European Politics General (Canada welcome too, I suppose)

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

Catnip1024:

First, I distrust polls because I know for a fact that I lie whenever any randomer in the street asks me a question. If it's an online poll, it is biased by the type of people who fill them in. If it's a street poll, it's biased by where you do it and the people who can be bothered stopping.

Secondly, asking someone whether they voted Labour in the aftermath of the Corbyn fiasco (even asking them what they voted at the previous election) may not accurately reflect the people who are inclined to be Labour voters. I didn't vote Labour in the 2015 election, because Ed Miliband was not a person I could see running the country.

I'm not saying that it is incorrect. I am saying that it runs counter to all of my experiences. The remain voters I know tend to be the better off, Tory inclined types, or Liberals. The Labour voters I know tended to be in favour of Brexit overwhelmingly.

And if there is one thing we have learnt last year, it's that polls should be taken with a pinch of salt.

That's pure anecdote. All the problems inherent in polling are manifested a hundredfold in anecdotal evidence.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Well, yes, up to a point... The Treaty of Rome was an economic agreement, it was ultimately a customs union. Freedom of movement isn't "inextricable" from the single market, it's originally only envisaged in so far as it facilitates the single market. The Treaty allowed for the limitation of free movement on grounds of public policy, security or health (say, oh, 300,000+ new people turning and accessing public services every year). It also didn't apply to public servants.

It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy,
public security or public health
:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the
provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law,
regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that
State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations
to be drawn up by the Commission.
4. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

Of course there are qualifications and stipulations attached to freedom of movement; none of those provide a basis for a national government to place their own numerical restrictions on the movement of labour while staying within the single market. That defeats the entire purpose.

To believe that the European powers would accept that was frankly a little bizarre. I expect it from fringe figures such as Farage or Hannan; not so much the foreign secretary.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Seem funny to suggest a man who's openly stated he's for "dark, secret debates" is more honest. He and Merkel certainly have their eggs in one basket and so have very easily defined position,they are perhaps more forthright. I certainly couldn't see them doing anything but criticise Boris and I doubt they'd berate his Treaty of Rome knowledge, which I think was the original suggestion?

Well, he said that with regards to deciding economic policy, so as to prevent drastic reaction to announcement. That's arguably pretty shifty, but an entirely different matter to intentionally misleading people during a referendum, when public opinion is supposed to be gauged.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Ha ha, looks like old InFacts got a bit carried away with battering Full Facts there. So many facts! Interesting site.

I certainly have some sympathy for the idea that a limited number of people may have suggested to remain in the single market would be easier that it actually would have been. It wouldn't have been impossible but we would have had to pay for it. I still not sure Boris ever said that though, I think he said he'd like to do so but back away when the cost was mention. And it's can't see it was worse than the daily "economic apocalypse is nigh" pronouncements that the remain side indulged in. It was a cheap campaign all round for me.

It's certainly worse. Economic predictions are by their very nature speculative, and rely on the myriad reactions of people and companies. It's well known that they're not an exact science, and given the risk-heavy nature of the move (and the impact on the pound as well as other indicators), it was certainly not intentionally misleading to state that Britain could well face dire economic consequences.

That's a matter quite apart from misleading people over a fairly cut-and-dry matter, laid out in law.

Sonmi:

That's the thing, I think you should always try to limit the fostering of division, and it's not about my side winning either, "my side" has only really won once, during the last Canadian elections.

I agree but I also believe that it's a mutual effort and one side shouldn't be responsible for doing the bulk of the work. With a division so evenly split I don't think the burden should be disproportionately placed on one side over another.

In the words of Sanders; you should not blindly obstruct Trump (or whatever analogous party/figure you want), you have to hold him responsible to his words. Help him pass through his campaign promises that were reasonable and even good, such as opposing TPP and investing in American infrastructure, but also object whenever he acts in unsavory ways.

Trump, like the Leave campaigns here, have made very dubious promises. Surely if you obstruct attempts to betray those promises you are holding them responsible for their promises? I'm not a fan of blind obstructionism but I am not a fan of being a doormat either. The left are notorious for being doormats if the cesspit of neoliberalism is anything to go by.

The way establishment Democrats, and people proudly wearing their "Not my President/Prime Minister" badges, are acting at the moment helps no one, and can even arguably be said to be harmful to themselves and the people they claim to protect.

Well I'm not aware of any "Not my PM" movements seeing as PMs are not elected the way presidents are, but let's be clear that the "Not my President" movement against Trump is not simple partisan politics. Trump as an individual is reprehensible, a character that's built his reputation on vulgarity and scandal. Imagine if a post-Watergate Nixon was the president-elect. This is unprecedented (or unpresidented as Trump would say). The protests are less about opposing Trump but opposing the normalisation of Trump-like politicians. Because once you treat Trump as a regular president what happens next? Yeah, Kanye 2020.

Silvanus:
That's pure anecdote. All the problems inherent in polling are manifested a hundredfold in anecdotal evidence.

I fully recognise that. I'm not trying to convince people that the statistics are wrong based on personal anecdotes. But if your statistical findings go completely in the face of what I expect and have encountered previously, I will start to look at where inaccuracies or potential biases in the sampling will have crept in.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
And the [as yet undisclosed location of EviltheCat on the political spectrum] wonders why no one votes for them... No compromise [valedictory name for people of similar political persuasion], I am RIGHT. :) EDIT- ninja'd by Somni.

I'm not a politician. I don't need people to vote for me or like me, but I won't give outright lies, mythology, bizarre prejudices and wishful thinking the benefit of being read as legitimate discourse, because to do so corrodes the very fabric of public debate and discussion.

Frankly, on this issue I am very firmly on the political right. I may have some pretty fundamental issues with capitalism as an institution, but those are academic issues. Pragmatically in our world capitalism remains one of the strongest forces of globalization and internationalism, which are things I do care about. A large part of why I voted remain is because I live in a city the economy of which relies on financial services exports (the UK being, as mentioned, the largest exporter of financial services in the world) for which the EU is the largest market. When HSBC and UBS announce that they'll be moving thousands of jobs out of the UK because of the loss of financial services passports, you may be able to see those people as members of some abstract global "financial elite" but I can't, partly because some of those people are my friends and partly because I recognise the interdependence of a modern capitalist economy. Our country needs the earning power which those people provide.

In a liberal capitalist society we are equal in a legal sense but we are not in any practical sense entitled to respect or inclusion in public discourse. We are free to speak, but not free from judgement. The idea that everyone being entitled to their opinion is the same as all opinions being deserving of respect or "compromise" is farcical nonsense, and antithetical to the principles of a healthy democracy. Remember that democracy has been abolished by plebiscite in the not too distant past.

So why, on a rational basis, should I be obligated towards sympathy with or solidarity with people who clearly have very different priorities merely because I was born in the same arbitrary geographic classification as them. Why are they more important than any of the people whom their, as far as I can tell, entirely meritless decisions have actually fucked over? If I'm supposed to be on the "far left", why are you the one insisting on a collectivist sense of shared responsibility? Why are you the one policing tone and language?

And finally, on the subject of "noone voting", more than 16 million of us voted remain. The fact that 16 million people can be branded as a parasitic "urban elite", excluded from the categories of "real" or "ordinary" people, then dismissed and generally ignored within important decisions which affect them illustrates the degree of contempt behind these appeals for unity (because what it really means is "keep silent and don't complain when we marginalize you", "forgo your political rights to speak or protest to avoid offending those who disagree with you"). If you think that contempt doesn't come through, think again.

