Brexit Negotiations

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

trunkage:
Oh great. You weren't joking. What you are suggesting is Fascism. Fascism favours (certain) corporations over everyone else. Note that this is economic side of Fascism and doesn't have to lead to the racial side (unless you have racist in control).

So taxing the rich less is fascist now? And you're getting all uppity at my choice of words?

Your also changing the goal posts. I never said anything about progressive tax and I did say that wealth redistribution was Anti-Capitalist. Yes I would agree that progressive tax is Anti-Capitalists.

We are talking about Jeremy Corbyn's policies. Those are the goalposts. This is the discussion.

At least, his economic policies. I mean, if you start talking about his foreign outlook, feel free to bring accusations of fascism back into it. It'd sound marginally more credible.

trunkage:
Oh great. You weren't joking. What you are suggesting is Fascism. Fascism favours (certain) corporations over everyone else. Note that this is economic side of Fascism and doesn't have to lead to the racial side (unless you have racist in control).

While I agree catnip's use of language is a bit weird by calling railway nationalization or workers rights "anti-capitalist", fascist corporatism is a bit more complex than that.

Essentially, it means central planning of the economy through instituting a series of favoured interest groups with far reaching powers over their respective economic sectors. These could be corporations, but they could also be trade unions. The theory was to promote harmony between conflicting interest groups by aligning their various interests with those of the fascist state. And yes, in practice it also worked to marginalise groups which might be hostile or opposed to the government.

Corporations are not inherently fascist because fascists favoured a corporatist economy. For one, what makes fascist corporatism fascist is the role of the state as a unifying mediator. Fascist corporatism didn't value competition between corporations, and it openly rejected any form of class struggle between workers and employers. Both could be administered as corporate interest groups, and their ultimate objectives and needs unified by the state.

Capitalism has always entailed corporations. Heck, socialism has always entailed corporations in the broader sense. Britain's nationalized rail system was run by a state owned corporation called British Rail. Corporations are a very useful way of dividing up the economy according to interest groups without needing the enormous centralisation of a state bureaucracy running everything.

Here's the thing though.. capitalism isn't a political position. It became one (synonymous with anti-socialism or anti-communism) during the cold war, but trying to carry that assumption through into the present day doesn't really work because virtually everyone is capitalist now. People who believe that things like transport infrastructure should be managed in accordance with a free market with high levels of competition are not "capitalists", they used to be called liberals, but today they are often called neoliberals (or the new right). People who want key services to be nationalized are not necessarily "anti-capitalists", they may in fact favour the eventual abolition of the capitalist system, or they may just want a rail system which actually works and doesn't cost a fuckton of money like the broken post-Thatcherite mess we have now.

There are many reasons to be opposed to privatization or in favour of progressive taxation which do not hinge on a general antipathy towards all forms of capitalism or private enterprise, or indeed to a generalized hatred of corporations.

evilthecat:

Pseudonym:
But the UK won't be leaving the ECHR, will they?

There has been very open talk by some eurosceptic politicians about repealing the human rights act, which effectively means leaving the ECHR. Whether that could be pushed through parliament is another matter, but the intention clearly exists and (thanks to very hostile media coverage) is shared by significant proportion of the electorate. Theresa May has always been a particular opponent of the human rights act thanks to some high profile cases when she was head of the home office. However, the current Tory manifesto has deferred discussion of leaving the ECHR until after Brexit is complete.

There's also the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which doesn't get the media attention of the ECHR but is definately going.

Satinavian:

Pseudonym:
But the UK won't be leaving the ECHR, will they?

That was discussed and seemingly they wanted to. There was some noise about how British Laws about Human rights are better anyway and every British citicen will eventually get better protection of their rights from British courts when the gouvernment is done. And the UK can't be forced to treat foreigners better than they deserve anymore.

It is a bit silent about that topic now. Maybe some more reasonable people explained how stupid that idea was and now the gouvernment hopes the voters somehow forget this particular topic.

Oh yeah, now that you mention it. I remember a thread about that about a year back that I posted in. I sure hope that idea dies down. The UK leaving the EU, annoying but I even see advantages and it is their call anyway. Open hostility to having to abide by international human rights law, that I find far more scary.

Catnip1024:
It's a sliding scale. The same way that antisocial doesn't imply the desire to completely destroy society. The way I see it, it's related to the current system. If your changes are moving away from the idealised capitalist system, that's anti-capitalist. If they move towards it, pro-capitalist. It wasn't meant as an absolutist term by any means.

