity is a Tory policy, the EU was just fine with the UK's welfare state. As for the Greek crisis; they, like the UK, should have never joined the Euro. Once they had done so an impossible situation was created with no good answer.

As for voting out a UK government I disagree with; like many English people I feel as much European as English, and feel no more connection to the UK government than to the EU one. Only once in my lifetime has the UK government been one I voted for.

By the way, your location says New Zealand? If so then you have no skin in the game and can afford to be idealistic!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Peace in Europe was not guaranteed by the EU but by the Cold war, so it is fitting that we are bringing the cold war back to have peace in the future.

 

This has always been a historically dubious claim. NATO and the Cold War guaranteed - kind of - peace between European countries and an external foe, namely the Soviet Union. The European Union, however, helped guaranteed peace within Europe by eliminating the historical resource/territorial claims between nations. Germany and France had been butting heads over Alsace-Lorraine for a century, but the EU rendered that point moot by equalising their currencies and allowing whoever wanted to on either side to simply wander across or go and work somewhere else. It allowed Europe to pool its resources to present a unified economic force of arms to ensure fair trading with the likes of China and the United States (and far beyond that of, say, Russia).

If we look at the Gibraltar situation, Spain eased up on its claim to Gibraltar because whilst both Spain and the UK were in the EU, it didn't really make much odds. Now that the UK is leaving the EU, Spain's claim to Gibraltar has been redoubled. The same with Ireland: whilst both Britain and the Republic of Ireland are in the EU, the existence of the border is moot. With the UK leaving the EU, the border is now important and a potential flashpoint for future violence it not handled correctly.

The EU wasn't the sole reason for peace within Europe, the memory of WWII helped as well, but it's certainly played a very major role in the maintaining of peace within the continent.

Quote

If you're annoyed that a Tory Government is doing horrible things to the Welfare State... vote them out. That's what elections are for.  

We did. They got back into power by making a grotty deal with a war-mongering party who hate the Good Friday Agreement and who explicitly reject many of the values of the rest of the United Kingdom, and our decidedly iffy rules allowed them to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2018 at 4:18 PM, Werthead said:

 

This has always been a historically dubious claim. NATO and the Cold War guaranteed - kind of - peace between European countries and an external foe, namely the Soviet Union. The European Union, however, helped guaranteed peace within Europe by eliminating the historical resource/territorial claims between nations. Germany and France had been butting heads over Alsace-Lorraine for a century, but the EU rendered that point moot by equalising their currencies and allowing whoever wanted to on either side to simply wander across or go and work somewhere else. It allowed Europe to pool its resources to present a unified economic force of arms to ensure fair trading with the likes of China and the United States (and far beyond that of, say, Russia).

Yeah, NATO cannot guarantee peace in Europe by itself. Greece and Turkey fought each other in Cyprus in the '70's while they were both NATO members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EU doesn't have a problem with the Swedish welfare state or the strong French unions etc. In fact there is a remarkable plurality of different social systems including access to education and health services within the Union. Of course there are certain limitations, but most of them are based on the idea that within the EU the freedom of movement for goods, services, capital and persons must not be limited by discrimination based on national interests.

The main critique (from the left-wing) of the European Court is that it has limited in several instances the reach of unions and labour agreements. However the Court has also in several instances strengthened individual rights of employees, so this is not a clear cut case IMO. Also the Court can only rule on the basis of the existing European Laws. Now those are agreed by the national governments, so wether it is a EU directive or a regulation: either the national governments are directly involved via the council of ministers or they have explicitly delegated the particular regulation to the EU. I mean, if you vote for people and governments, you also vote for positions on European policies. You cannot go ahead and vote for neo-liberal governments who then take their positions to the EU and the council of ministers and then act all surprised when the EU is discussing these positions and maybe even implementing them. This is how democracy works. We can probably thank god that enough other European nations didn't vote for the same political positions as the Brits did - otherwise the EU would probably be a neo-liberal monster in reality and not just in the stories of some populist movements.

And the most ridiculous claim is that freedom of movement for the workers is somehow bad for the workers. Why? Because now those foreigners come to take our jobs. But of course that's not a chauvinistic position, apparently it's now a socialist position. I mean, moving from Leeds to London to take the job of some poor Londoner is okay, but if you move from Dublin or Saloniki to London it's not. Three cheers for this new national definition of socialism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

The EU doesn't have a problem with the Swedish welfare state or the strong French unions etc. In fact there is a remarkable plurality of different social systems including access to education and health services within the Union. Of course there are certain limitations, but most of them are based on the idea that within the EU the freedom of movement for goods, services, capital and persons must not be limited by discrimination based on national interests.

If only it were that simple.

Unfortunately the EU also has rules against national companies (like the French railway system) and demands that various industries be open to competition. And the stability and growth pact puts pressure to limit public spending as well, which has serious indirect consequences.
Generally speaking the EU is rather neo-liberal ; it tolerates welfare states as long as economic growth is good. But it tends to be far more protective of big business than social justice.

Now the conundrum for socialists is that, as bad as the EU can be, there's every reason to believe that without the EU each European country would be even more vulnerable to global market forces. British Conservatives talking about turning Britain into a tax haven is a perfect example of just that.
In the wonderful global economic system that we have, countries compete to attract companies and investments ; which basically means that there is a strong incentive to lower the corporate tax rate (and most kinds of taxation), as well as get rid of all these pesky regulations protecting workers' rights. That's basically what both Trump and Macron are doing. Of course, less taxes means less revenue for the state, which means fewer social services.
BUT as bad as all this is, the EU does shield its member states from the global competition - to some extent. It leaves the opportunity to European countries of competing together against other economic giants (like the US and China) instead of against each other.

So this is why leftists can be ambiguous toward Brexit - or Frexit. Because on the one hand the EU does promote neo-liberalism while at the same time slowing it down. I'd say it's the lesser of two evils - for the time being at least. But of course, if one wants to return to a true welfare state, the EU becomes an obstacle.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2018 at 2:40 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Brexit reasserts parliamentary sovereignty. A future left-wing government can pursue a left-wing agenda without the various undemocratic restraints imposed on it by the EU (the Fourth Railway Package, the Viking Case from the European Court of Justice, the rules against helping local industry, the enforced freedom of movement to undermine unions, the enforced freedom of capital to undermine government power, and so on). And while the UK is not part of the Euro or the Fiscal Compact (hooray for Euroscepticism...), the cornerstones of the EU project are basically enshrining austerity and the outlawing of Keynesianism. Honestly, the Greek Crisis showed the true face of these people, and it isn't pretty.

If you're annoyed that a Tory Government is doing horrible things to the Welfare State... vote them out. That's what elections are for.  

 

Except the EU does a ton for workers rights too, along with various freedoms. And freedom of movement is important to the expansion of worker power unless you want to return to closed national economies.

And then there's all the things that EU does for the UK, like funding all sorts of projects from science to rural subsidies.

And the exact same shit applies to the EU as it does to the government. If you don't like what they are doing, vote differently. The UK has a say in EU policy. It's just that you guys have basically almost always been onboard with what the EU has been up to (with the recent slight divergence coming after the Tories took back power). The issue of sovereignty has apparently not been so concerning as to cause an issue during the actual process of setting EU policy.

 

More to the point though, all of this is hand-wavy bullshit about some theoretical possible future benefit in some world where the UK electorate and political scene looks completely different. And all of it at the cost of real harm right now. It's selling the cow for beans in the vain hope that they might be magical. And also that you can murder a giant.

This is left-wing the way voting for Jill Stein is left-wing. It's stupidity wearing a socalist skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...