If you want solidarity and compromise, create it. Don't demand it.

Catnip1024:

I fully recognise that. I'm not trying to convince people that the statistics are wrong based on personal anecdotes. But if your statistical findings go completely in the face of what I expect and have encountered previously, I will start to look at where inaccuracies or potential biases in the sampling will have crept in.

Fine, do what you will. I can feel quite comfortable in calling bollocks on the notion that most Labour voters voted Leave, though; there's nothing substantial to back it up, much less than there is for the other side of that argument.

Dizchu:
I agree but I also believe that it's a mutual effort and one side shouldn't be responsible for doing the bulk of the work. With a division so evenly split I don't think the burden should be disproportionately placed on one side over another.

"The other side is divisive too" is not a valid argument, as far as I am concerned. As the left, it is our responsibility to be the better man if the right-wingers aren't willing to extend the olive branch.

And by that, I certainly don't mean we should be rolling over the same way neoliberals have a tendency to do, simply to stay civil and politically focused. Rhetoric that divides and antagonizes large swathes of people won't win people over to our side, policy and proper outreach will.

Dizchu:
Trump, like the Leave campaigns here, have made very dubious promises. Surely if you obstruct attempts to betray those promises you are holding them responsible for their promises? I'm not a fan of blind obstructionism but I am not a fan of being a doormat either. The left are notorious for being doormats if the cesspit of neoliberalism is anything to go by.

The infamous bus advert stated that the government could funnel the EU funds to the NHS, hold them responsible over that shit, use the most of your political capital to force them to honour this promise as best they can. Push for any of the popular promises they made during the campaign as long as they are ideologically sound, but don't blindly help them through their mandate.

You can be periodically bipartisan without being a doormat.

I wouldn't exactly call neoliberals "the left" either, they're a more palatable group of right-wingers who don't suffer from as much of an image problem as traditional conservatives.

Dizchu:
Well I'm not aware of any "Not my PM" movements seeing as PMs are not elected the way presidents are, but let's be clear that the "Not my President" movement against Trump is not simple partisan politics. Trump as an individual is reprehensible, a character that's built his reputation on vulgarity and scandal. Imagine if a post-Watergate Nixon was the president-elect. This is unprecedented (or unpresidented as Trump would say). The protests are less about opposing Trump but opposing the normalisation of Trump-like politicians. Because once you treat Trump as a regular president what happens next? Yeah, Kanye 2020.

We've had a poster in this thread alone stating the "not my country" statement, and one could argue that Sturgeon's whole push for a second indyref is born of the same sentiment. If someone doesn't vote like you, or if less-reputable groups of them see you as "an elitist", it's perfectly fine to dissociate yourself from them.

Answering divisiveness with more divisiveness won't mend any wounds between the British people, you'll just put more oil on the fire, and you should be better than that.

People shouldn't answer to the Trump phenomenon by claiming that he "isn't their president". He is, he won the election. The best way to counter the normalization of Trump-like candidate would be by examining why exactly Trump happened. Find out the root cause of the problem, what communities were abandoned by Republicans and Democrats alike, and tend to their woes, honestly too, not the way Trump "plans" to.

The thing that always makes me give up talking about Brexit is that it's throwing a lot of terms with people thinking there is only one certain way of how things to proceed (badly). In truth if someone tells you how the economy will act for a period of time longer than next week he is hypothesizing rather than giving anything concrete (and I would take what will happen next week with a grain of salt).

Basically being all doom and gloom does nothing to help (and probably hurts the market more), the world economy is always changing and adapting.

As for the rest of Europe I wonder if we get more right wing extremists or left wing extremists, the world is shifting away from globalization (and for good reason) as it was proven to be bad for the majority.

evilthecat:

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
And the [as yet undisclosed location of EviltheCat on the political spectrum] wonders why no one votes for them... No compromise [valedictory name for people of similar political persuasion], I am RIGHT. :) EDIT- ninja'd by Somni.

I'm not a politician. I don't need people to vote for me or like me, but I won't give outright lies, mythology, bizarre prejudices and wishful thinking the benefit of being read as legitimate discourse, because to do so corrodes the very fabric of public debate and discussion.

Frankly, on this issue I am very firmly on the political right. I may have some pretty fundamental issues with capitalism as an institution, but those are academic issues. Pragmatically in our world capitalism remains one of the strongest forces of globalization and internationalism, which are things I do care about. A large part of why I voted remain is because I live in a city the economy of which relies on financial services exports (the UK being, as mentioned, the largest exporter of financial services in the world) for which the EU is the largest market. When HSBC and UBS announce that they'll be moving thousands of jobs out of the UK because of the loss of financial services passports, you may be able to see those people as members of some abstract global "financial elite" but I can't, partly because some of those people are my friends and partly because I recognise the interdependence of a modern capitalist economy. Our country needs the earning power which those people provide.

In a liberal capitalist society we are equal in a legal sense but we are not in any practical sense entitled to respect or inclusion in public discourse. We are free to speak, but not free from judgement. The idea that everyone being entitled to their opinion is the same as all opinions being deserving of respect or "compromise" is farcical nonsense, and antithetical to the principles of a healthy democracy. Remember that democracy has been abolished by plebiscite in the not too distant past.

So why, on a rational basis, should I be obligated towards sympathy with or solidarity with people who clearly have very different priorities merely because I was born in the same arbitrary geographic classification as them. Why are they more important than any of the people whom their, as far as I can tell, entirely meritless decisions have actually fucked over? If I'm supposed to be on the "far left", why are you the one insisting on a collectivist sense of shared responsibility? Why are you the one policing tone and language?

And finally, on the subject of "noone voting", more than 16 million of us voted remain. The fact that 16 million people can be branded as a parasitic "urban elite", excluded from the categories of "real" or "ordinary" people, then dismissed and generally ignored within important decisions which affect them illustrates the degree of contempt behind these appeals for unity (because what it really means is "keep silent and don't complain when we marginalize you", "forgo your political rights to speak or protest to avoid offending those who disagree with you"). If you think that contempt doesn't come through, think again.

If you want solidarity and compromise, create it. Don't demand it.

Yeah, it was just a glib comment probably not worth your thoughtful answer.

However, I'd suggest that if we retreat into dismissing "outright lies, mythology, bizarre prejudices and wishful thinking" so vehemently and so readily we create our own. The key is "as far as I can tell...", which was probably the most rational thing you said. I am not sure hiding behind political concepts helps. Not indulging in ranting about "their country" is not collectivist, it just a normal respect for a different opinion. Why is the onus on other people to create compromise and solidarity when you show no interest yourself?

Ultimately, it seems to me come across as someone who's angry a vote didn't go their way and is indulging in rationalisations as to why that happens. This seems to boil down to you somehow having a clearer insight than other people. Indeed an insight so perceptive, so stripped of "outright lies, mythology, bizarre prejudices and wishful thinking", that is in essence so very "right" you need not compromise.

The "no one" voting was related to the far left thing rather than the EU referendum, and is clearly not applicable, calling people "urban elite" or "racist" achieves little as you say.

inu-kun:
The thing that always makes me give up talking about Brexit is that it's throwing a lot of terms with people thinking there is only one certain way of how things to proceed (badly). In truth if someone tells you how the economy will act for a period of time longer than next week he is hypothesizing rather than giving anything concrete (and I would take what will happen next week with a grain of salt).

Basically being all doom and gloom does nothing to help (and probably hurts the market more), the world economy is always changing and adapting.