If that's how you want to see it, okay; but to me it says a strong ideological opposition to the very nature of capitalism, and can't really extend to things like increased worker representation on corporate boards or the government running key national infrastructure.

trunkage:
Oh great. You weren't joking. What you are suggesting is Fascism. Fascism favours (certain) corporations over everyone else. Note that this is economic side of Fascism and doesn't have to lead to the racial side (unless you have racist in control).

When we say fascism was corporatist, corporatism is not about corporations in the sense of profit-making companies. A corporation in corporatism is a body that reflects a chunk of society. So, for instance, it may be a trade union, or a religious denomination, or an industrial sector, or landed aristocrats, etc. Corporatism attempts to organise the state into these sorts of special interest groups, and the state is run through these special interest groups. In a more liberal state they may left to negotiate and dispute with each other (potentially with the state as arbiter where required); in fascism, they were effectively arms of the state and forced to work for the fascists' notions of the good of the state.

And yes, before we go further, I made up a word. Capitalism is distinct from support particular corporate interests.

Capitalism is not inconsistent with supporting particular corporate interests. At base, capitalism just means private ownership and profit motive.

The distinction I think you're making is between free market and pro-business, or free-market and crony capitalism. Many capitalists are advancing "pro-business" or "crony capitalism" models of economic practice rather than the free market. Notably, of course, it is big business owners that do this - because their job is seeking profit for the businesses they run, and not infrequently that's at odds with free market best practice.

If Britain does seperate itself completely from the EU, what is the worse possible outcome from a political and ideological perspective or are there any positive outcomes at all if Brexit happens. I am not asking for economic outcomes.

Samtemdo8:
If Britain does seperate itself completely from the EU, what is the worse possible outcome from a political and ideological perspective or are there any positive outcomes at all if Brexit happens. I am not asking for economic outcomes.

Depending largely on the economic outcome (good/bad/neutral), we're either going to see a boost or a loss to anti-eu platforms in other countries. If (particularly if it's a "hard" version) Brexit goes well, those parties are going to be emboldened and be able to make a much better case for more splits from the union. On the other hand, a poor outcome for Great Britain will lead to those parties losing a lot of credibility and influence.

Which outcome is good or bad depends on one's particular political leanings.

I'll leave a more in depth discussion of British politics to those more knowledgeable, but if Britain suffers from how Brexit turns out, look for a very large public backlash against the Tories.

Samtemdo8:
If Britain does seperate itself completely from the EU, what is the worse possible outcome from a political and ideological perspective or are there any positive outcomes at all if Brexit happens. I am not asking for economic outcomes.

Well, to put economics aside-- the UK government plans to pass the EU Withdrawal Bill, in order to withdraw from the Act that brought the UK into the EU in the first place. This would remove all legal power from EU law in the UK, so part of the bill is to transpose EU legislation into UK law.

...However, various members of the Conservative Party have been making noises about which parts to exclude from UK legislation. If they were successful, this would mean the UK wouldn't just be leaving the EU-- the Conservative Party would also be repealing other elements of legislation, without having to put each repeal through individual scrutiny in Parliament.

Samtemdo8:
If Britain does separate itself completely from the EU, what is the worse possible outcome from a political and ideological perspective or are there any positive outcomes at all if Brexit happens. I am not asking for economic outcomes.

Economics is an important aspect of British politics, so that can't be removed. The worst outcome is achieving what the hardline Leavers really want: a low tax, low regulation economy, whoring out to whatever multi-national corporations can use the UK as call centres, data centres and other operations less affected by trade barriers. This will not be good for the local populace, particularly for wage inequality or environmental protection. It will also be shocking how busy yet unprofitable many European branches of multi-nationals become yet the ledgers of absurdly profitable shell companies in the Cayman Islands become hidden.

Overall, this will not be good for the UK economy and desire to be regarded as a successful, free-wheeling, trading power, despite distrust by the EU, will let other nations use investment as diplomatic leverage, even against the UK's long term interests. Kiss good bye to the British steel industry as the UK refuses to raise tariffs against Chinese steel dumping. The UK will go silent on calls to tackle global warming, antibiotic overuse, or peace treaties Trump threatens to rip up. It will also have the effect of weakening European diplomatic capability, especially concerning military incursions into nearby countries as the UK has military projection and the US has gone crazy.

Silvanus:
-- the Conservative Party would also be repealing other elements of legislation, without having to put each repeal through individual scrutiny in Parliament.

