Brexit: Boris' Big Belgian Bangers - The Bear and Badger

Roujin

While I think Crayon has a point that true sovereignty is a myth as we live in a world where rules and regulations may need to be adjusted as we form trade deals with other countries and those countries are prohibited from passing laws that would negatively impact current trading partners, which I believe is something that the EU have in their trade deals with other countries. We nevertheless as kow points out could either veto, opt-out or just completely disregard any EU law that we didn't like and there were essentially no repurcussions.

Certainly I would also state that people for whom the lack of sovereignty was a stated issue, will need to cite examples of negatively impacting laws the UK was forced to accept from the EU.

monkey

Prisoners must vote.
That hook handed Muslim guy couldn’t be deported because the ECJ said no.

Kow

Countries agree to be bound by certain rules. They participate in making those agreements. You can still break them if you want, but I guess you make agreements in good faith.

Funkstain

it's quite simple really: if you, as a sovereign nation, choose (you can choose, because you're sovereign) to become part of a trading agreement, which imposes certain conditions and regulations and limitations on your trading in return for various benefits, then that's your choice. It's the definition of sovereignty.

So to say that the EU "took away" sovereignty in any way, shape, or form is ludicrous and simply adds to the apparent confusion so many have as to what the EU is and what it isn't. Clearly it didn't take away any sovereignty, since the UK decided to, as a sovereign nation, remove itself from the trading agreements and lose the benefits of it.

The WTO is the same - it comes with limitations and conditions and regulations governing trading, in return for benefits related to that trading. They are legally enforced with International bodies presiding.

The EU is pretty good at enforcing trading issues but as Kow says really shit at enforcing political issues - because it has very little political power. The big thing is the ECJ as Monkey says, which is the actual "I understand your problem with that" issue for remainers. just because I think the ECJ makes good rulings doesn't mean there isn't an issue with a "higher" court outside of the UK

Diluted Dante

I thought Keith was something used to annoy centerists on Twitter, like posting on every Britain Elects tweet that any other leader would be 20 points ahead.

nick_md

Guess we'll find out in about 13hrs.

acemuzzy

So leave.eu's move to Ireland to retain the domain name... used the is of somebody who denies having heard of them? Lol.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/08/irish-mp-calls-regulator-to-investigate-leaveeus-irish-registration

Escape

Roujin wrote:

We would certainly need to become a union of states that would have to be even closer than the USA if we were to be able to embark on those kinds of social protections and policies for citizens across the board.

That's getting to the heart of my view of the EU. I think the UK, France and Italy have moved to the right significantly over the past 10-odd years (is Germany just a centre-right status quo with Merk?), and I credit the Nordic countries with almost everything good about the EU. For as long as the EU's heavily influenced by them, I think it's in fairly safe hands.

Double Edit: Re nurses and the WTD you can't just say it hasn't helped them, unless you can give some kind of suggestion as to how without it, that instead of them working more than 48 hour average weeks for a period longer than the 17 week average, that they wouldn't actually be doing 60 or 70 hour weeks. Or that they would still have at least 20 days paid holiday a year.

That's true. Like how the minimum wage was a £3 joke at first, but one of my cousins was on A POUND.

monkey wrote:

I think it’s that he’s a beige managerial type and they’ve given him an unremarkable name.

Where's that Larry description? That was the best.

I'm not a fan of calling him Keith, but I'd confuse even more people if I used my preference of Plonker because his middle name's Rodney.

Funkstain wrote:

If you read nothing else Escape, read this: you are overstating the power of the EU, currently still a trade and legal construct and not a superstate of crushing political power, to enforce, or even push for, a more equitable society.

If you agree they exist primarily for trade and mutually agreeable laws, do you also agree a rightshifting Europe is a risk factor for their future direction (as I was hinting at to Rouj when I praised Northern Euro societies)? Because...

But they can't mandate welfare reform, or living wages, or minimum wages, or whether a gov gives training bursaries, and so on and so on. Rouj's point therefore is that your discontent with the EU's "progressive" stance or otherwise is irrelevant - they can't really have one...

This is where the better-read lexiters I've chatted to are at, contrary to your all-encompassing opinion of them. It's the absence of those policies that makes them and I dubious of the EU's regard for the welfare of the poorest. If it's not for them to impose these things, nothing but their composition stops them from acting as a socialist campaign group. That's all it'd take for me to support them.