As for the rest of Europe I wonder if we get more right wing extremists or left wing extremists, the world is shifting away from globalization (and for good reason) as it was proven to be bad for the majority.

Actually its the opposite, its good for the majority (cheaper price, more produce, more opportunity, develop poor country, more touristic opportunity, break up monopoly and so on) bad for a small minority (people in rich country with job that are very easily outsourced, ie require no skill) but because the benefit are indirect (people don't associate cheaper goods with outsourcing) while the downside are direct (laid off worker blame outsourcing for lost job) it has a bad press.

As far as future prediction, its true that its hard to do good prediction, but then that hold for both camp. So when people start saying leaving the EU would be good, do remind them of that.

Meiam:

inu-kun:
The thing that always makes me give up talking about Brexit is that it's throwing a lot of terms with people thinking there is only one certain way of how things to proceed (badly). In truth if someone tells you how the economy will act for a period of time longer than next week he is hypothesizing rather than giving anything concrete (and I would take what will happen next week with a grain of salt).

Basically being all doom and gloom does nothing to help (and probably hurts the market more), the world economy is always changing and adapting.

As for the rest of Europe I wonder if we get more right wing extremists or left wing extremists, the world is shifting away from globalization (and for good reason) as it was proven to be bad for the majority.

Actually its the opposite, its good for the majority (cheaper price, more produce, more opportunity, develop poor country, more touristic opportunity, break up monopoly and so on) bad for a small minority (people in rich country with job that are very easily outsourced, ie require no skill) but because the benefit are indirect (people don't associate cheaper goods with outsourcing) while the downside are direct (laid off worker blame outsourcing for lost job) it has a bad press.

As far as future prediction, its true that its hard to do good prediction, but then that hold for both camp. So when people start saying leaving the EU would be good, do remind them of that.

Not really, cheaper prices don't do much when there's lack of jobs. Developing poor countries is nice but is on the bottom of a country's agenda. As for monopolies doesn't it makes them stronger? As they can just relocate factories to poor countries and give even lower prices while medium and small sized businesses can't have that luxury and stand the competition, making the rich richer.

If there wasn't so much problem with globalization there wouldn't be such a huge backlash against it, especially as the ones who are in control of the media are the ones who benefit most from globalization.

inu-kun:

Not really, cheaper prices don't do much when there's lack of jobs. Developing poor countries is nice but is on the bottom of a country's agenda. As for monopolies doesn't it makes them stronger? As they can just relocate factories to poor countries and give even lower prices while medium and small sized businesses can't have that luxury and stand the competition, making the rich richer.

If there wasn't so much problem with globalization there wouldn't be such a huge backlash against it, especially as the ones who are in control of the media are the ones who benefit most from globalization.

The backlash is mainly linked to ignorance of how large the benefits actually are. You see when people buy their clothes, Iphones, etc. they don't realize that without globalization they would be much more expensive. What they do see and feel is when a company decides to lay off workers. But here's the thing, globalization is just one of the many elements which are causing job losses. Technology also costs jobs on a daily basis, should we stop that too? Abandon AI, Robotics, Digitalisation,etc.? Economies change, we survived just fine going from agrarian economies towards industrial ones and afterwards towards service oriented economies. The government shouldn't waste money on trying to artificially keep industrial sites alive through subsidies or protectionist policies, it should invest in education to help those who lost their jobs find their path into the service industry.

And why just limit ourselves to measures which protect from foreign competition? What about domestic companies merging together and laying off people because of increased synergies and economies of scale? Should we force all companies to be SME's to maximize job creation?

Meiam:
Actually its the opposite, its good for the majority (cheaper price, more produce, more opportunity, develop poor country, more touristic opportunity, break up monopoly and so on) bad for a small minority (people in rich country with job that are very easily outsourced, ie require no skill) but because the benefit are indirect (people don't associate cheaper goods with outsourcing) while the downside are direct (laid off worker blame outsourcing for lost job) it has a bad press.

As far as future prediction, its true that its hard to do good prediction, but then that hold for both camp. So when people start saying leaving the EU would be good, do remind them of that.

Cheaper price: Sure, doesn't help people out of a job though.
More produce: Absolutely.
More opportunity: For the people with the means and education to profit from it. The people dicked over by the loss of their jobs are still suffering.
Develop poor countries: Yes, but who says that should be the responsibility of richer countries? It's not as if it was done out of altruism either, the jobs exported there are usually very poor condition.
More touristic opportunity: Sure, but I wouldn't really say that this is a big factor.
Breaks up monopolies: On the contrary, it allows for megacorps to produce for far cheaper and further enlarge their profit margin, allowing them to bleed any local alternative dry and still fill their pockets.

Also, the "small minority" you're throwing under the bus is mostly working class, and the benefits coming from it mostly advantage groups that are already well-off, those who can already tap into the global market through education and who see their purchasing power exponentially increased through cheaper goods. Essentially, globalization makes the richest far richer, can profit or harm the middle class, certainly harms them if they are small business owners, and harms the poorest through outsourcing and the importation of low-wage workers.

It does increase the national GDP, sure, but it's also a major factor in income inequality and the concentration of wealth.

generals3:
The backlash is mainly linked to ignorance of how large the benefits actually are. You see when people buy their clothes, Iphones, etc. they don't realize that without globalization they would be much more expensive.

A) Actually, I think a very real problem is the inability to quantify the benefits of globalisation, lots of posts here saying "more this, less that", no actual data because really, how do you quantify a pound made from "globalisation"?

B) I don't think people are as ignorant as you make out. I think people who like globalisation like to say people who don't are to make themselves feel better about the current backlash against it.

C) I also think you overplay the value of cheaper consumer goods here. Globalisation as a concept is linked with a huge raft of social issues such as public resource management, feelings of alienation in the indigenous population, labour market size and wage issues. In Brexit there was a definable current of people ignoring (so far amusingly inaccurate) economic advice because they were sick of some aspect of the EU.

I'd agree with you globalisation is inevitable, technology can't be put back in a box but the problem has been the pace of the change. I still argue that if Tony Blair hadn't been a total idiot and failed to put in place the safeguards the EU created for the very purpose of carefully managing the start of open border immigration (and then lied about the size of his error for nearly half a decade with BBC support) then we'd still be in the EU. Instead, France did, Germany did and all the hardworking Eastern Europeans who fancied a better wage came to the UK at once. So now, we will have a period of retrenchment and it will slow and then perhaps pick up speed again. Whether people are ignorant or not is arguable but resistance to change is hardwired.

Sonmi:

Cheaper price: Sure, doesn't help people out of a job though.
More produce: Absolutely.
More opportunity: For the people with the means and education to profit from it. The people dicked over by the loss of their jobs are still suffering.
Develop poor countries: Yes, but who says that should be the responsibility of richer countries? It's not as if it was done out of altruism either, the jobs exported there are usually very poor condition.
More touristic opportunity: Sure, but I wouldn't really say that this is a big factor.
Breaks up monopolies: On the contrary, it allows for megacorps to produce for far cheaper and further enlarge their profit margin, allowing them to bleed any local alternative dry and still fill their pockets.

Also, the "small minority" you're throwing under the bus is mostly working class, and the benefits coming from it mostly advantage groups that are already well-off, those who can already tap into the global market through education and who see their purchasing power exponentially increased through cheaper goods. Essentially, globalization makes the richest far richer, can profit or harm the middle class, certainly harms them if they are small business owners, and harms the poorest through outsourcing and the importation of low-wage workers.

It does increase the national GDP, sure, but it's also a major factor in income inequality and the concentration of wealth.