Which obviously will annoy the other parties if it goes through like that, as it gives the Conservatives a lot more power to dictate the future than they would normally have meaning that the other parties are pushing back against the bill to ensure the legislation they want kept are kept, slowing down the whole process as the Tories don't have the support to push through so both sides have to negotiate what will and will not be kept.

Bobular:

Which obviously will annoy the other parties if it goes through like that, as it gives the Conservatives a lot more power to dictate the future than they would normally have meaning that the other parties are pushing back against the bill to ensure the legislation they want kept are kept, slowing down the whole process as the Tories don't have the support to push through so both sides have to negotiate what will and will not be kept.

Unfortunately, anybody giving pushback against even the terms of Brexit is currently subject to an intense media campaign.

The right-wing media is dictating the terms. Pushback-- or even mere insistance on legal process-- is portrayed as traitorous.

Silvanus:
The right-wing media is dictating the terms. Pushback-- or even mere insistance on legal process-- is portrayed as traitorous.

Yes, let's all remember The Daily Mail campaigning to "take back control" from Europe, and then throwing a huge hissy fit when it turned out the British constitution entitled Parliament to decide our fate rather than a fixed-term dictator that the Daily Mail approved of.

But the Daily Mail does not really believe in democracy. It reflects a certain segment of the UK populace (who often have authoritarian sentiments): the Daily Mail would enthusiastically champion Hitler if these people approved of him.

Samtemdo8:
If Britain does seperate itself completely from the EU, what is the worse possible outcome from a political and ideological perspective or are there any positive outcomes at all if Brexit happens. I am not asking for economic outcomes.

Well, the worst possible outcome is that the British union itself breaks up under political disagreements and Britain as a country ceases to exist.

That seems unlikely at this point, since it's not something anyone really wants. It is still possible though, particularly if everything else goes to shit.

evilthecat:

Samtemdo8:
If Britain does seperate itself completely from the EU, what is the worse possible outcome from a political and ideological perspective or are there any positive outcomes at all if Brexit happens. I am not asking for economic outcomes.

Well, the worst possible outcome is that the British union itself breaks up under political disagreements and Britain as a country ceases to exist.

That seems unlikely at this point, since it's not something anyone really wants. It is still possible though, particularly if everything else goes to shit.

I dunno to me the worst possible outcome is a return to sectarian violence in the north. Hopefully unlikely but seeing as the British right wants to rewrite history and pin the entirety of the troubles on the shoulders of republicans to justify a union with the DUP while still attacking Sinn Fein on the daily I wouldn't be surprised. I mean I saw a guy being interviewed refer to McGuiness and Adams as "sinn fein's fenian leaders" and nobody even batted an eye so it looks like hatred for the Irish is suddenly in vogue again.

CheetoDust:
I mean I saw a guy being interviewed refer to McGuiness and Adams as "sinn fein's fenian leaders" and nobody even batted an eye so it looks like hatred for the Irish is suddenly in vogue again.

Did it ever really stop? For all the "Everybody loves the Oirish" shite it usually follows with the person/thing they like being claimed as "British". Or it's the Americans trying to co-opt us to excuse the bigotry in their security services (ironically).

When we start showing we think differently to the Anglo's is when the knives start to come out.

Ninjamedic:
Or it's the Americans trying to co-opt us to excuse the bigotry in their security services (ironically).

To be fair, you guys do have a history of terrorism, so it would make perfect sense to put you on the list of banned countries that Trump is throwing together. Just saying.

Ninjamedic:
Or it's the Americans trying to co-opt us to excuse the bigotry in their security services (ironically).

You're going to have to help an American out with this one...

Avnger:

Ninjamedic:
Or it's the Americans trying to co-opt us to excuse the bigotry in their security services (ironically).

You're going to have to help an American out with this one...

Ever notice the amount of Republican talking heads with Irish names? Or this little ditty: https://thegeekygaeilgeoir.wordpress.com/2017/09/06/even-racists-got-the-blues/

I'm not the only one to notice the American Right trying to appropriate Irish History to attempt to handwave the race issues in the US.

Catnip1024:

Ninjamedic:
Or it's the Americans trying to co-opt us to excuse the bigotry in their security services (ironically).

To be fair, you guys do have a history of terrorism, so it would make perfect sense to put you on the list of banned countries that Trump is throwing together. Just saying.

As would the UK be needed to be on the list, or are we going with the Daily Mail logic that Loyalists are actually Irish now?

Ninjamedic:
As would the UK be needed to be on the list, or are we going with the Daily Mail logic that Loyalists are actually Irish now?

