Brexit: Hard or Soft - Poll

[bemused]

Fresh starts always sound good, but politics and economics don't really work like that. Everything's always built on or continuing something else, goods can't just stop flowing, industries can't tear down and rejig their production lines on a dime, countries remember the old deals and what's owing. "Crashing out" isn't really "crashing out," it's just a mess of poorly-understood compromises and unknowns which'll eventually get mashed together using mostly the old systems.

Money talks, I can't belive th EU and UK won't end up with some sort of trade deal. Even if it requires some traiff based tax to sell into the EU.

 

[DotCommunist]

politics and economics don't really work like that. Everything's always built on or continuing something else, goods can't just stop flowing, industries can't tear down and rejig their production lines on a dime, countries remember the old deals and what's owing.

so basically you're saying after brexit capital will continue to do as it has always? Necessarily then fought on grounds where we can and have demonstrably won limited concessions? Good good.

 

[not-bono-ever]

afraid i do no share optimisim here = handing back the keys to the robber barons- there will no new new just old new or old old

 

[ska invita]

surprised not more people have voted or commented, considering the strong opinion before the referendum

 

[Brainaddict]

surprised not more people have voted or commented, considering the strong opinion before the referendum

It's difficult for me to comment on a preference for anything that's on offer - I voted Remain but not out of any love for the EU, more out of dislike of the effects/causes of Leave in the current political climate.

I can imagine a Brexit package I wouldn't mind: limiting movement of goods and capital (e.g a more self-sufficient agricultural policy) and freedom of movement for people. This is not on the table - if it had been I might have voted Leave I suppose.

 

[Raheem]

Well, I voted remain and, at the moment, I think the best outcome would be for the Tories to eventually be forced into the humiliation of begging the EU27 to reverse Article 50 so that we just stay in. I also think that's a slightly more likely outcome than is generally acknowledged.

I might have settled for a soft Brexit, but the election of Macron in France spells bad news for impending EU reform, IMO, and so the prospect of having a UK Labour government involved in that process at some point in the next five years is what tips the balance for me.

There's no form of Brexit which is realistically achievable and which would benefit either the UK or other European countries. Why go through with something that has no purpose?

 

[ohmyliver]

Is there an option for any Brexit which won't be used as an economic shock, in a Shock Doctrine style, to dismantle what's left of the welfare state, and the NHS, and propel the UK into a sort of Singaporesque/Randist free market/tax haven state where the resultant increase in inequality and suffering is managed by cloying nostalgia and increasingly toxic nationalism?

 

[steeplejack]

Well, I voted remain and, at the moment, I think the best outcome would be for the Tories to eventually be forced into the humiliation of begging the EU27 to reverse Article 50 so that we just stay in. I also think that's a slightly more likely outcome than is generally acknowledged.

I might have settled for a soft Brexit, but the election of Macron in France spells bad news for impending EU reform, IMO, and so the prospect of having a UK Labour government involved in that process at some point in the next five years is what tips the balance for me.

There's no form of Brexit which is realistically achievable and which would benefit either the UK or other European countries. Why go through with something that has no purpose?

^^ this

 

[Brainaddict]

Is there an option for any Brexit which won't be used as an economic shock, in a Shock Doctrine style, to dismantle what's left of the welfare state, and the NHS, and propel the UK into a sort of Singaporesque/Randist free market/tax haven state where the resultant increase in inequality and suffering is managed by cloying nostalgia and increasingly toxic nationalism?

I suppose Brexit under Corbyn's Labour might have less of that sort of thing. But given we have much of Labour arguing for free markets and possibly for labour movement restrictions, I'm not convinced it will be *very* different from a Tory Brexit.

 

[mather]

That's something worth thinking about, how about a post-EU union once we start getting some left-wing govs elected in Europe?

Is that really feasible? After the bitter experience of the EU I don't think anyone has the appetite for another European union, I know I don't. Let us not forget that the largest, strongest, most powerful country in Europe is Germany and politically speaking it is now the most reactionary country in Europe as well as the leading exponent of neo-liberalism. As long as this remains the case, a Europe under German hegemony is not something Britain should get to close to.