I mean, people love to talk about jobless people, but there's actually very few of them historically and it's not like without globalization we'd reach 100% employment. Also people without job still get money from the government, so cheaper price is actually most beneficial to people without a job since that means they can buy quite a few more with there very limited resource. So yeah, it does help people out of a job, quite a lot actually. Cheaper price are actually most insignificant for the very rich, cause wether there iPhone cost 500$ or 5000$ means very little when you make 50 000 000 $ a year, same for food, they don't really give a rat ass if there chicken cost 10$ or 25$, but for a poor person that's the difference between chicken once a week or once a year.

Monopoly are actually served really well by nationalization because it means there's no outside player that can come and disrupt there territory, if you look at a time before globalization was really a things you'll find that monopoly were everywhere, like standard oil company eventually grew so big that the government literally had to come in and break it up. Yes globalization does not stop the possibility of monopoly existing, but it hamper them.

The small minority is that, a small minority, yeah there are a few loser, but the small gain on everyone wildly exceed the loss of the minority and I don't believe society should stop themselves doing something that benefit 95% of population just for the sake of the other 5%. Everyone purchasing power increase due cheaper stuff, not just the rich, yes the rich draw more benefit from it, but if someone give you a 1000$ dollar and your neighbor 5000$ do you tell him to give neither of you the money because you get less?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
Not indulging in ranting about "their country" is not collectivist, it just a normal respect for a different opinion. Why is the onus on other people to create compromise and solidarity when you show no interest yourself?

Dizchu:
We've had a poster in this thread alone stating the "not my country" statement, and one could argue that Sturgeon's whole push for a second indyref is born of the same sentiment. If someone doesn't vote like you, or if less-reputable groups of them see you as "an elitist", it's perfectly fine to dissociate yourself from them.

Okay. So clearly neither of you understood my point, so let me remind you.

image

I did not come up with the idea of "not my country".

image

I did not create the rhetoric which contrasted two possible futures for Britain by presenting them as wholly different countries.

I did not set out to present over 16 million people as a small and irrelevant "elite" minority.

I did not attempt to utterly exclude a large proportion of the population from decisions which intimately impact on their lives. I did not pursue this to the point of trying to suspend the democratic process itself, or denouncing public servants as "enemies of the people". I am also not attempting to politically blackmail people into supporting a political agenda which is hostile to the majority of the electorate.

The Leave campaign, and Theresa May's government in the wake of its success, has used the division created by the referendum for its own ends, to present clear ingroups and outgroups, a distinction between ordinary people and out of touch elitists, or worse, outright "traitors" (a term I never thought I would hear being thrown around in ordinary discourse). How exactly am I or anyone supposed to compromise with that position, short of accepting second class citizen status and commending people as they push a political agenda which is intensely hostile to me and to everyone I know.

Also, sorry. But I don't find Eurocrats, curved bananas or references to Winston Churchill (a man who, unlike almost everyone who voted remain, actually did support the idea of a single European state) terribly persuasive. I'm not going to give people a round of applause and pretend that someone having an opinion makes them equal in merit to someone who has a PhD in European Law or Economics. I'm not going to indulge in obscurantist nonsense about the universe being entirely numinous and unknowable and thus all opinions being equally valid. If that is elitist, then fuck it. Elitist and proud. If that is traitorous, fuck it. I'm a traitor. If that puts me at odds with the good and noble "real people", then again. I can live with that. I did not create this rhetoric, but if it's going to be the political rhetoric of our time then why should I be the one to mend the divisions it creates? What's in it for me?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
Ultimately, it seems to me come across as someone who's angry a vote didn't go their way and is indulging in rationalisations as to why that happens.

Not really. It's obvious to me why it happened. I see the headlines the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph have been putting out for years now. Despite the somewhat ironic perception among leavers that they were not being listened to, their views have been somewhat inescapable for a long time. This is also not the first time a major political decision has not gone in my favour. Having worked with disabled adults for several years of my life, the 2015 general election felt like being punched in the stomach. It is hard to take a political decision impersonally when you can put a human face on the stakes, something which also applies to me here. However, the reason I am still angry in this case is primarily because the display of contempt has never really stopped. The calls for unity and demands for understanding, in that context, become merely another form of aggression and another tool of political marginalisation.

If "compromising" would actually secure me or people like me the chance to have a measurable influence, then it would be worthwhile. However, no attempt has been made to secure that consensus. We have an unelected government seeking to bypass the elected parliament, using threats to try and control the democratically elected political system and indulging in rhetoric which 10 years ago would have been confined to the BNP or the more extreme fringes of UKIP, and we have a significant proportion of the electorate outright celebrating that degree of exclusion. Again, where exactly are the rewards of compromise? If this government is determined to paint a significant proportion of this country as its enemies rather than taking measures to reassure and bring them on side, then frankly we gain more through opposition of the government (and those it is pandering to) than through compromise.

generals3:

inu-kun:

Not really, cheaper prices don't do much when there's lack of jobs. Developing poor countries is nice but is on the bottom of a country's agenda. As for monopolies doesn't it makes them stronger? As they can just relocate factories to poor countries and give even lower prices while medium and small sized businesses can't have that luxury and stand the competition, making the rich richer.

If there wasn't so much problem with globalization there wouldn't be such a huge backlash against it, especially as the ones who are in control of the media are the ones who benefit most from globalization.

The backlash is mainly linked to ignorance of how large the benefits actually are. You see when people buy their clothes, Iphones, etc. they don't realize that without globalization they would be much more expensive. What they do see and feel is when a company decides to lay off workers. But here's the thing, globalization is just one of the many elements which are causing job losses. Technology also costs jobs on a daily basis, should we stop that too? Abandon AI, Robotics, Digitalisation,etc.? Economies change, we survived just fine going from agrarian economies towards industrial ones and afterwards towards service oriented economies. The government shouldn't waste money on trying to artificially keep industrial sites alive through subsidies or protectionist policies, it should invest in education to help those who lost their jobs find their path into the service industry.

And why just limit ourselves to measures which protect from foreign competition? What about domestic companies merging together and laying off people because of increased synergies and economies of scale? Should we force all companies to be SME's to maximize job creation?

So how come wealth inequality has only risen the past years? If globalization would have worked and it would have benefited the majority shouldn't it went down?

Also going against globalization does not go against progress (and it can be argued that globalization hurts progress as it created world wide monopolies with firm holdings on patents).

evilthecat:
MEGA SNIP

"I see the headlines the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph have been putting out for years now" - so read the Guardian, Independent and the Mirror then, similarly endless reams of "all migrants are down trodden heroes, yoked by the man and just waiting for a chance" narrative in there for you if that's your bent? It's no more true of course, they are both just narratives. For someone so sure they eschew narrative and offer an especial, piercing insight you seem pretty steeped in it.

"I did not attempt to utterly exclude a large proportion of the population from decisions which intimately impact on their lives" - no one excluded anyone, there was a vote, everyone knew the rules, slightly less, but also significantly less people agreed with you, bad luck, you didn't like the result, no one excluded you, this is a whine.

"We have an unelected government seeking to bypass the elected parliament" - this old chestnut, trotted out by every person who didn't get the government they wanted in the UK. I think I indulged in it when Brown was at the end of his tenure and basically stole from my pension to bribe his core vote in a desperate attempt to secure some sort of support. It was a whine when I said it and it's another whine when you do, the system has been in place for some time, we all live by it.

"using threats to try and control the democratically elected political system" - what threats? Define democratically elected political system.

