|
Tesseraction posted:Out of interest how would you defend the EU from a left-wing perspective that isn't a negative about leaving but a positive about staying? I like the EU completely aside from Britain's membership in it and me personally benefiting from that. I would be very sad to see it go for the sake of the country I'm from, regardless of Britain leaving. There's a lot of reasons but to name a few: a) it's institutions are often more powerful and relatively apolitical compared to their national equivalents, and not as subservient to interest groups (see the consumer legislation, roaming charges, environmental regulations) b) it has potential to fix or help fix many issues specific to individual member states through putting outside pressure on them to bring things up to scratch, and there are many, many examples of this, e.g. legislation regarding obtaining British citizenship in the UK, pressure on instituting minimum wage, etc. c) a lot of convenience and freedom. Originally euro was conceived as part of this point and I still think it helps with that role, even if it has significant donwnsides for countries in economic crisis, as we've seen. Freedom of movement also falls in here. d) preventing national conflicts, as quaint as it may seem to us now; while the motto "Nationalism is the source of the most crying evils of our time" would make a socialist cringe (the answer being capitalism of course), I have to appreciate how upset it makes fascists and their ilk e) it allows Europe to better act and participate on international level, in things like airbus, interpol, euratom, esf, etc., etc. while I don't agree with the relative lack of support Europe has extended to refugees through these mechanisms, anyone who thinks that a "Europe of nations divided" would do it better is utterly deluded; instead the borders would close in Italy/Spain/Greece because they wouldn't be able to cope with the flood of refugees, and that would be that. In summary: EU is cool and good. It does do neoliberal things, but in my opinion that's at least partly because European electorates believe that's the right way to go, be it because of media or unchallenged political narrative or whatever else. I actually think European bureaucracy doesn't have an entirely neoliberal bent (particularly when compared to the US) and in fact often does things that make neoliberals mad. Not saying it's perfect, but it's a drat sight better than what we had before. And I also think the freedom of movement is bit of a red herring; though I can see why it's contentious, even if I don't see it as bad. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Feb 7, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You might be able to argue that international unions are probably a practical necessity when it comes to facilitating any sort of free movement and that predation upon that by Capital is sort of inevitable as long as there are predatory capitalist forces, and thus the EU does probably represent the best hope for internationalist free movement, or at least any other arrangement would probably not be free of its problems with free movement. Which would be fair but given how Turkey's accession to the EU is treated by politicians as the suicide of civilised Europe, is it truly internationalist or a case of choosing solidarity of ethnic origin? This isn't to say that leaving the EU is the necessary response, but what's the positive case for internationalism when the EU is reaching the limits of expansion? TTP did not have freedom of movement in its deal, neither does the Canadian one. More to the point, Yanis Varoufakis said that freedom of movement should require a bilateral agreement of a minimum-living wage before that freedom is allowed to be recognised or upheld, citing the unwilling migration of Eastern Europeans (in particular, but EU citizens in general) because working conditions in their home country are basically "go gently caress yourself for peanuts."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Trump won because his platform is populist authoritarian garbage which appals to angry idiots. Labour can win if they can point at the millions of jobs lost and thousands of lives lost and blame the tories for it. That's the Trump message, and it can win against blanket negative coverage. Except here, they don't even have to lie. They can't win by saying 'oh we would have done this thing we all agreed to slightly differently, in a way that everyone knows is impossible'. Gort posted:While alternatively I can support Trump, terrorists who shoot MPs in the street, and the tactics of the PLP. Nice false dichotomy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Supporting momentarily popular things you don't believe in that you know will be bad and unpopular later, because the press might be ~mean~ is the most disgusting political opinion I've seen all day, and I've been keeping up with US news. Seriously, wtf? Labour has two options
I really wish being correct was a positive thing in politics. We all know it really, really isn't - I mean the referendum itself was a dry run on this. People aren't going to say "I was wrong all this time!" and reward Labour with their apologies and support. If there's any chance of stopping this, Labour has to be in a position to shape public opinion over the next two years, or even win a snap election. Volunteering to be the national whipping boy won't help, even if it's morally correct as gently caress The Lib Dems can do that because they don't matter. That's not a burn, they just have the luxury of not being relevant (we've seen what happens when they are in a position of relevance obv)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Labour can win if they can point at the millions of jobs lost and thousands of lives lost and blame the tories for it. That's the Trump message, and it can win against blanket negative coverage. Except here, they don't even have to lie. They can't win by saying 'oh we would have done this thing we all agreed to slightly differently, in a way that everyone knows is impossible'. And I expect them to do so once that happens, or perhaps even once it becomes clear that this will be the result of the government's negotiations. But it has to happen first. And it would probably require a solid left leader other than Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