Instead of utopian Pan-European projects, would it not be better for Britain to seek to develop strong bilateral relations with those European countries who share our concerns and interests?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think Germany is the most reactionary country in Europe politically speaking. Not by a long chalk. Have taken in the best part of a million refugees in the last couple of years.

Compare and contrast with a place like Hungary.

 

[mather]

I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of the UK having to pay to leave on good terms, but £50bn is the yearly budget of a single government department. In government budget terms it's not small, but as a one-off payment it's not that large.

The UK government for 2017 is £744 billion. £50 billion would be roughly 8% of the total budget and the higher estimate of £100 billion would be 16% of the total budget, either figure is extremely high especially when so many are suffering at home and told that we can do nothing about it because the cost is too high. It's outrageous actually.

But putting these figures aside, I'm opposed to paying the EU a leaving/extortion fee as a matter of principle. The purpose of such extortion is punishment, to cripple us so that exiting the EU will cost us and hurt us badly. All because we had the temerity to vote to Leave. It is also being used as message aimed at other European countries to prevent them from entertaining any ideas of leaving the EU, basically saying that if you leave then we will fuck you up, classic Mafia behaviour and this is why I view the EU as such.

It's comparable to the (realistic rather than claimed) cost of buying a single defence system we'll never use (Trident).

I'm opposed to Trident and would prefer a fully British system that is not reliant on the Americans for it's maintenance. I'm sorry but pointing that out in no way justifies the EU trying to extort money out of us, regardless of your views on Trident.

On that topic, who is to say the EU would spend the money any worse than a Tory government?

At least our government is somewhat accountable to us and we can get rid of them, unlike the technocrats that run the EU. Besides, it is our money, why on Earth should it end up outside Britain when we need so much money to deal with many problems this country faces?

I guess I'm just saying, if you want to get indignant about how government money is spent, the EU divorce bill is here today and gone tomorrow - it seems a shame that it will attract much more fuss than the shite governments spunk money on every day of the week (their friends' private companies for instance).

Why is it an either or though? I'm opposed to money being wasted on the EU and privatisation/corporate welfare.

 

[Raheem]

I'm opposed to paying the EU a leaving/extortion fee as a matter of principle. The purpose of such extortion is punishment, to cripple us so that exiting the EU will cost us and hurt us badly. All because we had the temerity to vote to Leave.

There is no "leaving fee" in play. The detail of the divorce bill is obviously going to be open to debate, but there's no fine or anything similar in the mix. It's all to do with real costs stemming from the UK's EU membership, which have to be dealt with in some way. Either the UK pays, or the other EU countries pay or, where it's possible, the spending gets cancelled.

 

[mather]

Syriza already exists,

Syriza, really? I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole, not after they way they sold out and betrayed Greek workers and their voters. As far as I am concerned Syriza are no different from the other parties of capital like PASOK and New Democracy.

Before they took power I probably would have voted for them were I Greek but after what they have done my vote would now go to the Communist Party (KKE).

 

[J Ed]

Syriza, really? I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole, not after they way they sold out and betrayed Greek workers and their voters. As far as I am concerned Syriza are no different from the other parties of capital like PASOK and New Democracy.

Before they took power I probably would have voted for them were I Greek but after what they have done my vote would now go to the Communist Party (KKE).

Was simply arguing against the point that left-wing govs hadn't been elected in Europe, which isn't true.

 

[mather]

I can imagine a Brexit package I wouldn't mind: limiting movement of goods and capital (e.g a more self-sufficient agricultural policy) and freedom of movement for people.

You can't really have limits on goods and capital but freedom of movement. The freedom of movement of goods, capital and people is an economically liberal position and it would be inconsistent to have controls over the first two but not the latter. It is an inconsistency that would not hold up very well in any political narrative.

That is why I as a socialist support controls on all three, a planned economy entails such controls.

 

[mather]

I don't think Germany is the most reactionary country in Europe politically speaking.

Tell that to the Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese. Tell that to the German workers who for the last decade have seen their jobs and job quality decline under the Hartz reforms. When it comes to matters of economics and trade Germany is the most reactionary country in Europe. It has been the country that has been the most zealous in imposing neo-liberalism in Europe, motivated by a mixture of ideological allegiance to neo-liberalism among its political elite and the fact that such policies benefit Germany's ability to export its goods within Europe at everyone else's expense.