(They've some good people who've written progressive articles, but then that's also true of Labour.)

You can argue for the benefits of a trade-heavy focus if you believe trickledown works. I don't, so I don't.

The best we ever got was limits on state support for industry, to avoid competitive advantages. Digging into that, we all found out that there are several conditions applied to this limitation, and that none of them prevented the UK government of enacting fairer and more equitable policies.

I think that's more complex than you're giving it credit for, because while I agree our governments should take the majority of blame for their many failings, EU anti-comp laws have occasionally intermeshed in accord with those rightwing values, rather than opposing them. But that's just a matter of tinkering rather than a baby-with-the-bathwater aspect.

It always comes back to my belief that our membership benefits were largely invisible at the ground level, with high-GDP countries receiving the most in topdown redistro. That doesn't mean things won't get a lot worse for our poorest with many job losses, and in those cases we'll be able to point to our leaving as the cause, but nobody in an exploit-wage job has ever said ‘Gee, I'm glad we're in the EU or I'd have to do summat even shitter!’.

https://voxeu.org/article/redistributive-function-eu-budget

Kow wrote:

Italy threw out thousands of Romanians, despite the fact that it was an EU country and the EU said they couldn't. They did it anyway, to no repercussions.

Yeah, I'd vote in favour of sanctions for countries that engage in racism. With Turkey in mind, there's a feeling that that's more embedded than we'd like.

acemuzzy

Escape wrote:

Roujin wrote:

We would certainly need to become a union of states that would have to be even closer than the USA if we were to be able to embark on those kinds of social protections and policies for citizens across the board.

That's getting to the heart of my view of the EU. I think the UK, France and Italy have moved to the right significantly over the past 10-odd years (is Germany just a centre-right status quo with Merk?), and I credit the Nordic countries with almost everything good about the EU. For as long as the EU's heavily influenced by them, I think it's in fairly safe hands.

Then why wouldn't you vote to stay in it...

But we've gone full circle and then some at this point...

Roujin

Agree Muzz, it doesn't make any sense, he says he and other well read lexiteers are dubious of the EUs regard to poorest in society, but they have done things like the WTD, Health & Safety, food safety standards, etc. All which all help to protect the poorest in society who are the most likely to be negatively affected by those things than people who are more well off.

If you read into the limits of EU law making its clear they can't offer more comprehensive protections for people, unless a complete change in the way countries are governed by the EU takes place. But well read lexiteers think they should have left the EU with the conservative government we had at the time in power as a means to securing better protections for people? How exactly?

Concerns over a rightwing Europe doing bad laws but ignores the fact that the same lawmaking system he just complained about not letting the EU enforce better social protections here also therefore stops right wing EU harming the UK. Also ignores the UK veto for any policy we don't like in the event of the EU moving further right than the UK.

Finally ends with a link to an article I can't make head or tale of taking about how in the US there is more return on fees paid between states than the EU member states have between each other, but I need help understanding what the point of the article is in terms of redistribution, because it's so technical and dry that I find it hard to believe Escape is well up on stuff like this but completely unable to articulate a single policy or post leave strategy the UK could have pursued outside the EU that it couldn't have done while being in the EU.

Edit: Luckily it's moot because he didn't vote in the referendum anyway.

Escape

Roujin wrote:

they have done things like the WTD, Health & Safety, food safety standards, etc. All which all help to protect the poorest in society who are the most likely to be negatively affected by those things than people who are more well off.

Most of the things I've said are really centred on how under-the-radar such benefits are to most leavers, hence them winning the vote. Until people start getting the shits from mutant chicken it's not something they'll notice, whereas demagogues blaming the EU for our national rightwing failings are.

But well read lexiteers think they should have left the EU with the conservative government we had at the time in power as a means to securing better protections for people?

That was Funk's PoV about what I said, and you're both writing about lexiteers instead of lexiters when I think there's an important distinction. Like how Tony Benn was a lexiter but not automatically a lexiteer, where the latter suggests campaigning to leave regardless of the fallout, as opposed to theoretical best practice for socialism. I used ‘well-read’ in what turns out to have been an ineffective effort to draw that distinction.

ignores the fact that the same lawmaking system he just complained about not letting the EU enforce better social protections here also therefore stops right wing EU harming the UK.