The only reason for voting for this Bill at second or third reading is if you want Brexit. That can include "I actually think its a bad idea but I believe in respecting the result of the referrndum", but basically it's a vote to make Brexit happen. I dont think there's a long term plan to build up support for staying in. How does voting for Brexit make it easier to argue later that Brexit is a disaster? And votes on second and third reading are separate to the amendment votes. Labour's support for the second reading doesnt somehow make it easier for Tory MPs to back amendments. I can understand why Labour's taking the position it is after the referendum but it's not a cunning plan, it's exactly what it looks like, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party voting to leave the EU.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Labour has two options Right, in the same way that everyone blamed the Lib Dems for the Iraq war. You Do Not Want To Be Involved In Brexit. You want the Tories, who will be the party that forced through the decision on a rushed schedule against the objections of all the other parties, to take 100% of the responsibility. This is easy, easy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Nice false dichotomy. You could explain why. The tories support Trump. Fascist right-wing terrorist groups shoot Labour MPs. The PLP has done everything it can to undermine the Labour party membership for the last two years. Those are the groups that win by Labour voters abstaining or god forbid, switching sides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I say with 90% certainty that The Morning Star doesn't have unpaid internships. Anyway, this is a bad excuse. Internships, as The Guardian's writers have admitted, are terrible. While I agree there does need to be a broader representation of minorities in journalism, that's hardly unique to race. Journalism is wholly unrepresentative of Britain as a whole. And going purely by population, the poor are much more unrepresented in that profession (& most other high prestige or high pay jobs). Hell, the only groups not over-represented are those that attended independent schools & those that attended Oxbridge. The morning star is not without its own labour relations problems. Paying minimum wage even in London. Sacking reporters who upset their favourite union officials, or deviating slightly from the party line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Which would be fair but given how Turkey's accession to the EU is treated by politicians as the suicide of civilised Europe, is it truly internationalist or a case of choosing solidarity of ethnic origin? This isn't to say that leaving the EU is the necessary response, but what's the positive case for internationalism when the EU is reaching the limits of expansion? TTP did not have freedom of movement in its deal, neither does the Canadian one. More to the point, Yanis Varoufakis said that freedom of movement should require a bilateral agreement of a minimum-living wage before that freedom is allowed to be recognised or upheld, citing the unwilling migration of Eastern Europeans (in particular, but EU citizens in general) because working conditions in their home country are basically "go gently caress yourself for peanuts." As I said, free movement is very open to exploitation as long as there is an exploitative class with the facility to do so. Be it racial or economic. A bilateral minimum wage would simply be untenable with the disparity between economies and the suggestion then becomes "no freedom of movement for poor countries" If you want internationalist free movement that's kind of the price you pay for it. Unless you plan on getting rid of captialism and international wealth disparity before free movement you're a bit scuppered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Gort posted:You could explain why. The tories support Trump. Fascist right-wing terrorist groups shoot Labour MPs. The PLP has done everything it can to undermine the Labour party membership for the last two years. Those are the groups that win by Labour voters abstaining or god forbid, switching sides. And this is why we should do everything they want in the name of democracy, so that two years from now May can reshape Britain to Trump's liking at economic gunpoint. That is the 'democratic' stand Corbyn is making.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Cerv posted:The morning star is not without its own labour relations problems. Completely agree. The Morning Star is a poor paper in its own respect. Minimum wage pay is shoddy as hell. I've no interest in defending CPGB (or whatever group it is that owns it) shills.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Paxman posted:I dont think there's a long term plan to build up support for staying in. How does voting for Brexit make it easier to argue later that Brexit is a disaster? It is harder to argue that brexit is not a disaster and actually will be the return of britain to glorious empire when it's happened and it is actually disastrous. Not an ideal option I know but apparently a lot of people aren't willing to believe that the future might be bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is harder to argue that brexit is not a disaster and actually will be the return of britain to glorious empire when it's happened and it is actually disastrous. Yes but I don't see how that is an argument for voting for Brexit now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