Also, compared to the voting intentions and habits of other European countries, German voters are very conservative when compared to nations like France, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Since 1949 the Federal Republic has been governed by a very cosy partnership of the CDU/CSU/SPD/FDP usually in coalition agreements that deprive the German government of any effective opposition and their political culture and levels of industrial action and working class organisation are pitiful compared to their European neighbours. Germany's political culture is extremely stale and conservative and I never get why some people on the left have this thing for Germany, it is no utopia by any stretch of the imagination.

Not by a long chalk. Have taken in the best part of a million refugees in the last couple of years.

I was talking about Germany being reactionary in the economic sense, both in the sense of their actions and the fact that they are leading and most powerful exponents of economic liberalism in the EU. As a socialist I focus mainly on economics and the social relations and conflicts that arise from such conditions. A country can be as open and as friendly as it like to refugees or immigrants and can fly as many rainbow flags as it wants but if it is privatising everything, dismantling the welfare state, attacking the working conditions and livelihoods of its workers and forcing other countries in Europe to do that on much harsher terms, then it is reactionary. The experience of David Cameron and the likes of the Lib Dems should have taught us that.

I really wish the left would return to a more economistic stance with a focus on the working class rather than this defeatist and passive accommodation with the existing order of things, that no major changes can take place and that we should just be content with neo-liberalism with a few minor cosmetic changes on social liberal issues.

I would also like to ask you if you really think that Merkel's decision to allow the refugees in was based on any noble humanitarian grounds rather than the fact that German capitalism needs more people to work for them and exploit? Call me cynical but Merkel couldn't give a fuck about these poor people and the misfortunes they suffer, if she didn't show such concerns towards Greece and the fact that you now have elderly women looking for food in bins on the streets of Athens, why would she show it to anyone else.

 

[mather]

Compare and contrast with a place like Hungary.

Thankfully Hungary is the exception at the moment but with the way things are going unless the left gets it's arse in gear then that exception may well become the norm.

 

[isvicthere?]

Poll fail. No option for 'I voted Remain and I want the tories to screw up so badly that brexit doesn't happen.'

So I plumped for the Remain/soft brexit option.

 

[Ptolemy]

I voted Remain and ideally would like the UK to stay in the EU, with reforms to the structure of the Union making it more democratic and pulling it towards a left-wing ethos. Of course, this is a pipe dream, and maybe the best thing that can happen is a soft Brexit led by a Corbyn-led Labour, whose campaigning model enables other left-leaning parties to take power throughout Europe.

 

[Casually Red]

Tell that to the Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese. Tell that to the German workers who for the last decade have seen their jobs and job quality decline under the Hartz reforms. When it comes to matters of economics and trade Germany is the most reactionary country in Europe. It has been the country that has been the most zealous in imposing neo-liberalism in Europe, motivated by a mixture of ideological allegiance to neo-liberalism among its political elite and the fact that such policies benefit Germany's ability to export its goods within Europe at everyone else's expense.

Also, compared to the voting intentions and habits of other European countries, German voters are very conservative when compared to nations like France, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Since 1949 the Federal Republic has been governed by a very cosy partnership of the CDU/CSU/SPD/FDP usually in coalition agreements that deprive the German government of any effective opposition and their political culture and levels of industrial action and working class organisation are pitiful compared to their European neighbours. Germany's political culture is extremely stale and conservative and I never get why some people on the left have this thing for Germany, it is no utopia by any stretch of the imagination.



I was talking about Germany being reactionary in the economic sense, both in the sense of their actions and the fact that they are leading and most powerful exponents of economic liberalism in the EU. As a socialist I focus mainly on economics and the social relations and conflicts that arise from such conditions. A country can be as open and as friendly as it like to refugees or immigrants and can fly as many rainbow flags as it wants but if it is privatising everything, dismantling the welfare state, attacking the working conditions and livelihoods of its workers and forcing other countries in Europe to do that on much harsher terms, then it is reactionary. The experience of David Cameron and the likes of the Lib Dems should have taught us that.

I really wish the left would return to a more economistic stance with a focus on the working class rather than this defeatist and passive accommodation with the existing order of things, that no major changes can take place and that we should just be content with neo-liberalism with a few minor cosmetic changes on social liberal issues.