"and indulging in rhetoric which 10 years ago would have been confined to the BNP or the more extreme fringes of UKIP" - Yawn, everyone who discusses immigration is "da superz racialists", how very BBC in 2001, how very student union hyperbole, how very Huffington Post. Give me a single example of a mainstream politician using BNP language...

You seem a smart chap but also like you've got a bit caught up in the rectitude of your own convictions to be honest. You've created some sort of political persecution complex where even the suggestion of cohesion is a passive aggressive attack on your viewpoint. You've created bugbears and evil influencers to explain why you've been thwarted. What would in your eyes be a reasonable attempt to build "unity"? One suspects little short of reversing the outcome of the vote, or watering it down to the point of ineffectiveness would suffice - and that's not compromise, that's doing what EviltheCat wants...

Anyway, ultimately it doesn't really matter whether you compromise I guess, it just makes you look unpleasant, which you seem to revel in, so more power to you. The reason we have votes is so stuff gets done and as you say you have a right to whine while it's being done. It didn't help me when Blair and Brown set about destroying the University system, threw open the borders ultimately destroying support for the EU, and aggressively grew the benefit State so the could use GDP to buy votes, but I did it, so swings and roundabout. I was as angry and as sure about it at the time too.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
so read the Guardian, Independent and the Mirror then, similarly endless reams of "all migrants are down trodden heroes, yoked by the man and just waiting for a chance" narrative in there for you if that's your bent?

1) Find me a front page which says that.

2) There's a big difference between an interpretation of a true event in terms of a narrative (which is inescapable in media) and an outright, made up lie. If you can't tell the difference between the Guardian or the Indy and the Mail or the Express, then are you interested in seeing princess Diana's ghost? Only a thousand bucks.

3) Why are we talking about migrants?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
no one excluded anyone, there was a vote, everyone knew the rules, slightly less, but also significantly less people agreed with you, bad luck, you didn't like the result, no one excluded you, this is a whine.

I'm talking about after the referendum.

And no, it's becomming very clear that noone knew the rules, because suddenly great swathes of national policy are being determined on the basis of an advisory referendum far, far beyond any clear mandate provided by the referendum itself.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
this old chestnut, trotted out by every person who didn't get the government they wanted in the UK.

No. It's quite literal.

Noone elected the government which is in power right now. There has not been a general election since the entire government was replaced.

The government literally went to court to challenge the idea that it has to go through the elected parliament in order to change the law in accordance with the basic principles of our parliamentary democracy. It unsurprisingly lost. The government and its defenders seem to be very sad about this. Phrases like "enemies of the people" have been thrown around.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
"using threats to try and control the democratically elected political system" - what threats? Define democratically elected political system.

The democratically elected system is parliament, which is supposed to be sovereign in our political system and the sovereignty of which was a major cornerstone of the leave campaign (somewhat farcically, since parliament actually was sovereign whereas now the government doesn't seem to think it is).

The threat is Theresa May's claim that if parliament rejects her proposed "hard Brexit" plans she will carry on anyway and deliberately sabotage the negotiations.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
Give me a single example of a mainstream politician using BNP language...

"Urban elite"

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
What would in your eyes be a reasonable attempt to build "unity"?

Accepting the sovereignty of parliament and allowing it a free vote on the precise terms under which the UK leaves the EU, preferably after a general election so that government has a clear popular mandate. You know, the way democracy usually works and has worked in this country for over a century.

But I suppose that would get in the way of "getting things done". Democracy is sometimes inconvenient like that.

inu-kun:

So how come wealth inequality has only risen the past years? If globalization would have worked and it would have benefited the majority shouldn't it went down?

Also going against globalization does not go against progress (and it can be argued that globalization hurts progress as it created world wide monopolies with firm holdings on patents).

Depends on what kind of large scale benifits we're talking about.

Sure, "inequality" has risen by a few percentage points, but the risk of poverty has decreased.

So that means that, while Joe "Poor" Workman is seeing the large companies shovelling in more money, he isn't noticing the increase in cash he is making himself.

Personally I get really riled up by populists who seem to have an issue with "globalism", because they all display the same "worldview".

They all seem to only exist in a world that extends to the borders of their municipality, and 100m up in the air, which of course means they don't see any benefits in open borders (both for travel, and trade), think "foreigners" are scary, and space exploration is a waste of money.

MrFalconfly:

inu-kun:

So how come wealth inequality has only risen the past years? If globalization would have worked and it would have benefited the majority shouldn't it went down?

Also going against globalization does not go against progress (and it can be argued that globalization hurts progress as it created world wide monopolies with firm holdings on patents).

Depends on what kind of large scale benifits we're talking about.

Sure, "inequality" has risen by a few percentage points, but the risk of poverty has decreased.

So that means that, while Joe "Poor" Workman is seeing the large companies shovelling in more money, he isn't noticing the increase in cash he is making himself.

Personally I get really riled up by populists who seem to have an issue with "globalism", because they all display the same "worldview".

They all seem to only exist in a world that extends to the borders of their municipality, and 100m up in the air, which of course means they don't see any benefits in open borders (both for travel, and trade), think "foreigners" are scary, and space exploration is a waste of money.

It's almost like they need to be wealthier for it to be rational to care about places and situations beyond their immediate circumstances. It's almost like they want their share of productivity growth, and recognize that it's morally indefensible that owners rake in all the benefits while workers have stagnant wages.

The answer is clear: make everyone wealthier. They will then have the luxury of being able to care about all the things you care about.

inu-kun:

So how come wealth inequality has only risen the past years? If globalization would have worked and it would have benefited the majority shouldn't it went down?

No. That globalization has overall a good impact should be seen as rising average wealth and standard of living.

Inequality is something else. Something capitalism inherently produces and is usually countered by regulations, taxes, social policies and so on. Countries redistribute wealth to combat the rising inequality coming from their capitalist economic systems.

Now, besides making everyone richer on average, globalization does make it easier for companies to evade those wealth redistribution laws. That is why globalization is sometimes linked to inequality. But the way to combat that is for nations to form international trade laws and agreements hurting those tax evaders, not to give up globalization.

So yes, international organizations like the UN, the WTO and the EU should can be the counterweight to multinationals playing with reagional laws and playing countries out against each other.

Satinavian:
So yes, international organizations like the UN, the WTO and the EU should can be the counterweight to multinationals playing with reagional laws and playing countries out against each other.

Ideally.

Unfortunately, regulatory capture is a thing internationally as well as nationally. It's easier to let far right populists unplug one's country from globalization than it is to both win elections against entrenched center right establishments and coordinate with other countries to fix the WTO to be something very different and far better than what it actually is.

Yes, it is hard work. But it is the only way.

Isolation will only make a country as a whole poorer. It doesn't even solve existing inequality problems. The inevitable economic downturn will make the gouvernment weak. And it does not give one strength against multinationals. Those leave (and take the jobs with them) or tend to get bribed to stay. An isolated country is not attractive for investors.

Seanchaidh:

MrFalconfly:

inu-kun:

So how come wealth inequality has only risen the past years? If globalization would have worked and it would have benefited the majority shouldn't it went down?

Also going against globalization does not go against progress (and it can be argued that globalization hurts progress as it created world wide monopolies with firm holdings on patents).

Depends on what kind of large scale benifits we're talking about.

Sure, "inequality" has risen by a few percentage points, but the risk of poverty has decreased.

So that means that, while Joe "Poor" Workman is seeing the large companies shovelling in more money, he isn't noticing the increase in cash he is making himself.

Personally I get really riled up by populists who seem to have an issue with "globalism", because they all display the same "worldview".