It's harder to argue you deserve any power or authority if you wait for the right wing press to change its mind before resisting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Yes but I don't see how that is an argument for voting for Brexit now? It's not really, A50 is happening either way so it doesn't really matter what Labour does at this stage. Trying to offer amendments is nice but unlikely to work. Voting against it is even less likely to work. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's not really, A50 is happening either way so it doesn't really matter what Labour does at this stage. As a labour voter and a remain voter, i think it does. Actions have consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:a) it's institutions are often more powerful and more apolitical than their national equivalents, and less subservient to interest groups (see the consumer legislation, roaming charges, ecological regulation) Firstly, thanks for the reply - I'm not out here to poo-poo them but wonder how it could be sold to the public. Let's be honest the Remain campaign basically waved pictures of bomb sites and made ghostly noises. (a) has its merits, although I'm curious as to how the effect of lobbying has changed in recent times. The ability of TPP to get as far as it did behind closed doors before popular unrest undid it made me suspicious whether we can necessarily rely on it. What can be done to counter a narrative of "they do things in secret and don't have our best interests at heart" in a Leave campaign? (b) also has its merits, but how does it deal with the rising nationalist tendencies in countries like Poland and Hungary? What problems can the EU point to in recent times as examples? Currently it feels like pointing to Greece being hosed (by the admittedly separate institution of the Troika) or Spain being paralysed or Portugal being eyed at arm's length or Italy circling a giant turd-clogged drain are more pertinent negative examples than we can produce a positive one. (c) I agree here that freedom of movement is a good thing, but how do you explain that to the ol' 'economically anxious' (read: mildly racist) people who don't trust immigration being in their best interest? I'm aware this is a hard one to answer because ultimately you're having to fight a proto-fascist mass media. (d) No argument there, although the average Brit is more likely to talk about how we beat the Nazis once so we can do it again... while also stroking their sleeve with the nervousness of someone not wanting to reveal their Celtic Cross. (e) Cynically anyone could argue they EU membership doesn't affect this. It looks like we're going to keep partnership with Europol for sure, and I think someone in this thread posted a statement from the gov saying we're going to reaffirm commitment to Euratom? These don't require full EU membership to be part of. I suppose when I say "defend the EU" I mean "defend being a full member of the EU rather than partner status like some others"...
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
We wouldn't still be arguing about this if *any* of us really thought it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:We wouldn't still be arguing about this if *any* of us really thought it doesn't matter. It concerns me that people think it does and are using that as their basis for whether or not to support the labour party in lieu of... presumably either not doing anything or voting for the lib dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As I said, free movement is very open to exploitation as long as there is an exploitative class with the facility to do so. Be it racial or economic. A bilateral minimum wage would simply be untenable with the disparity between economies and the suggestion then becomes "no freedom of movement for poor countries" Ah, I may have been unclear - the minimum-living wage is specific to the PPP of the country in question. The minimum wage could be €10.34 in one nation and €8.76 in another, according to the living expense of the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It concerns me that people think it does and are using that as their basis for whether or not to support the labour party in lieu of... presumably either not doing anything or voting for the lib dems. Then it should concern you that Corbyn is doing this. No matter what I say, there's a lot of pissed off Remain voters, and you will not convince them all it 'doesn't matter'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Then it should concern you that Corbyn is doing this. No matter what I say, there's a lot of pissed off Remain voters, and you will not convince them all it 'doesn't matter'. What was it you said about being right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:And this is why we should do everything they want in the name of democracy, so that two years from now May can reshape Britain to Trump's liking at economic gunpoint. Why does that get scare quotes from you? Implementing the result of a referendum is pretty democratic no matter how much you personally dislike the result. Refusing to accept that result would have just seemed like Trump's refusal to accept that he lost the popular vote, and given tons of "anti-democratic hypocrite" ammunition to the right wing. As we've seen from the Lib-dems, opposing Brexit is not some magic vote-generating machine. It's also quite possible to point out down the road should "Brexit was a bloody stupid idea" become accepted wisdom (which given the control of right-wing billionaires over the public discourse in this country is by no means guaranteed): 1. Labour campaigned against it and their members voted against it, unlike the tories who voted to leave in spite of their leader 2. Labour implemented Article 50 out of respect for the result of the referendum 3. Labour's leader stuck around to make the best out of that implementation, unlike the tory architects of Brexit who ran and hid at the first sign their cunning plan had come to fruition Gort fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Out of interest how would you defend the EU from a left-wing perspective that isn't a negative about leaving but a positive about staying?