And I hope that continues, but if it's true that Europe's collectively moving to the right I don't think it's daft to have worries about them applying pressure towards rightwing reforms in future. Again, I see the Nordic countries as kingmakers, and for now they're good.

Also ignores the UK veto for any policy we don't like in the event of the EU moving further right than the UK.

We'd rather the EU vetoed the Tories!

Finally ends with a link to an article I can't make head or tale of taking about how in the US there is more return on fees paid between states than the EU member states have between each other, but I need help understanding what the point of the article is in terms of redistribution, because it's so technical and dry that I find it hard to believe Escape is well up on stuff like this but completely unable to articulate a single policy or post leave strategy the UK could have pursued outside the EU that it couldn't have done while being in the EU.

Does anyone else get me? That a socialist UK overhaul within the EU at the same time as them not aligning with it could soon become a thing, with questions then raised about their place as an ally re: advocating our socialism to the rest of Europe? It's a reform question — a lexiter question, and you're right it's moot because we've lost the opportunity of a leftwing government.

The article's saying that the EU are quite flexible when it comes to arrangements on the debit side, but far more rigid on the credit side, hence a minimal redistribution of wealth. The idea is that we're supposed to use membership to increase profits, with the responsibility for sharing that good fortune falling back on us. So the EU's very good for business and its winners, and if you're in an interlinked career it's also good for you.

NAME ONE POLICY chat's something I don't like to get into because it ends up as whack-a-mole and just gets everyone narky (I'd sooner go for a ringout grab). I'm aware of maybe five things, but they're way down the list because my main focus is (and probably always has been) on the visibility of benefits to low-income voters.

I hope you appreciate how our views on the validity of this, that or the other policy are less important than how usable they were for currying public favour with leavers? I.e. I was asked the exact same question by many, like how being in the EU would stop the Tories selling off the NHS or whatever. Chlorinated chicken was one of the big guns.

Like even if we agreed that a few things are less than perfect and should be tweaked, so what?! It's too late now; the time for that discussion was five years ago on the BBC and in our papers. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here — not saying you were wrong to vote remain, I'm just trying to explain why the leave vote was huge and how, as much as racism and xenophobia were chief ingredients in it, the ease of their actuation by Johnson, Farage, Yaxxo and others was, to me, dependent on conditions that are more complex than many remainers credit them as being.

In other words, swathes of our rightwing poor were there for the taking when it came to being told to blame the EU. And on the other side, some of our leftwing poor felt the EU were easy targets for that shifting of blame thanks to their socialist-neutral credentials.

We don't need to say any more about this, dude! You think the EU do enough and I don't, but we're all on the same side here when it comes to the aspects we support.

Escape

Sorry for the wall o' text; I just typed for a bit and that suddenly appeared. Like Farage on the beach.

mistercrayon

I have this theory about this forum that whenever anyone relies on split quoting a post to respond to points the conversation is dead for any practical or entertainment purposes.

The amount of effort just to do the cut and paste is too great but also it’s some real indicative of two extremely entrenched parties trying to convince each other with minutiae and nuanced arguments. It’s like arguing that “mud X” is dirtier than “mud Y”

Escape

I agree and I usually avoid it these days, but Rouj is a good 'un and I didn't wanna diss his views by refusing to answer them with comparable effort.

But I can see I'm winding people up, so I'll have one last go at being as ~~short and~~ clear as possible...

I just don't feel our public actors did enough to sell the benefits of the EU to working-class voters, nor showed they were listening to them. For professionals it was often an obvious choice, whereas though I leaned towards remaining at the time, I didn't have enough knowledge on how the EU affects people like me to make a confident choice. I still don't.

I strongly believe we should've had direct dialogue with the EU for a good while first, with several all-MEP Question Times (varied audiences, not walls of gammon), because whenever reform was mentioned there was zero detail, asking me to place blind trust in MPs.

Lastly, and most importantly when it comes to my quibbles, I think we should've been given several votes to iterate the final into its most reflective choices, with equal televised and printed advocation from all four camps. Which is the bullseye of my opting out; is why I felt voiceless in voting for something so important by government proxy. And so you can shout at me all you like, but I'm in good company with 13m abstaining others.

Maybe the EU is better than I give it credit for, but in absentia its marketing was dire; our ability to confer with it re: proposals denied. With proper representation, maybe they'd have agreed to a few leftwing reforms ahead of the vote. Corbyn pissed off pretty much everyone when he awarded that [7]. Because he was scared about the crossfire, knowing that most were sticking to one side like Velcro.