They all seem to only exist in a world that extends to the borders of their municipality, and 100m up in the air, which of course means they don't see any benefits in open borders (both for travel, and trade), think "foreigners" are scary, and space exploration is a waste of money.

It's almost like they need to be wealthier for it to be rational to care about places and situations beyond their immediate circumstances. It's almost like they want their share of productivity growth, and recognize that it's morally indefensible that owners rake in all the benefits while workers have stagnant wages.

The answer is clear: make everyone wealthier. They will then have the luxury of being able to care about all the things you care about.

Thing is, everyone ARE getting wealthier. Just at different rates (rates that are determined by a lot of variables, one of which are their own effort, and another would be their starting point).

I'm not particularly wealthy, but I still feel that my demographic (young, 20-something middleclass people), is too hung up on, as I put it before, their own very limited "borders of their municipality, and 100m up in the air" universe, and think anything spent outside of that "universe" is money down the drain, when it plainly isn't.

Of course, whether one thinks this is "fair" depends on whether you see equality as "equality of opportunity" or "equality of outcome".

Do you want globalism to make everyone millionaires?

Or do you want globalism to make a game where everyone has a chance to become millionaires, provided they play the game right?

Personally, I'd rather the latter, mainly because that's a level playing field.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

A) Actually, I think a very real problem is the inability to quantify the benefits of globalisation, lots of posts here saying "more this, less that", no actual data because really, how do you quantify a pound made from "globalisation"?

Well whenever "experts" tried to quantify the costs of a Brexit they were flipped off so does it really matter? It's all about how people "experience" things, and the benefits of globalization are extremely hard to "experience" because no one knows for sure how things would be without it. The only thing we do know is that it has made trade much easier and allowed companies to produce things where it's the cheapest. Which in turn allows them to sell those goods at lower prices.

On top of that freeing labor can offer a lot of advantages as well, if it's managed properly (and this is where most governments failed with regards to handling globalization). If governments invested more into cheap/accessible education programs for people who lost their jobs due to globalization they could have been redirected towards jobs which are more efficiently done here. I don't think that Belgium is the only European nation where every year statistics are released about jobs where companies have a damn hard time finding labor. (and that don't necessarily require a civil engineering degree)

But anyway, when i meant ignorance I didn't mean it in a "they're stupid"-way, as you said it's hard to quantify the gains from globalization and as such it is also hard not to be ignorant about its benefits.

B) I don't think people are as ignorant as you make out. I think people who like globalisation like to say people who don't are to make themselves feel better about the current backlash against it.

It doesn't help that the backlash ignores every aspect where globalization does help and usually amount to cheap one liners like "it took our jobs!". Just look at the Brexit campaign, Bremain had a horde of experts with extensive reports on their side and all the Brexit campaign did was dismiss them as elitists who were out of touch with the population. How can you not dismiss that as cheap anti-intellectual nonsense? And I'm not saying you should take all those fancy experts (who aren't always right) and their research at their face value. But let's at least criticize their work and opinion based on facts or other research instead of populist one liners. (Just to be clear: i'm not saying that is what you do)

C) I also think you overplay the value of cheaper consumer goods here. Globalisation as a concept is linked with a huge raft of social issues such as public resource management, feelings of alienation in the indigenous population, labour market size and wage issues. In Brexit there was a definable current of people ignoring (so far amusingly inaccurate) economic advice because they were sick of some aspect of the EU.

To be fair, wage issues have always existed in the world. Peasants in the middle ages, miners in the industrial era, etc. All had lousy incomes and lives and the world was not nearly as "globalised" as it is now. A lot of these issues can be (partially) solved with the right policies. The problem is that most world governments don't have the balls to take on big business. And when major economies like China, the US and the UK show the bad example by acting like the lapdog of big corporations other nations are forced to follow and you end up in a vicious circle. Ironically the EU was the UK's best chance at lowering income inequality. (Granted, the EU has currently been failing on that aspect but the EU could exert a lot more influence on companies than the UK alone)

I'd agree with you globalisation is inevitable, technology can't be put back in a box but the problem has been the pace of the change. I still argue that if Tony Blair hadn't been a total idiot and failed to put in place the safeguards the EU created for the very purpose of carefully managing the start of open border immigration (and then lied about the size of his error for nearly half a decade with BBC support) then we'd still be in the EU. Instead, France did, Germany did and all the hardworking Eastern Europeans who fancied a better wage came to the UK at once. So now, we will have a period of retrenchment and it will slow and then perhaps pick up speed again. Whether people are ignorant or not is arguable but resistance to change is hardwired.

Oh i'm not arguing resistance to change isn't something very real. However one part of change management is to clearly convey the benefits of the change and on that matter globalization failed. And that's why we end up with a lot of people ending up resisting something due to "ignorance". (And this is not meant to be pejorative towards these people, it's not their fault "globalization" is a very intangible concept with advantages which are very hard to quantify)

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
so read the Guardian, Independent and the Mirror then, similarly endless reams of "all migrants are down trodden heroes, yoked by the man and just waiting for a chance" narrative in there for you if that's your bent?

evilthecat:
1) Find me a front page which says that.

Take your pick: "cold, hungry, dirty, at the mercy of traffikers and death, the Syrian refugees, who crossed Europe to reach a safe haven" - seems a good example, "UK makes ?20bn from migrants", another.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=independent+front+page+migrants&safe=active&biw=1164&bih=871&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBy9OPsdjRAhUBWywKHRJDCdwQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1.1

evilthecat:
2) There's a big difference between an interpretation of a true event in terms of a narrative (which is inescapable in media) and an outright, made up lie. If you can't tell the difference between the Guardian or the Indy and the Mail or the Express, then are you interested in seeing princess Diana's ghost? Only a thousand bucks.

Oh that's a lie right there, the migrants weren't all from Syria as the Guardian tried to claim; they were from a huge range of places, including pure economic migrants from Pakistan and India.

Otherwise, the Guardian was my match for the Telegraph in your original comment. The Independent is no better than the Mail or Express, aggressive, borderline rabid, bias, presented in an extremely unpleasant, needlessly vitriolic "fight the power" polemic fashion.

evilthecat:
3) Why are we talking about migrants?

It was an example. Plenty of other EU lies from Remain, including the recklessly hyperbolic economic forecasts (yes, I know there are "about" to happen, have been for a while).

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
no one excluded anyone, there was a vote, everyone knew the rules, slightly less, but also significantly less people agreed with you, bad luck, you didn't like the result, no one excluded you, this is a whine.

evilthecat:
I'm talking about after the referendum.

And no, it's becomming very clear that noone knew the rules, because suddenly great swathes of national policy are being determined on the basis of an advisory referendum far, far beyond any clear mandate provided by the referendum itself.

So, after the vote didn't go your way people have a duty to make the vote go your way? Implementing that vote is some how excluding you?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
this old chestnut, trotted out by every person who didn't get the government they wanted in the UK.

evilthecat:
No. It's quite literal.

Noone elected the government which is in power right now. There has not been a general election since the entire government was replaced.