Well, that's pretty much entirely limited to the Northern Irish, and as far as Americans can discriminate there's no real difference between the two.

Catnip1024:

Ninjamedic:
As would the UK be needed to be on the list, or are we going with the Daily Mail logic that Loyalists are actually Irish now?

Well, that's pretty much entirely limited to the Northern Irish, and as far as Americans can discriminate there's no real difference between the two.

It's a great hypothetical to demonstrate just how warped the US discussion of foreign affairs is.

Ninjamedic:

CheetoDust:
I mean I saw a guy being interviewed refer to McGuiness and Adams as "sinn fein's fenian leaders" and nobody even batted an eye so it looks like hatred for the Irish is suddenly in vogue again.

Did it ever really stop? For all the "Everybody loves the Oirish" shite it usually follows with the person/thing they like being claimed as "British". Or it's the Americans trying to co-opt us to excuse the bigotry in their security services (ironically).

When we start showing we think differently to the Anglo's is when the knives start to come out.

It was usually at least hidden is what I meant. Now being openly hostile to Irish Republicans or even just people FROM the Republic is celebrated again. Varadkar who, I can't stress enough, should be set on fire, said that he would like to someday see a united Ireland if it was something that both sides of the border agreed on and the right wing media in Britain acted like he screamed Tiocfaidh ar la while running at Buckingham palace.

Catnip1024:
Well, that's pretty much entirely limited to the Northern Irish, and as far as Americans can discriminate there's no real difference between the two.

Christ. I remember some American chewing my ear off about 15-20 years ago about NI because "it was so close" (emotionally) to her... because she knew someone from NI or something. Having the faintest idea about what was actually going on there apparently hadn't struck her as a useful thing to do before giving me a diatribe as if it was all my fault.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/965300247428784129

So I guess the Tories need us to step in as the bad guys again. Islamophobia must be falling out of fashion.

Ninjamedic:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/965300247428784129

So I guess the Tories need us to step in as the bad guys again. Islamophobia must be falling out of fashion.

Oh great. Informal diplomacy with the enemy is treachery and an ex-spy talking shit is good evidence. The second tweet has three, numbered statements and the preceding is the basis of that.

The second declares the Good Friday Agreement has failed. We have the solution to the Brexit/NI conundrum: talk shit about the GFA. There is, of course, a tiny kernel of truth in that the paramilitaries still occasionally threaten people but it's nothing like Troubles level.

The third, Jacobitism, I had to look up. Restoring a catholic king to the throne? WTF?

Hannan has completely lost it.

Edit: I'll clarify that Hannan is not advocating for Jacobitism, he's advocating against it. A movement that died over two centuries ago.

Retraction of statement, move along citizen.

Ninjamedic:

warmachine:

The third, Jacobitism, I had to look up. Restoring a catholic king to the throne? WTF?

Which if I'm remembering correctly was the opposition to Cromwell, who went on to commit genocide in Ireland. History is fun!

Actually Jacobins were against king Willian III who reigned about half a century after Cromwell. They were supporters of the deposed James II who got deposed for being overly Catholic and wanting to replicate the kingship of Louis XIV

Ninjamedic:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/965300247428784129

So I guess the Tories need us to step in as the bad guys again. Islamophobia must be falling out of fashion.

We're an unfortunate reminder that the solution to conflict is diplomacy and negotiations. It's now very important to the British right to convince people that what they should have done is discriminate against and slaughter the Irish people so they can now justify discriminating against and slaughtering Muslims.

Hades:

Actually Jacobins were against king Willian III who reigned about half a century after Cromwell. They were supporters of the deposed James II who got deposed for being overly Catholic and wanting to replicate the kingship of Louis XIV

Thank you for the correction sir.

CheetoDust:
We're an unfortunate reminder that the solution to conflict is diplomacy and negotiations. It's now very important to the British right to convince people that what they should have done is discriminate against and slaughter the Irish people so they can now justify discriminating against and slaughtering Muslims.

I wonder if they forgot the damage the 1996 Manchester bombing did, last thing they need at a time of uncertain about the UK's financial stability is the return of the Provos.

I thought Hannan's warning against Jacobitism was an attack on Rees-Mogg, as he's Catholic and acts likes he's from the 18th century, but they seem fairly friendly towards each other. And the attractions of Rees-Mogg aren't romantic myth. So, Hannan is still warning against a long dead movement.

warmachine:
I thought Hannan's warning against Jacobitism was an attack on Rees-Mogg, as he's Catholic and acts likes he's from the 18th century, but they seem fairly friendly towards each other. And the attractions of Rees-Mogg aren't romantic myth. So, Hannan is still warning against a long dead movement.