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Gort posted:As we've seen from the Lib-dems, opposing Brexit is not some magic vote-generating machine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Labour's Pro-Brexit stance isn't exactly a vote winner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The notion of workers having the right to migrate across the EU, and have access to healthcare, social services, and even to higher education anywhere in the 27 state bloc is an incredibly powerful left wing idea. And yet the serious borders we erect around Fortress Europe show that this not some principled position offered for making peoples lives better, it's a way of making Europe a political and economic force of capitalism relevant in the age of superpowers. It's about as leftwing as the Scottish-English border.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Erm take a look at quite a lot of the post Brexit votes mate. The LDs have made huge gains from absolutely nothing in the aftermath of the 2015 election. I'd argue that they were at a historic low at that point due to their capitulation to the tories, so some rebound was inevitable once people started to forget why they're so godawful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What was it you said about being right? Your position is both wrong and unpopular. I'm already tired of arguing the former with you, can you at least concede the latter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
I'm disappointed about Trump being banned from Parliament. At least before we had the possibility of him losing his cool as Skinner yelled something at him
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Your position is both wrong and unpopular. I'm already tired of arguing the former with you, can you at least concede the latter? Labour's position is popular: among Tories and UKIPpers
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The notion of workers having the right to migrate across the EU, and have access to healthcare, social services, and even to higher education anywhere in the 27 state bloc is an incredibly powerful left wing idea. Now try and defend that to the British public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Now try and defend that to the British public. 48% already agree its a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Right, in the same way that everyone blamed the Lib Dems for the Iraq war. Nobody blamed the Lib Dems for that because, like I said, they don't matter The Iraq war, and most of the other analogies people use, are different situations. This isn't parliament acting as the public's representatives, taking decisions on our behalf - they're choosing to recognise or overrule the result of a direct vote. That's completely different, and makes the whole thing more complicated - it's a whole other issue on top, one that can turn public opinion (leave or remain voter alike) against Labour. It's why they've been careful to keep saying things like they're not going to block it, they're respecting the decision, etc The Iraq war also wasn't a vote to start a process where the actual plan for intervention was discussed over two years, where the actual type of intervention hadn't been proposed, with the possibility to not go through with it at all The Iraq war was also a Labour initiative, pushed for by Tony Blair personally, so of course that's where the blame is going to lie. How much do people blame the Tories for supporting it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd argue that they were at a historic low at that point due to their capitulation to the tories, so some rebound was inevitable once people started to forget why they're so godawful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Now try and defend that to the British public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:48% already agree its a good thing. No, 48% voted to remain in the EU. That is different from specifically voting on the basis of the argument put forward from JBrereton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Gort posted:As we've seen from the Lib-dems, opposing Brexit is not some magic vote-generating machine.  Fangz posted:Folks like me are not just going to forget that Labour prioritised not getting eviscerated by the right wing media over representing the views of the people who voted for them. Labour is loving hosed. This so much. Of all the arguments against Labour opposing Brexit, "we'd get murdered in the press" is literally the absolute worst you can go with. It's literal cowardice. Politics is realigning on Brexit lines in the same way Scottish politics is realigning on independence lines. And to give credit to the Tories, at least they understand that. Likewise, representing the losing side doesn't mean political suicide. The SNP still have a working majority in Holyrood. Labour's position of "oh, I guess" on Brexit does them no favours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:No, 48% voted to remain in the EU. That is different from specifically voting on the basis of the argument put forward from JBrereton. OK then: 48% didn't vote against that argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 00:48
|
|