The government literally went to court to challenge the idea that it has to go through the elected parliament in order to change the law in accordance with the basic principles of our parliamentary democracy. It unsurprisingly lost. The government and its defenders seem to be very sad about this. Phrases like "enemies of the people" have been thrown around

Nope, not even slightly, too much reliance on Independent polemic perhaps? :) The government was taken to court by a 3rd party because it believed it could rely on prerogative powers to revoke a Treaty. The law is pretty unclear in the area because it's all based on unwritten conventions but one of the "basic principles of our parliamentary democracy" is that the Government retains monarchical powers in certain key areas, such as declaring war, and indeed Treaty making, and therefore does not need to consult parliament. The argument mainly focuses on whether once a power is transcribe into an Act or Treaty does this mean the prerogative power is constrained and become scruintisable? There's no clear answer, might get one in a few hours though :) Yes, enemies of the people was silly but that's the press.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
"using threats to try and control the democratically elected political system" - what threats? Define democratically elected political system.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
The democratically elected system is parliament, which is supposed to be sovereign in our political system and the sovereignty of which was a major cornerstone of the leave campaign (somewhat farcically, since parliament actually was sovereign whereas now the government doesn't seem to think it is).

The threat is Theresa May's claim that if parliament rejects her proposed "hard Brexit" plans she will carry on anyway and deliberately sabotage the negotiations.

Ah, yes, well that did seem a very strange thing to suggest. You seem very keen on claiming exclusion, how much worse would it be if the section of society that had won the vote were "excluded"?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
Give me a single example of a mainstream politician using BNP language...

evilthecat:
"Urban elite"

Ha ha, please, I have no idea why that upsets you so much? It's hardly exclusive to UKIP and the BNP is it? We both know you were trying to infer "racism".

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
What would in your eyes be a reasonable attempt to build "unity"?

Accepting the sovereignty of parliament and allowing it a free vote on the precise terms under which the UK leaves the EU, preferably after a general election so that government has a clear popular mandate. You know, the way democracy usually works and has worked in this country for over a century.

But I suppose that would get in the way of "getting things done". Democracy is sometimes inconvenient like that.[/quote]

You mean hold another referendum you think you might win in other words?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Otherwise, the Guardian was my match for the Telegraph in your original comment. The Independent is no better than the Mail or Express, aggressive, borderline rabid, bias, presented in an extremely unpleasant, needlessly vitriolic "fight the power" polemic fashion.

Oh, that blustering, faddish argument that's doing the rounds.

Anyone who seriously compares the Independent (and perhaps more so the Guardian and Telegraph) to the Mail or Express in journalistic quality of that sort is voluntarily surrendering their intellectual credibility.

The kindest thing I can assume is that you didn't look through the titles your own Google search showed up.

You mean hold another referendum you think you might win in other words?

It would be for the government to take a look at what sort of democratic mandate exists for the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU. As opposed to using Brexit to construct a UK entirely of their own desires with no mandate or clear reference to public will. Because that sounds to me a lot like what "arrogant elites" do.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
Take your pick: "cold, hungry, dirty, at the mercy of traffikers and death, the Syrian refugees, who crossed Europe to reach a safe haven" - seems a good example, "UK makes ?20bn from migrants", another.

And how do these stories relate to your claim?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
Oh that's a lie right there, the migrants weren't all from Syria as the Guardian tried to claim; they were from a huge range of places, including pure economic migrants from Pakistan and India.

You mean the Syrians migrants injured in the lorry accident which prompted the article, or the Syrians who were interviewed? Which was the lie?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
It was an example.

Of what?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
So, after the vote didn't go your way people have a duty to make the vote go your way? Implementing that vote is some how excluding you?

No, that's not the problem.

The referendum was an advisory referendum to gauge public opinion on an issue. We are not a plebiscite democracy, so these kinds of referenda have no binding legal power. They do not constitute in and of themselves a mandate for sweeping legal and political change. Around 52% of those who voted voted to leave, 48% voted to remain. I think it is entirely reasonable for those who voted leave to expect that parliament will accord to their wishes, but it is also entirely reasonable for those who voted remain to have their views represented in parliament through the normal political process and to have the government answer their specific concerns to the satisfaction of parliament.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
The government was taken to court by a 3rd party because it believed it could rely on prerogative powers to revoke a Treaty.

..and it lost the case, and instead of accepting that result chose to appeal to the supreme court.

Does the fact that your government is resorting to medieval holdovers to avoid a parliamentary vote not resonate to you as exhibiting a certain contempt for democracy?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
You seem very keen on claiming exclusion, how much worse would it be if the section of society that had won the vote were "excluded"?

Which section of society which won the vote?

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
Ha ha, please, I have no idea why that upsets you so much? It's hardly exclusive to UKIP and the BNP is it? We both know you were trying to infer "racism".

No. Mysteriously, we don't. I'm glad you can read my thoughts though.

It "upsets" me because the coding (urban/rural, global/local, divorced from land/connected to land, decadent/moral, patriotic/treasonous) is a lot more fascist than you probably think it is.

Yeah, you might think that's overreacting, and maybe it is. It's not that elites don't really exist or that criticism of elitism isn't important or significant. But think of it this way, when the prime minister of the UK gives a speech to a room full of VIPs in central London, eating a meal that costs more than the median weekly wage, and a major theme of that speech is an attack on elitism, then who exactly is an elite? It's not a socio-economic elite, a lot of them are there applauding and agreeing that something needs to be done about these awful elitist people. In that context, an elite is merely a person who is out of touch with the popular voice, who doesn't reflect the will of the people (as embodied, obviously, by Theresa May and her government, those brave crusaders against elitism who never drink ?300 bottles of wine at fancy gala dinners).

It's a dangerous rhetoric because it's actually meaningless. Anyone can be an elite, it's nothing to do with how rich you are or whether you're actually responsible for any of the problems in the country or the world, it's purely whether you're with us or against us. That is how the BNP thinks. They might call you a "cultural Marxist" instead of an elite, but it means the same thing (specifically, it means nothing). It's conspiratorial nonsense.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
You mean hold another referendum you think you might win in other words?

If there was another referendum and we did win, what would be the problem with that? Or do referenda only count as the popular will when they return the result you like?

But no, I personally don't support a second referendum. I don't really see the issue with one since they are merely advisory and if parliament decides to go that route I don't really see the harm, but it isn't something I'd personally support. I do think democratically elected representatives need to be involved in deciding the terms of Britain's exit from the EU, however, rather than the government unilaterally deciding on a deal which panders to a minority of the voting population.

MrFalconfly:
Do you want globalism to make everyone millionaires?

I'd like our heightened productivity to be distributed to all citizens-- and in the global case all people-- rather than just the small handful of owners of capital or land. Owning land and capital is not a function of merit. We don't need everyone to be a millionaire, but it would be quite an improvement if everyone were guaranteed an income sufficient to survive in relative comfort. A handy side effect is that the terrible risk of financial ruin would no longer be in the way of "self-improvement" and entrepreneurship.

generals3:

Well whenever "experts" tried to quantify the costs of a Brexit they were flipped off so does it really matter? It's all about how people "experience" things, and the benefits of globalization are extremely hard to "experience" because no one knows for sure how things would be without it. The only thing we do know is that it has made trade much easier and allowed companies to produce things where it's the cheapest. Which in turn allows them to sell those goods at lower prices.

I think this is a good point. It's an easy assumption to look at various dissatisfactions in life and find someone or something to blame, without being able to recognise that the purported source has in fact made your life more good than bad because the alternative is not experienced.

And perhaps in the end, people have to make the choice to reject what's best for them in order to discover why its best for them. Normally, you might hope they find out pretty quickly and go back to the original course. Alternatively, they might do something really hard to undo, like jack in a good deal with a trade bloc and spend a whole 20-30 years out in the cold.

On top of that freeing labor can offer a lot of advantages as well, if it's managed properly (and this is where most governments failed with regards to handling globalization). If governments invested more into cheap/accessible education programs for people who lost their jobs due to globalization they could have been redirected towards jobs which are more efficiently done here. I don't think that Belgium is the only European nation where every year statistics are released about jobs where companies have a damn hard time finding labor. (and that don't necessarily require a civil engineering degree)

I agree here also.

In the UK, EU membership has parallelled de-industrialisation, rising wealth inequality, decreased social services and much more. But I don't believe the EU has caused any of them. Westminster freely chose to run the state in a way that deliberately based economic growth on favouring the richest sectors of society. Not so extremely as in the USA, but it occurred nonetheless.

Rather than face up to the population / electorate on the path the country took over the last few decades, the political classes have willingly used the EU (or let it be used by others) as a scapegoat for inequities caused by their own decisions. It has resulted in an electoral revolt that is predicted most likely to cause the country a significant decline in fortunes. I fear none of the responsible parties will ever be held to account, except through the damnation of future history books.

Agema:

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Otherwise, the Guardian was my match for the Telegraph in your original comment. The Independent is no better than the Mail or Express, aggressive, borderline rabid, bias, presented in an extremely unpleasant, needlessly vitriolic "fight the power" polemic fashion.

Oh, that blustering, faddish argument that's doing the rounds.

Anyone who seriously compares the Independent (and perhaps more so the Guardian and Telegraph) to the Mail or Express in journalistic quality of that sort is voluntarily surrendering their intellectual credibility.

The kindest thing I can assume is that you didn't look through the titles your own Google search showed up.

Um I don't think I compared the Guardian or Telegraph to the Mail or the Express.

"Blustering" and "faddish", eh? I like that. You may have a different opinion but I personally I feel it's dropped off a cliff since it went online, it always skirted the tipping point of left wing hysteria in terms of opinion pieces (or dashed over it when Owen Jones got involved, but that's sort of the point of Owen Jones, ha ha) but tended to be as balanced as any news source with hard editorial line could be. However, since low circulation drove it online it's been forced to ever more ridiculous proclamations and invective filled rants in search of an audience, well clicks. Maybe "faddish" comes from more and more people noticing the change. It's a shame a new source set up to be an apolitical paper of record was forced into to such straits but it's very difficult to make money with a newspaper pandering to a worldview, and pander does, very much, sadly these days, as far as I can see. Maybe it's pandering to you? I find it hard to notice bias that favours me.

I did of course notice the other headlines, my point was not that other papers don't indulge, but that left wing news sources are as manipulative. It's an oddly prevalent quirk of the left wing that even the most rational member seems to believe their own press its somehow "pure" when it's merely a different side of the same coin.

You mean hold another referendum you think you might win in other words?

Agema:
It would be for the government to take a look at what sort of democratic mandate exists for the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU. As opposed to using Brexit to construct a UK entirely of their own desires with no mandate or clear reference to public will. Because that sounds to me a lot like what "arrogant elites" do.

Yes, I am sure you'd be saying that if the Remain camp had won too :)

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

"Blustering" and "faddish", eh? I like that. You may have a different opinion but I personally I feel it's dropped off a cliff since it went online

It is undoubtedly weaker than it was. It has maintained standards somewhat better than the Independent or Telegraph. The former is virtually non-existent. The Telegraph is recognisde for being a hollowed-out shadow of its former self with dodgy practices - see for instance:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

Virtually all the "legacy media" (as I believe the newer web publishers call newspapers) are struggling, because web advertising is overwhelmingly sucked up by Facebook, Google, etc. and the money is not there to support the journalistic standards of yesteryear. And the legacy media have to compete with the Buzzfeeds, Breitbarts and HuffPos that have distinctly weaker standards - and thus can save lots of money on expensive checking, investigative journalism, etc. - by incorporating more lightweight drivel to draw the clicks. In the end, quality journalism is dying because people won't pay for it when shite journalism is more entertaining and free at the point of use.

The reason the Guardian is more noticeable - and has many more detractors - is because of the web and (paradoxically) its success. After all, in the old, paper days when it sold ~400,000 paper copies, it would be read by under 2 million people, nearly all British and most of them at least approximately sharing its political line. It is now alongside the New York Times as the most globally read, English language, centre-left, news organisations on the internet, and it's not paywalled (the NYT is semi-restricted). So it is read a lot more, and easy to cite. And a lot of people reading it are people who oppose its political stances, because so many people love to fire themselves up with righteous indignation.

The Guardian therefore often ends up competing in the political sphere with people getting news from distinctly trashy right-wing publications. The proponents of those newspapers simply want to deny the fact that their news sources print material that is of significantly inferior quality. And so they pretend the Guardian is about the level of the Daily Mail, which it assuredly is not.

but that left wing news sources are as manipulative.

Are they? Do you really think a newspaper that prints a headline calling judges "enemies of the people" for interpreting the national law is equivalent to anything the Guardian does?

It is not that left-wing media is not manipulative. But higher-quality media, by having higher standards about information quality and presentation, necessarily prevents a certain amount of manipulation.

Yes, I am sure you'd be saying that if the Remain camp had won too :)

I wouldn't need to.

Let's imagine all the buses in your town are blue. You have a referendum on whether to change the colour of the buses to another colour. If over 50% say keep it blue, why do you need a further debate? However, if over 50% vote to change it, what mandate exists for any other colour: red, green, yellow, etc. to determine the new colour? let's say 60% want a new colour, but they are split roughly equally between the red, green and yellow. In a run-off vote, red wins. But then you have a town where now only 25% people prefer the bus colour, instead of the 40% it used to be.

This is the odd thing about Brexit. People vote to leave the EU, okay. But what's the real issue, about the sort of Britain the people want for the future - because assuredly people voted Brexit with very different ideas about what future UK would be like. Potentially, we are heading for a Brexit UK even less favoured by its people than the old EU version.

Seanchaidh:

MrFalconfly:
Do you want globalism to make everyone millionaires?

I'd like our heightened productivity to be distributed to all citizens-- and in the global case all people-- rather than just the small handful of owners of capital or land. Owning land and capital is not a function of merit. We don't need everyone to be a millionaire, but it would be quite an improvement if everyone were guaranteed an income sufficient to survive in relative comfort. A handy side effect is that the terrible risk of financial ruin would no longer be in the way of "self-improvement" and entrepreneurship.

Well, it is. Just in different rates.

More people now are guaranteed "an income sufficient to survive in relative comfort" than ever before, largely thanks to globalism.

The only reason it may seem otherwise, is that this improvement isn't an overall constant, nor does it equalise the results for everyone.

I wonder what would have happened if the Brexit vote failed and there was a vote in Parliament afterwards to make sure.

MrFalconfly:
Well, it is. Just in different rates.

More people now are guaranteed "an income sufficient to survive in relative comfort" than ever before, largely thanks to globalism.

The only reason it may seem otherwise, is that this improvement isn't an overall constant, nor does it equalise the results for everyone.

Not just "in different rates", it's completely disproportionate, don't sugarcoat it.

With capital comes political clout, and when the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated within the top percentile of the population, the political system stops working in the benefit of the majority of the population, and has no interest doing so really. Under globalism, the wage inequality grows, heightened production disproportionally favours the richest, and the people's influence on national affairs dwindles. The working and middle classes struggle to set money aside, while "job creators" freeze massive amounts of wealth, going strictly against the principle of what was supposed to be trickle-down economics.

Add to that the very scary prospect of automation of the workforce being right around the corner, and the people very much have all of the right reasons to be suspicious of politics that favour throwing them aside if a cheaper alternative is found, and which helps the most privileged regardless of merit over anyone else.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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