I had forgotten Mogg is a Catholic.

Also, a rare sight, a dignified conservative:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-to-brexiteers-talking-down-belfast-agreement-risks-fragile-peace-1.3398717

warmachine:
I thought Hannan's warning against Jacobitism was an attack on Rees-Mogg, as he's Catholic and acts likes he's from the 18th century, but they seem fairly friendly towards each other. And the attractions of Rees-Mogg aren't romantic myth. So, Hannan is still warning against a long dead movement.

I also assumed it was something to do with Rees-Mogg, but couldn't piece together how or why he'd make that comment.

Personally I don't see calling Corbyn a communist will really effect his standing with the country, especially as they called Miliband a communist and that didn't stop people voting for Corbyn who admits to being way to the left of Miliband's polices.

warmachine:

The third, Jacobitism, I had to look up. Restoring a catholic king to the throne? WTF?

Hades:
Actually Jacobins were against king Willian III who reigned about half a century after Cromwell. They were supporters of the deposed James II who got deposed for being overly Catholic and wanting to replicate the kingship of Louis XIV

Bobular:
I also assumed it was something to do with Rees-Mogg, but couldn't piece together how or why he'd make that comment.

I think you (or Hannan) probably mean Jacobinism: Tory-speak for revolutionary leftist politics. In other words, Jeremy Corbyn (not that Corbyn is promising much that's revolutionary).

The Jacobins of the French Revolution: anti-monarchists, Robespierre, reign of terror, etc.

The Conservatives were rather twitchy about that, fearing the British peasants would rise and violently kick them out of their mansions, too. A little part of me is okay if they are still worried today (albeit more their gated communities and riverside luxury apartments than mansions): probably helps keep them from being total cunts.

Ninjamedic:
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/965300247428784129

So I guess the Tories need us to step in as the bad guys again. Islamophobia must be falling out of fashion.

That's their secret: They always thought of the Irish as the bad guys. Especially when there's no good reason to.

Anyway, Hannan sounds like he would be far more comfortable in the U.S., where claiming that people have things like "anti-west bias" is more culturally acceptable. Emotional appeals like that are both the absolute nadir of reasoned debate and a paper-thin attempt to avoid much needed national self-criticism. Which is especially unfortunate because throwing jabs at Jacobitism and the GFA is ample proof that national self-criticism is sorely needed.

There are many, many things to dislike about the slow-motion train-wreck that is leaving the EU (I'll call it "BREXIT" when someone comes over and pulls off all my fingernails) but one of the most personally egregious is what its done to the political discourse of the UK. It was veeery far from perfect before what with all the nonsense that people threw at Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband but that really just showcases precicely how far into the bottom of the barrel we have fallen considering that we are surrounded by decrepid, rotting wood (looking at you, BoJo/Reece-Mog) and meaningless emotional appeals have become the norm.

Agema:
I think you (or Hannan) probably mean Jacobinism: Tory-speak for revolutionary leftist politics. In other words, Jeremy Corbyn (not that Corbyn is promising much that's revolutionary).

The Jacobins of the French Revolution: anti-monarchists, Robespierre, reign of terror, etc.

The Conservatives were rather twitchy about that, fearing the British peasants would rise and violently kick them out of their mansions, too. A little part of me is okay if they are still worried today (albeit more their gated communities and riverside luxury apartments than mansions): probably helps keep them from being total cunts.

I will fully admit to being underinformed on this issue, but judging from other Tweets from Hannan I do believe that he means the Scots:

The romanticism surrounding Bonnie Prince Charlie - dashing escape across the heather, Flora MacDonald, loyal clansmen etc - shrouds the reality: this was a French invasion, led by a French-speaking autocrat who would have extinguished parliamentary government.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/964624190988079109

It could be unrelated but just for context.

ineptelephant:
It could be unrelated but just for context.

I'm about 99% sure it's unrelated.

One way or another, a key thing to remember about Daniel Hannan is that he's desperately close to being the biggest and most objectionable twat in a party with an unusually high quantity of unusually despicable twats. Behind Philip Davies, but ahead of Boris Johnson sort of level.

The important thing to remember is that it's going to be nothing like Mad Max, even though no one was actually worried about that possibility. Unless we're going to import vast quantities of sand from our new trading partners, who we will get fantastic deals with, then it might be a little bit like Mad Max.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here