I would also like to ask you if you really think that Merkel's decision to allow the refugees in was based on any noble humanitarian grounds rather than the fact that German capitalism needs more people to work for them and exploit? Call me cynical but Merkel couldn't give a fuck about these poor people and the misfortunes they suffer, if she didn't show such concerns towards Greece and the fact that you now have elderly women looking for food in bins on the streets of Athens, why would she show it to anyone else.

Great post

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I want Hard Lexit. Not sure what that means, but I don't suppose it's any less well defined than all the other hard/soft options.

 

[Brainaddict]

You can't really have limits on goods and capital but freedom of movement. The freedom of movement of goods, capital and people is an economically liberal position and it would be inconsistent to have controls over the first two but not the latter. It is an inconsistency that would not hold up very well in any political narrative.

That is why I as a socialist support controls on all three, a planned economy entails such controls.

You can't have such a narrative under neo-liberalism, obviously. I think it's perfectly consistent with various socialist narratives you could come up with - a real internationalism would undermine borders after all. I know it's not on offer atm, but that's a long way from saying it's impossible.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course you can have such a narrative under neo-liberalism. That's exactly what has happened under neo-liberalism in fact. What on earth is fortress europe and the millions of deportations under Obama in the US if not exactly that narrative? You just sprinkle some socially liberal fairy dust on it and it turn into a progressive.

 

[butchersapron]

neo-liberalism is borders, is camps in north africa, is one-in-one-out detention in turkey. Just borders pushed further back to the poorer areas. It's effectively EUKIP.

 

[Brainaddict]

Of course you can have such a narrative under neo-liberalism. That's exactly what has happened under neo-liberalism in fact. What on earth is fortress europe and the millions of deportations under Obama in the US if not exactly that narrative? You just sprinkle some socially liberal fairy dust on it and it turn into a progressive.

It's the controls on capital and movement of goods that you can't accommodate so much under neo-liberalism.

If you were trying to undermine borders in Europe under internationalist socialist narratives you would presumably be trying to undermine borders at the edge of/outside Europe too.

 

[butchersapron]

It's the controls on capital and movement of goods that you can't accommodate so much under neo-liberalism.

If you were trying to undermine borders in Europe under internationalist socialist narratives you would presumably be trying to undermine borders at the edge of/outside Europe too.

They are one and the same. And i'm not inteterestd in undrmining borders but in establishing that this much vaunted freedom of movement means borders, and it means the forced movement ( the "dull compulsion of economic relations") of people from low-wage areas to higher wage areas to drive down those higher wages. They really aren't just after a load of erasmus twats and enriching minds. Talking about freedom of movement is as bonkers as talking about the freedom to work.

And of course you can accommodate limits on movements of capital and goods under-neo-liberalism. It's exactly what we're going to see coming next.

If we talk as if there is currently free movement of capital and goods we normalise that nonsense and suggest that a) it's happening and b) it's just nature. It doesn't and it isn't - we live in massively planned and organised economy where stuff like this is used as legitimating myths.

 

[Brainaddict]

They are one and the same. And i'm not inteterestd in undrmining borders but in establishing that this much vaunted freedom of movement means borders, and it means the forced movement ( the "dull compulsion of economic relations") of people from low-wage areas to higher wage areas to drive down those higher wages. Talking about freedom of movement is as bonkers as talking about the freedom to work.

And of course you can accommodate limits on movements of capital and goods under-neo-liberalism. It's exactly what we're going to see coming next.

If we talk as if there is currently free movement of capital and goods we normalise that nonsense and suggest that a) it's happening and b) it's just nature. It doesn't and it isn't - we live in massively planned and organised economy where stuff like this is used as legitimating myths.

Are borders a good solution to people having to move from lower to higher wage areas? Where does that end? Should we establish a border across the midlands so people can't come to London from northern ex-industrial towns? I can't really work out how your logic would end up in a good place.

Okay, we're talking relative limits on capital and goods movement. I'm talking the kind of strong controls that would encourage stronger national/regional economic self-sufficiency.

 

[butchersapron]

Why are you going on at me about borders?

 

[ska invita]

can anyone explain what labours position on Brexit is these days?