But then despite our entire media being against him (not counting the Morning Star or lukewarm Mirror), socialism almost won in 2017. Plenty of eligible 2015 nonvoters were inspired by that manifesto, whereas the EU didn't have such an offering, just stay-or-go as far as we knew. It's ridiculous we didn't start discussing possible deals until after our reductive ref, and that's where I started and I'll finish: by blaming our politicians for exploiting us with it.

nick_md

Do you work nights Escape?

regmcfly

Escape wrote:

monkey wrote:

I think it’s that he’s a beige managerial type and they’ve given him an unremarkable name.

Where's that Larry description? That was the best.

I'm not a fan of calling him Keith, but I'd confuse even more people if I used my preference of Plonker because his middle name's Rodney.

This might sound like the fucked up lefty that I am, but why not just use the name he prefers to be called?

nick_md

Quite why reconnaissance to the contrary would imply, as Steed and Peel may likely benefit, names to the contrary (unlike Hakan and his oil as Rouj would confirm) can be taken as such, as we know. But, like a cheeky wink from Daly, it's not bereft of such nuance as to be unsightly, so Keith is left as we find him.

nick_md

I think something like that.

nick_md

I shouldn't be an arsehole, sorry.

regmcfly

nick_md wrote:

Quite why reconnaissance to the contrary would imply, as Steed and Peel may likely benefit, names to the contrary (unlike Hakan and his oil as Rouj would confirm) can be taken as such, as we know. But, like a cheeky wink from Daly, it's not bereft of such nuance as to be unsightly, so Keith is left as we find him.

nick_md

Get in the TV thread.

nick_md

Happy to help, Reg. I enjoy intra-thread convos. It confuses tf out of people who read later.

mistercrayon

Escape: I like your contributions. There’s a rough line between the forum being a place we go to and a place that comes to us - the latter feels horrible to me and I think the argument format is a sign of it.

Roujin

Yeah, cheers for the responses Escape, I don't think you're annoying anyone though, and even if you were, it's a forum they can just skip past your post if they don't like it, the words on the screen are not going to be forced into the eyeballs of anyone who clicks into a thread.

I agree that the conversation has pretty much run it's course, all I can say is that I understand your viewpoint that the advantages of the EU weren't marketed well enough because the leave campaign was front and centre online, in the press, and then given the opportunity to spout their rubbish on TV as though they were people who held legitimate views deserving of equal attention (the EU itself being in absentia because of course, they are rightly not allowed to interfere and distribute propaganda to influence voting outcomes in a country).

Where I ultimately disagree is that you and your friends had a valid reason for either not voting, or not bothering to look up what the EU actually does (which takes minutes, the information is just a google away), or to think that weighed up against the risk of a leave vote into a conservative continuation of government that leaving and hoping for a left wing UK government in 2019 was a serious option. Instead relying mainly on intuitions and anecdotes to reach an opinion for one of the most important votes in the modern history of this country. That is something everyone who voted leave, or who didn't vote will have to deal with themselves.

djchump

In yet more Brexit “cutting off our nose to spite the EU’s face” news:

https://mobile.twitter.com/thomyorke/status/1348051120502038534

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html

djchump

“Can’t have any of them ‘orrible EU musicians comin’ over ‘ere an’ playin’ gigs, so we’re going to deliberately fuck over the UK music industry”
So much sovereignty, so much control.

Roujin

The sad part about things like that, is that this is the cunt conservatives basically worrying that if they take advantage of these offers that they will be seen as capitulating to the EU by the voters and it will hurt them at the next election.

They are absolutely the worst and I really hope that come the next GE the consequences of their policies are writ so large across the nation that the damage they have caused can't be hidden anymore by pointing at the opposition and saying "they left a post it note saying all the money was gone in the treasury offices in 2008" or quoting some fucking latin, or trying to conceal even more kids you've had from affairs or something.

Brooks

Won't matter. Tory voting is locked in as a thing of identity, has been for a fair ol while.

Roujin

Sure, but Blair and Corbyn are both examples of how people eventually tire of conservative shithousery after long enough.

Edit: Sorry, also the SNP, I should deffo mention them as well.

Funkstain

I think there's one thing we can all agree on: the referendum was less won by the Leave campaign, more lost by the Remain campaign.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories