If You Could Vote Again (Brexit)

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

How can you possibly make the leap from UK domestic coal production suddenly becoming an export product.Just because only MP’s in mining constituencies have the ultimate responsibility over decisions which specifically affect affect the industry.We’re talking about a domestic product sold in the domestic market and Thatcher’s obvious removal of that industry for politically motives.Making us a net importer of energy also being against the ‘national’ interest not just local mining interests.

When I said “export”, I tried to be clear that I meant “exports” into other constituencies (which would, in turn, have their local vetoes with which to control the national government). That is, the miners relied on getting their product out into the rest of the country, and they relied on the national government making capital investments in the mining industry and in industries that were big coal consumers.

If all constituencies had a veto over the national government, then even a single right-wing constituency (maybe a rotten borough, bought off for the purpose) could have vetoed the very creation of the National Coal Board, and vetoed every single pay settlement, health and safety improvement, and capital investment that the national government had made in coal.

How could Ford possibly expand on ‘the continent’ in the 1960’s when European buyers generally bought the respective French/Peugeot/Renault/Citroen and German VW/BMW/Merc and Italian Fiat products and very rarely Ford.

I don’t know, but the fact is that it did expand on the continent. After all, if some on the continent decided that they liked Ford cars (the same kind as made by Ford of Britain), and Ford was making them on the continent, then why wouldn’t they buy those cars? For the same reason, I suppose, that Brits bought Ford cars (an American firm), and not just Austins (a British firm from the start).

And bear in mind the UK was a major car exporter - Dagenham didn’t just serve Britain.

As opposed to here where Cortina and Zephyr/Zodiac were massive sellers and no one had even really heard of the poxy Taunus for good reason it was a total piece of junk by comparison.On that note how old were you in the 1960’s/70’s and how many Ford Taunuses did you ever see of UK roads let alone in Europe then ?.IE who are you trying to kid when it’s obvious that the plan was to allow Ford Germany to get a stranglehold in the far more lucrative UK market and close down Ford UK operations.Which Callaghan then carried out in the 1970’s not the 1960’s as part of his Europhile position.The fact that Ford Germany then conveniently removed itself from the premium mid range completely in the form of dumping the Granada and replacing it with the fwd piece of zb Mondeo,leaving the way clear for BMW and Merc,being another obvious part of the corrupt Krauts plan.Thereby reducing the demand even more for what was left of Ford UK’s operations.

But you’re not following me. Ford already had operations on the continent - heck, Henry Ford had invested in ■■■■ industry in the 1930s, never mind the 60s. The Spanish had the Valencia plant from 1973 (and they were not part of the EEC until a decade later).

You mention the Granada, they made the models here and in Germany - and like I say, the reason they then chose to move it to Germany was almost certainly because of the industrial strife here, not part of any over-arching “Kraut plan”, but just basic business decisions. Ford weren’t a nationalised company, they were a private company free to make their own decisions. The Mondeo was assembled in Belgium, so how does that fit into the “Kraut plan”?

Yes we know Labour poured loads of cash into BL then allowed the foreign competition to flood the uk market which took the firm out rather than leave the EU and apply import restrictions to protect the public investment.Again all based on your bs ideology of class war and looking after foreign workers at the expense of our own.So that worked out well.

But at this stage I’m not even really arguing against you, I just don’t really follow your argument as whole. Is it that, because the UK was a significant car producer, it could have prevented Ford moving it’s operations in response to strikes and unrest, by imposing tariffs and quotas on imports, so that Ford would still be forced to maintain production here?

Yes, it could have protected the domestic market like that, but it would not have saved it’s export market, since clearly other countries that were importing Ford vehicles would still have gone to Germany for those cars, if the British producers were on strike and simply didn’t have the cars to sell. And in the long-term, Ford would still have wound its operations down to the level of just serving the domestic market, but not incorporating the production capacity (nor making future investment) for export which represented a significant number of jobs in the British car industry. And with lower volumes, and less investment, and a ban on imports, would come higher prices and ageing car models. And in due course, they’d have probably just left the entire British market to BL, with it’s constant strikes which would have continued to undermine British ability to meet export demand (even in the presence of defensive tariffs to protect the home market from imports).

It’s like I’ve said before, you can be an exporter or you can be a sovereign, but you can’t be both at the same time. If you want to be an international exporter, and gain the additional jobs and scale of production, and therefore wealth that comes with being an exporter, then you have to obey the logic of international markets, and you have to out-compete other countries who also want to gain the same benefits of being exporters. Or you have to unite politically with the import/export markets, so that a single government has total control over the marketplace (which is not dissimilar to the colonial empire Britain had).

The Germans and French out-compete today by being higher productivity - by investing money in skills and machinery. Whereas the Chinese, for example, out-compete simply by being low-wage (although they are using the fruits of being a major world exporter to invest massively, and grow wages).

Then you try to re write history again in saying that it wasn’t UK government protectionist policy balls that created Ford UK.Are you serious or is that just more lies that you don’t even believe yourself.

No, I just didn’t understand what you were saying previously. It’s quite probable that in the 1920s the British were being protectionist, and therefore refused to import US cars and demanded (implicitly) that they be produced here. And Britain at that time wasn’t a major exporter to the US - its import/export markets (for raw materials and finished product) were it’s client colonies, and it had no competition for these markets because it excluded the other empires by military force (and they did the same, having all scrambled in the 19th century to secure these colonies).

But I could also imagine another aspect to Ford’s behaviour that it was just cheaper to produce here, because the cars didn’t have to be shipped as far, and they had to compete on price with local British car manufacturers. And because of the Fordist logic that you have to actually pay people in order to create a mass market for cars, and if they didn’t have any car manufacturing here and drove out local producers by importing cars, then they would impoverish the market for such a luxury item, and there would be fewer workers even able to afford cars here.

So in general I agree with you. I do agree with your point (made elsewhere) about the trade deficit we have with the EU - but unlike you, I see the answer as being more investment (i.e. the same thing as Germany and France do), which is what Corbyn is promising. If we out-compete France and Germany, there won’t be any need for domestic tariffs (and we will maintain export competitiveness, too), because our underlying capacity will match theirs. That’s why trade deficits are an early-warning signal that something is wrong with the economy.

The British bosses today, like always, see the remedy as forcing down wages (low-road competition), but the real answer is to tax the rich in order to invest, because you can’t keep cutting your way to prosperity.

Then no surprise how bad America is and how good that China’s workers’ paradise is.Your immature indoctrinated Socialist bias really is laughable and something that I’d grown out of by the age of 17.When actually working in the 1970’s industrial environment taught me everything I needed to know that we were being sold out by Socialist scum like Callaghan and standing as Labour to do it actually made him and his stinking administration worse than Thatcher.On that note I’m proud to have been part of the ‘militants’ who stood against the piece of zb traitor to both his country and his working class vote.To which your and his answer was give even more UK jobs to the Krauts and obviously now your commy Chinese mates.

I’m not saying jobs should be given to the “Krauts and Chinks”. I’m saying that, so far as Germany is seen as our competitor, the answer is to improve our industry with investment and upskilling, to out-do the Germans at their own game. One of the key points of that, will be to choke off the ready supply of low-wage migration which the bosses exploit to gain easy profits, and use as an excuse not to invest in productivity measures and skills. Other aspects will be encouraging industrial consolidation and squeezing out inefficient market mechanisms and low-road competitors, and using the state to drive investment. All Corbyn policies! And all standard fayre even for 1930s industrialists, btw.

[thelongdrag]

Crikey,the only answer to this thread was surely yes or no.Im still a leaver.

[rjan]

thelongdrag:
Crikey,the only answer to this thread was surely yes or no.Im still a leaver.

So are me and Carryfast, we just can’t agree on why we should leave or what a Brexit should look like

[winseer]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Oh there is a left and right Brexit, I assure you. As for the “hard centrists”, the problem is that they don’t have a great deal of democratic support.

The problem for Brexiteers is that they have no coherent plan and no unity - look at Carryfast’s crazy ideas, which I’m constantly swatting.

No surprise that Socialists,who are clearly hopelessly ideologically committed to keeping us under the Soviet jackboot of the EUSSR’s rule,would see what can only be the Nationalist idea of secession,as crazy.

But at times you express a view that is not even really “nationalist”. When I’ve put pressure on the concept as you understand it, you’ve ended up arguing for home rule for every individual constituency in the country, and unanimous voting at Westminster. I’m not “nationalist”, as Britain is currently broken, with there being tens of millions of people in this country that wouldn’t agree with me on pretty much anything at all. Perhaps I’m a latter-day “Imperialist” as I do find myself looking back to an age when “people that can” were more important than “people that can’t”. People with talent and no hostility to the politics of the day cannot help but rise in an Imperium. “All it takes is just a few good men” kinda argument.

You talked of the Yorkshire miners having a veto over every national issue - so for example, they could veto the closing of the pits - but you never really answered me about what happens if they want to sell coal outside of their constituencies (into markets that reside in other constituencies), and other constituencies decide that they don’t want Yorkshire coal, they want cheaper imported coal? And what happens when other constituencies refuse to contribute to the capital investment in pits, in power stations, and so on outside of their own constituencies?

So too on standards, I think you mentioned car standards, I asked you how it is that we are going to expect to set our own standards, when we also want to be able to sell cars to the European market. Other EU members will not impose standards on us - they’ll just insist that lower-standard British cars don’t get sold in their markets, and that means we either have separate, lower-volume production lines for each market (the opposite of your pet “Fordist” philosophy), or else we don’t export cars to Europe at all (because our cars don’t meet the standards of those markets), or else we simply follow the EU standards (not because those standards have been dictated for cars on British roads, but simply because it’s cheaper to have a single production line producing cars in high volumes that cater to the common denominator of standards).

And that’s before we even get to the stage of combining these two policies, where each county constituency sets it’s own car standards.

There’s really a whole spectrum of issues like this where I put it to you that your thinking is incoherent, but you never have an answer. That’s why I say your ideas are crazed.

Keep going you’re adding to the UKIP vote with every lie.When Starmer’s and UNITE’s ( and your ) remain position is clear to everyone except Stevie Wonder.With the idea of ‘left wing Brexit’ really meaning the Socialist infiltration of Brexit with the intention of smashing it.

But it’s like I say, there’s nothing to smash, because your idea of Brexit is already in pieces that don’t fit together. The real right-wing radical agenda for Brexit was based on an assault on wages and on tax rates, and thereby undercutting Europe, and hopefully fracturing Europe politically. It would also increase the latitude for scapegoating (as a cover for unpopular policies).

I suppose makes sense in its own terms as a gambit - if British workers were forced to accept wage cuts and tax cuts, then market share will increase and profit will go up for British capitalists, and the threat of a common political bloc that can successfully regulate the rich will recede. Of course, the gambit seems not to be paying off, and if anything it has unleashed forces that may turn out to be unfavourable to that agenda.

But that agenda is not your agenda - your agenda is something else entirely, a hotch-potch of inconsistent ideas. Ideas which are probably at odds with the right-wing agenda, because I don’t believe for one moment as a lorry driver that you actually want lower wages and more intense low-road competition with the poorest workers of the world.

The reason Liam Fox isn’t doing a trade deal with India involving freedom of movement, is not because the Tories don’t want more low-paid immigrants inside Britain’s borders. It’s simply because they know it won’t fly with the electorate.

The real problem, it seems to me, is that you don’t really accept that the Tory party contains those who think in such ways - you don’t really believe that these wealthy mangates and right-wing loons from the middle and upper classes (I mean “middle class” in the sense of the petite bourgeoisie, medium-sized business owners, not the privileged slice of the working class who are employed managers or skilled workers) actually care more about their own wealth and profits and the system that sustains it, they do not care about workers.

And when you complain that the likes of McCluskey in Unite do not want trade with the EU to cease - especially not the trade in goods, for those in the manufacturing sector - and therefore want a customs union, it’s not some dark underhand agenda to frustrate Brexit. It’s seeking common sense protection for the jobs of members of that union, particularly when it is obvious that no other trade deals that involve manufacturing exports are going to materialise.

Nor is a customs union incompatible with Brexit - even Turkey has a customs union with the EU. If any sort of EU trade, other than tariffed trade, is incompatible with Brexit, then a large number of workers want answers on where the hell else the markets they produce for are going to be after this hard Brexit, and so far there is simply no answer. If there was an answer, we’d be having a different conversation entirely.

It is a misconception that the “Right” Brexit is about “smashing worker’s rights”, which I’ve always seen as a Leftie outright lie, worse than the one where they make out the “£350m on the side of the bus” was a “lie”. So many ordinary working people would not have grasped Brexit with both hands in the first place - if things like “Paid Holidays” or “Rights on the shop floor” etc. were under threat by the establishment “seeking Brexit for that reason”.

One effect Brexit would have on foreign traffic coming here to Blighty, is that perhaps at long last, a genuine driver shortage would preciptate itselt - BUT there’s nothing in place to prevent migrant drivers from still coming along, and signing up with UK firms WITHIN the UK. I’m neutral on the issue of immigration, don’t forget. I’m just against the criminal, and primarily NON EU citizens that come over, all male, military aged, not intendning to take a proper job paying taxes, and then refusing to integrate with British society. THAT group does NOT include “Eastern Europeans” - whom I’ll carry on shouting from the rooftops, supporting.

Yes, I would agree with you about this notion that “Why can’t a customs union be compatible” etc etc. BUT the thing that makes us “HAVE” to leave, is that the EU would want to charge us some kind of ongoing fee to “Remain” in this customs union, thereby making “Remaining” just another way of saying, well - Remaining!

If they let us have full access to everything, fee-free, and we only left the EU in “cancelling our subscription” - then THAT is a Brexit even the most hardened Brexiteers would surely be grabbing with both hands? Meanwhile, the reasons for the Left “wanting to remain” are more akin to “not being able to find their collective arses with both hands” of course.

Brexit, to me - is about the subscription money. Norway still pay in, so we do NOT want the “Norwegian Model” or any other model that involves “paying a fee”, not ever ever.

It is the EU that “won’t let us have free access” - since if Britain got it, then that would set the obvious precedent for France, Italy, and even Germany!
It might sound absurd, but “GerxIt” - should be as popular to the ordinary German people as it is for those other three nations that pay in.

As for “Progress” on Brexit - the bar is still stuck at 0%. Our parliament, including the weak fools that call themselves “Tory Brexiteers” like David Davis, and even Rees-Mogg - have still got none of it done to the 52%'s satisfaction. Not even a little part. The EU might have been able to palm us off with a “Fee paying Brexit” IF they had "quickly given us all the other stuff, wanted by clusters of Brexit voters. For instance, if our borders had been closed by this point, then the Far Right might have not gone “Oh well never mind” about the actual subscription money to Brussels…

I can’t be “Right Wing” really, as I genuinely don’t care about “worker immigration”. I only want to stop the UK from being obliged to take in suspicious characters that are not even EU citzens.
The EU are really breaking their own rules, as they should be stopping this encroachment at their border (with the shengen zone) rather than waving Non-EU citizens who have no rights as such - through to then smuggle themselves into the UK, making the EU’s action (or lack of action) - tantamount to “Aiding and abetting Criminal behaviour”.

This poster, wasn’t a lie either then. ■■■■ the Liberal Left for trying to make our dislike of actual dodgy non-EU characters about “discrimination”. FFS why don’t we just have a general amnesty, and shut all our jails down, if charging a suspcious dude acting suspiciously with a crime, and then deporting them - is somehow an infringement of “RIghts” they shouldn’t even bloody well have to start with! What next? - Prisoners already serving prison terms get Benefits whilst in jail, and can vote in elections■■?

Me being against “Criminals” doesn’t make me a Right Winger then, regardless of what anyone else thinks does make one a “Right” pretty much anything at all. Theresa May was supposed to be this “RIght Wing” character - but now look at her, turning the Conservatives into the Nu Liberals, just as the Libdems get voted out, and the Left move further to the Left. Where do the “Middle-of-Road” Right people now go? Sick of being accused of being “Right Wing”, and currently backing away from this limpdem approach at “No Democracy, No way” - anything Right of Center is going to look like the same bag now isn’t it? EDL, BNP, Farage, Me - But not the Conservatives any longer.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
So are me and Carryfast, we just can’t agree on why we should leave or what a Brexit should look like

I’m clear on my version.Firstly it’s only allied with the Moggites regarding the specific issue of sovereignty.That’s as far as it goes when we’re out all bets are off and at that point it’s globalist free markets v isolationist protectionist Nationalist obviously with no outside foreign interference like the EU government getting in the way of that argument.IE we turn the clock back to 1972.

What there is no place for is yet more failed Callaghanite Socialism,now in the form of the Remainer fall back defensive position of remain in all but name,which you ( and Starmer ) all about.In which you’ve clearly shown that you’re happy to sell out the interests of the country and its working class to the advantage of foreign ones.

[newmercman]

I last looked in at this thread at 153 posts, now its approaching 400 comments, I haven’t had time to look through them all, so I may be going over old ground, but I’m going to respond on the Ford comments.

According to a couple of books I’ve read, one the history of BL, the other a Ford story, the reasons Ford moved production away from Britain were many, first was the cost of shipping, being an island we didn’t have easy access to the European distribution network and most everything had to move by lorry, ship and rail for onward shipping to market, two, the home market was on its arse, three and due in no small part to two, industrial relations were somewhat frosty.

Now FoMoCo itself is no angel, even though they didn’t take any of Obama’s bail out money, they haven’t followed Fordism principles since the times of Henry Ford, they are like any multinational corporation, or successful business and they’re in it for the money, this means they cut costs and make as much profit as possible, so automation, outsourcing of parts and materials, sometimes taking advantage of cheaper labour and materials from other sites within its global operation, sometimes subbing it out. In summary, Dearborn, home of Ford and a once thriving metropolis is now a poverty stricken ■■■■ hole.

It (Fordism) was a good idea at the time, but it would only work for a couple of generations, by then the business would expand to it’s natural capacity and breeding by previous generations would mean there were now too many people for the factories to support to the point that they could all own a Ford. At this point, Fordism was finished. It wasn’t an act of philanthropy, it was a genius business strategy from Henry Ford and it put his company on the map.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

[rjan]

Winseer:

Rjan:
[…]

It is a misconception that the “Right” Brexit is about “smashing worker’s rights”, which I’ve always seen as a Leftie outright lie, worse than the one where they make out the “£350m on the side of the bus” was a “lie”. So many ordinary working people would not have grasped Brexit with both hands in the first place - if things like “Paid Holidays” or “Rights on the shop floor” etc. were under threat by the establishment “seeking Brexit for that reason”.

I accept that ordinary Brexiteers (whether they describe themselves as right-wing or not) are not about “smashing workers’ rights”, but to me therein lies the contradiction in the support for the Tory party, because the agenda of their radicals is to smash workers’ rights - for them, it’s another springtime for Thatcherism, and winter for Germany and France with their stronger industrial unions and stronger employment rights (which, via the EU and it’s “worker” rights, have undone all the work the right-wing British judiciary did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s to undermine basic employment rights in British law).

People like Arron Banks and the backers who he fronts, are not pouring hundreds of millions of their own cash in, just so that they have to pay workers more. Look at the fishermen who supported Brexit - on the telly other day complaining that without migrants they won’t get seafarers at the bum pay they currently offer. Look at the farmers, complaining that without migrants they won’t get crop pickers at the bum pay they currently offer.

I’d say the same on the Remain side of course. Money is not getting poured in by the likes of Blair and other Tory liberals, and causing ructions in the Labour party, because they want to give the working class a break.

One effect Brexit would have on foreign traffic coming here to Blighty, is that perhaps at long last, a genuine driver shortage would preciptate itselt - BUT there’s nothing in place to prevent migrant drivers from still coming along, and signing up with UK firms WITHIN the UK. I’m neutral on the issue of immigration, don’t forget. I’m just against the criminal, and primarily NON EU citizens that come over, all male, military aged, not intendning to take a proper job paying taxes, and then refusing to integrate with British society. THAT group does NOT include “Eastern Europeans” - whom I’ll carry on shouting from the rooftops, supporting.

But I don’t think we should indulge that anti-immigrant narrative at all. There aren’t all these “male, military aged, tax-dodging” non-EU immigrants (which are entirely under our control anyway).

Yes, I would agree with you about this notion that “Why can’t a customs union be compatible” etc etc. BUT the thing that makes us “HAVE” to leave, is that the EU would want to charge us some kind of ongoing fee to “Remain” in this customs union, thereby making “Remaining” just another way of saying, well - Remaining!

I don’t see why it would entail a net contribution in principle (since the purpose of a customs union is to reduce costs on both sides), although obviously if there is going to be free trade in agriculture, then the EU is probably going to insist on contribution to and participation in the CAP, because food security and protection of indigenous agriculture is one of the main political settlements of the EU.

If they let us have full access to everything, fee-free, and we only left the EU in “cancelling our subscription” - then THAT is a Brexit even the most hardened Brexiteers would surely be grabbing with both hands? Meanwhile, the reasons for the Left “wanting to remain” are more akin to “not being able to find their collective arses with both hands” of course.

So you’d be happy to remain a member of the EU under the status quo if it simply waived the net contribution? I mean it’s a simple position that I can understand in its own terms - in fact it’s so simple that I’m bewildered and speechless.

Are you sure there isn’t any political agenda, no rules that you want changed?

Brexit, to me - is about the subscription money. Norway still pay in, so we do NOT want the “Norwegian Model” or any other model that involves “paying a fee”, not ever ever.

It is the EU that “won’t let us have free access” - since if Britain got it, then that would set the obvious precedent for France, Italy, and even Germany!

Indeed. It won’t happen because it would create too many political problems, but what I find surprising is that you’d leave just to save £4bn when the overall costs are likely to be much greater, if you’re otherwise happy with the club as it is.

It might sound absurd, but “GerxIt” - should be as popular to the ordinary German people as it is for those other three nations that pay in.

As for “Progress” on Brexit - the bar is still stuck at 0%. Our parliament, including the weak fools that call themselves “Tory Brexiteers” like David Davis, and even Rees-Mogg - have still got none of it done to the 52%'s satisfaction. Not even a little part. The EU might have been able to palm us off with a “Fee paying Brexit” IF they had "quickly given us all the other stuff, wanted by clusters of Brexit voters. For instance, if our borders had been closed by this point, then the Far Right might have not gone “Oh well never mind” about the actual subscription money to Brussels…

I actually suspect that an end to free movement is one of the things we are most likely to gain. I wouldn’t be shocked if at some point we didn’t find the Tories negotiating to continue free movement (as the price of some other concession that they want), and Corbyn demanding an absolute end to it as a non-negotiable principle, because those two positions are actually more in line with their underlying electorates and party histories. Most Tories don’t want an end to mass immigration because it will mean increased wages and training costs for settled workers, whereas Labour (under left-wing control) will be the opposite for the same reasons.

That would only happen though if the Tories were somehow able to control their right-wing radicals and shift back toward the centre ground. I’m not holding my breath, but the ruling class tend to be apt at self-preservation, and if they sense that right-wing Brexit has been blocked (and only a left-wing one can result), then they’d likely swing back behind Remain, and you’d see the right-wing papers start to advocate a second referendum and so on.

I can’t be “Right Wing” really, as I genuinely don’t care about “worker immigration”. I only want to stop the UK from being obliged to take in suspicious characters that are not even EU citzens.

But it isn’t obliged to do so, even now. All the Human Rights Act says, for example, is that if you accept people in and let them become established (which you don’t have to, but if you do…), then you can’t just send them back to Timbuktu when you decide you don’t like their political views. You can jail them for crimes, for sure, but the government of the day can’t just treat people as being on a life-licence because they were born elsewhere originally - and that’s a perfectly reasonable principle.

The EU are really breaking their own rules, as they should be stopping this encroachment at their border (with the shengen zone) rather than waving Non-EU citizens who have no rights as such - through to then smuggle themselves into the UK, making the EU’s action (or lack of action) - tantamount to “Aiding and abetting Criminal behaviour”.

But the EU does attempt to control non-EU citizens and protect external borders. That’s why the Calais camp existed, for example. And the problem with refugees is that, like I’ve said before, centre-right governments see it as a good thing - not just as a humanitarian cover for malign foreign interventions, but because it allows them both to cream skilled workers from other societies and the unskilled workers provide a dose of cheap labour.

And if all countries didn’t accept refugees (and we actually only accept a minority, not a disproportionate number), then the southern and eastern members on the frontiers would withdraw support for those interventions, because they’d see it as the UK and France smashing other societies on the Mediterranean and in the Middle East, and then leaving Greece, Italy, and others to pick up the pieces.

This poster, wasn’t a lie either then. ■■■■ the Liberal Left for trying to make our dislike of actual dodgy non-EU characters about “discrimination”. FFS why don’t we just have a general amnesty, and shut all our jails down, if charging a suspcious dude acting suspiciously with a crime, and then deporting them - is somehow an infringement of “RIghts” they shouldn’t even bloody well have to start with! What next? - Prisoners already serving prison terms get Benefits whilst in jail, and can vote in elections■■?

But that’s not the reality, is it?

Me being against “Criminals” doesn’t make me a Right Winger then, regardless of what anyone else thinks does make one a “Right” pretty much anything at all. Theresa May was supposed to be this “RIght Wing” character - but now look at her, turning the Conservatives into the Nu Liberals, just as the Libdems get voted out, and the Left move further to the Left. Where do the “Middle-of-Road” Right people now go? Sick of being accused of being “Right Wing”, and currently backing away from this limpdem approach at “No Democracy, No way” - anything Right of Center is going to look like the same bag now isn’t it? EDL, BNP, Farage, Me - But not the Conservatives any longer.

You’re not right-wing for being against criminals. You’re right-wing for holding the impression that there are large and significant groups of criminals amongst immigrants - and of course, the UK is not prevented from jailing criminals.

[rjan]

newmercman:
[…]
It (Fordism) was a good idea at the time, but it would only work for a couple of generations, by then the business would expand to it’s natural capacity and breeding by previous generations would mean there were now too many people for the factories to support to the point that they could all own a Ford. At this point, Fordism was finished. It wasn’t an act of philanthropy, it was a genius business strategy from Henry Ford and it put his company on the map.

A pretty good summary of the situation (the part I’ve snipped).

I’ll only say about Fordism (and this is primarily Carryfast’s pet business philosophy, not mine) that increased populations do not impair the general Fordist employment model, because all things being equal with more people come more car consumers.

The reason the American domestic car industry lost ground is partly because other countries became industrialised and competitive with the US (eroding the US’s privileged export position), another is that the American working class in general stopped getting pay rises from 1970 onwards (thus eroding their domestic market for new cars), a third is that car production actually involves less labour nowadays and the cars themselves are more durable and replaced less often (and labour unions have not generally succeeded in reducing working hours to maintain employment levels and enlarge the market for leisure-time consumption).

Another thing worth mentioning is that the car industry in those days was vertically integrated, and the car companies practically ran mini-economies, with all important operations under common ownership and coordination, transforming ores and basic raw materials into finished product in a small geographic area, so industrialists like Ford could essentially set what today would be called “macro-economic policy”. A power that no industrialist has today like they did in early 20th century America.

Nowadays, transport infrastructure has improved (making companies less geographically concentrated) and vertical integration is out of vogue, and economic complexity has increased massively, and so even if a “car company” had a policy of high wages for the car assemblers, it would not have the same economic effect. Those powers now almost exclusively belong to central bankers and politicians - states, in other words.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
I accept that ordinary Brexiteers (whether they describe themselves as right-wing or not) are not about “smashing workers’ rights”, but to me therein lies the contradiction in the support for the Tory party, because the agenda of their radicals is to smash workers’ rights - for them, it’s another springtime for Thatcherism, and winter for Germany and France with their stronger industrial unions and stronger employment rights (which, via the EU and it’s “worker” rights, have undone all the work the right-wing British judiciary did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s to undermine basic employment rights in British law).

You’ve contradicted yourself again by saying that Ford etc transferred jobs to a higher paid stronger German workforce to effectively undermine the union strength of lower paid UK workers.Then to add insult to injury seeming to be on the side of Callaghan and his German mates not Brit union members.While even at home Thatcher used the carrot of a selectively higher paid workforce, combined with promises of job security,to destroy union solidarity in the case of the miners.With you saying that you still support the idea that union democracy was still relevant or even workable under that regime.As opposed to Scargill’s correct position that the government’s divide and rule tactics had made such democracy no longer tenable among the NUM membership.Then last but not least all the anti union laws which you’re describing were actually imposed ‘after’ our membership of the EU with no ‘rescue’ forthcoming from the so called more worker friendly EU.On that note feel free to describe exactly which anti union laws were ever supposedly ‘reversed’ by the EU ?.As opposed to most importantly even the basic right to strike,in the form of secondary action,which was actually removed ‘after’ 1973 and which never came back to date.The European workers rights bollox is just another remainer lie.Just like the lie that remainers are now leavers.

As I’ve said the only bit which real left wing Brexiteers have in common with Tory Leavers is the issue of sovereignty.Possibly with the exception of David Davis and to some extent maybe even IDS if push comes to shove in choosing Nation over Globalism if/when we ever get Brexit.After that all bets and gloves are off.With you having already shown that you’re closer to the Starmer/Blairite agenda than that of Hoey and Benn and Shore before her.While I’d certainly rather trust Davis than Starmer regardless.

While Shore at least would have had the balls which I’ve described to have kept Ford’s operations at least,onshore here.On the basis if you remove production from the country then you can no longer sell your products here with the resulting win win for BL if they refused to back down.That’s just one example of protectionism and Nationalism in action.

As opposed to what we got and still have in the form of Callaghanite Socialism allied with Thatcherite Globalism.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
I accept that ordinary Brexiteers (whether they describe themselves as right-wing or not) are not about “smashing workers’ rights”, but to me therein lies the contradiction in the support for the Tory party, because the agenda of their radicals is to smash workers’ rights - for them, it’s another springtime for Thatcherism, and winter for Germany and France with their stronger industrial unions and stronger employment rights (which, via the EU and it’s “worker” rights, have undone all the work the right-wing British judiciary did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s to undermine basic employment rights in British law).

You’ve contradicted yourself again by saying that Ford etc transferred jobs to a higher paid stronger German workforce to effectively undermine the union strength of lower paid UK workers.

No I’m saying Ford had the choice of two workforces, both of whom were basically on similar wages and similarly organised, except one was an economy with better management culture, better politics, and stable industrial relations, and the other wasn’t.

Bear in mind, Heath’s attack on the working class was condemned as much by the ruling class, precisely because it was unnecessarily inflammatory and caused disruption, culminating in the three-day week.

And when I say “management culture”, I’m not just talking about in specific firms, but across the entire economy - you can be as good a manager as you want as an individual, but if you’re recruiting workers who have experienced generally bad management, and whose friends and family experience bad management on a daily basis, then you’re going to get militants, you’re going to be dealing with hardline unions who have elected hardline leaders, you’re going to be dealing with national politics that contains hardliners, and so on.

And bear in mind that Ford didn’t abandon (and hasn’t abandoned) the UK completely at any point. We’re just talking about subtle shifts, and it’s not all to do with industrial relations.

Then to add insult to injury seeming to be on the side of Callaghan and his German mates not Brit union members.While even at home Thatcher used the carrot of a selectively higher paid workforce, combined with promises of job security,to destroy union solidarity in the case of the miners.With you saying that you still support the idea that union democracy was still relevant or even workable under that regime.As opposed to Scargill’s correct position that the government’s divide and rule tactics had made such democracy no longer tenable among the NUM membership.

But if workers are not willing to recognise when they are being manipulated in order to prepare for an attack on them all together, then there is no hope for them. Even the solutions of “constituency vetoes” that you propose as a way of defending against attacks, the reality is still that, in the absence of solidarity, workers will vote those structures away again for a mouthful of cash (or not vote for them in the first place), and we’ll be back in the situation where workers have voted away the thing that was in place to protect them (just like their lack of unified support for the NUM effectively voted away the thing that was there to protect them).

There isn’t a way of protecting workers that doesn’t involve workers being solid and politically engaged. Even if it means teaching children in schools about the ways in which the ruling class will attempt to attack them, the point is it has to be individuals that subscribe to solidarity and understand the reasons for it. And if not, then they get hurt until they learn lessons, that’s the way it works ultimately.

As a final point, I had the impression that it was in the early or mid-70s that the wage structures and national day-rates were undermined, possibly under the Labour government, because that was what the miners wanted. The later bribery in the 80s in terms of miners gorging on overtime to increase the stockpiles was just a symptom of how irrational and greedy they were being in the run-up to the strike that materialised - a symptom of the solidarity issues, rather than a cause of them.

Then last but not least all the anti union laws which you’re describing were actually imposed ‘after’ our membership of the EU with no ‘rescue’ forthcoming from the so called more worker friendly EU.On that note feel free to describe exactly which anti union laws were ever supposedly ‘reversed’ by the EU ?.As opposed to most importantly even the basic right to strike,in the form of secondary action,which was actually removed ‘after’ 1973 and which never came back to date.The European workers rights bollox is just another remainer lie.Just like the lie that remainers are now leavers.

But the EU has not prevented us from implementing lawful secondary action - what it has said, is that it won’t interfere (in other words, national governments have a degree of sovereignty on the issue). And I haven’t ever said the EU is the fount of all workers’ rights - only that it backstops some (which nobody has a problem with), and doesn’t prevent the national government going much further with others (i.e. we could go much further, if we voted for a left-wing government).

I have of course come round to the idea that war needs to be waged on the neoliberal elements of the EU though - an end to the competition laws, for example, and an end to free movement - which is why I’m supporting Corbyn’s Brexit.

As I’ve said the only bit which real left wing Brexiteers have in common with Tory Leavers is the issue of sovereignty.Possibly with the exception of David Davis and to some extent maybe even IDS if push comes to shove in choosing Nation over Globalism if/when we ever get Brexit.After that all bets and gloves are off.With you having already shown that you’re closer to the Starmer/Blairite agenda than that of Hoey and Benn and Shore before her.While I’d certainly rather trust Davis than Starmer regardless.

I’m not close to the Blairite agenda at all.

If anything I’m clearly quite close to the Bennite agenda.

While Shore at least would have had the balls which I’ve described to have kept Ford’s operations at least,onshore here.On the basis if you remove production from the country then you can no longer sell your products here with the resulting win win for BL if they refused to back down.That’s just one example of protectionism and Nationalism in action.

I agree with your logic as far as the domestic economy goes, but it wouldn’t work for the export economy which was (and is) a large source of jobs and wealth.

This is why I say to you that pulling the drawbridge up is not a solution to all our ills. We must be economically competitive with other European nations - the only question is whether it is on the high road (with a left-wing Labour party promising industrial investment, consolidation, and rationalisation) or the low road (with the Tories).

As opposed to what we got and still have in the form of Callaghanite Socialism allied with Thatcherite Globalism.

Well, we can both certainly agree that Thatcherite Globalism is something to be smashed!

[winseer]

thelongdrag:
Crikey,the only answer to this thread was surely yes or no.Im still a leaver.

This is bulleh’s Bar. We’re essayin’’ fer chariteh. Now flash yer ■■■■!

[winseer]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
I accept that ordinary Brexiteers (whether they describe themselves as right-wing or not) are not about “smashing workers’ rights”, but to me therein lies the contradiction in the support for the Tory party, because the agenda of their radicals is to smash workers’ rights - for them, it’s another springtime for Thatcherism, and winter for Germany and France with their stronger industrial unions and stronger employment rights (which, via the EU and it’s “worker” rights, have undone all the work the right-wing British judiciary did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s to undermine basic employment rights in British law).

You’ve contradicted yourself again by saying that Ford etc transferred jobs to a higher paid stronger German workforce to effectively undermine the union strength of lower paid UK workers.

No I’m saying Ford had the choice of two workforces, both of whom were basically on similar wages and similarly organised, except one was an economy with better management culture, better politics, and stable industrial relations, and the other wasn’t.

Bear in mind, Heath’s attack on the working class was condemned as much by the ruling class, precisely because it was unnecessarily inflammatory and caused disruption, culminating in the three-day week.

And when I say “management culture”, I’m not just talking about in specific firms, but across the entire economy - you can be as good a manager as you want as an individual, but if you’re recruiting workers who have experienced generally bad management, and whose friends and family experience bad management on a daily basis, then you’re going to get militants, you’re going to be dealing with hardline unions who have elected hardline leaders, you’re going to be dealing with national politics that contains hardliners, and so on.
“Management culture” these days seems to be lying to staff, as there’s no other way to motivate people to get stuff done beyond people’s contracts otherwise.

And bear in mind that Ford didn’t abandon (and hasn’t abandoned) the UK completely at any point. We’re just talking about subtle shifts, and it’s not all to do with industrial relations.
I see a “Subtle shift” as being a start time of 13:00 and knocking off @ 13:10 - on one of Heath’s 3-day weeks to boot.

Then to add insult to injury seeming to be on the side of Callaghan and his German mates not Brit union members.While even at home Thatcher used the carrot of a selectively higher paid workforce, combined with promises of job security,to destroy union solidarity in the case of the miners.With you saying that you still support the idea that union democracy was still relevant or even workable under that regime.As opposed to Scargill’s correct position that the government’s divide and rule tactics had made such democracy no longer tenable among the NUM membership.

But if workers are not willing to recognise when they are being manipulated in order to prepare for an attack on them all together, then there is no hope for them. Even the solutions of “constituency vetoes” that you propose as a way of defending against attacks, the reality is still that, in the absence of solidarity, workers will vote those structures away again for a mouthful of cash (or not vote for them in the first place), and we’ll be back in the situation where workers have voted away the thing that was in place to protect them (just like their lack of unified support for the NUM effectively voted away the thing that was there to protect them).

There isn’t a way of protecting workers that doesn’t involve workers being solid and politically engaged. Even if it means teaching children in schools about the ways in which the ruling class will attempt to attack them, the point is it has to be individuals that subscribe to solidarity and understand the reasons for it. And if not, then they get hurt until they learn lessons, that’s the way it works ultimately.

As a final point, I had the impression that it was in the early or mid-70s that the wage structures and national day-rates were undermined, possibly under the Labour government, because that was what the miners wanted. The later bribery in the 80s in terms of miners gorging on overtime to increase the stockpiles was just a symptom of how irrational and greedy they were being in the run-up to the strike that materialised - a symptom of the solidarity issues, rather than a cause of them.

Then last but not least all the anti union laws which you’re describing were actually imposed ‘after’ our membership of the EU with no ‘rescue’ forthcoming from the so called more worker friendly EU.On that note feel free to describe exactly which anti union laws were ever supposedly ‘reversed’ by the EU ?.As opposed to most importantly even the basic right to strike,in the form of secondary action,which was actually removed ‘after’ 1973 and which never came back to date.The European workers rights bollox is just another remainer lie.Just like the lie that remainers are now leavers.

But the EU has not prevented us from implementing lawful secondary action - what it has said, is that it won’t interfere (in other words, national governments have a degree of sovereignty on the issue). And I haven’t ever said the EU is the fount of all workers’ rights - only that it backstops some (which nobody has a problem with), and doesn’t prevent the national government going much further with others (i.e. we could go much further, if we voted for a left-wing government).

I have of course come round to the idea that war needs to be waged on the neoliberal elements of the EU though - an end to the competition laws, for example, and an end to free movement - which is why I’m supporting Corbyn’s Brexit. If he’d only define it, I might have some leaning towards it. I Meanwhile, I have not heard any denouncement of the Socialist experiment that is the EU, and therefore continue to hold Corbyn’s Labour in high suspicion over him getting power for five years first, and throwing Brexit under the bus the moment the EU demands it for “Full funding for Labour’s incoming spending plans”.

As I’ve said the only bit which real left wing Brexiteers have in common with Tory Leavers is the issue of sovereignty.Possibly with the exception of David Davis and to some extent maybe even IDS if push comes to shove in choosing Nation over Globalism if/when we ever get Brexit.After that all bets and gloves are off.With you having already shown that you’re closer to the Starmer/Blairite agenda than that of Hoey and Benn and Shore before her.While I’d certainly rather trust Davis than Starmer regardless.

“Sovereignty” could be defined here as “What the older generations fought and died for, and the younger generations don’t give a toss about”.

I’m not close to the Blairite agenda at all.

If anything I’m clearly quite close to the Bennite agenda.
The ‘Bennite’ Agenda I would have liked to seen - was any UK citizen being able to shoot for any career - without being held back by lack of cash as opposed to lack of talent.
I wanted to be an Astronaut when I was a kid, then a Train Driver when I realized we’re not going to be colonizing space in our lifetimes.

While Shore at least would have had the balls which I’ve described to have kept Ford’s operations at least,onshore here.On the basis if you remove production from the country then you can no longer sell your products here with the resulting win win for BL if they refused to back down.That’s just one example of protectionism and Nationalism in action.

I agree with your logic as far as the domestic economy goes, but it wouldn’t work for the export economy which was (and is) a large source of jobs and wealth.

This is why I say to you that pulling the drawbridge up is not a solution to all our ills. We must be economically competitive with other European nations - the only question is whether it is on the high road (with a left-wing Labour party promising industrial investment, consolidation, and rationalisation) or the low road (with the Tories).
All we had to do to make this big EU experiment work - was to enforce the rules equally, like the law is supposed to be enforced.
Instead, we have the high-ups and low-downs getting away with murder, whilst the middle earners end up suffering from the crimes, and paying for it all via PAYE taxes.
This failure alone, was perfectly good reason to vote the Centerists into oblivion, only to have them rise back up again as “unelected” and “anti-democratic” Bureaucrats that cannot ever be removed.

As opposed to what we got and still have in the form of Callaghanite Socialism allied with Thatcherite Globalism.

Well, we can both certainly agree that Thatcherite Globalism is something to be smashed!

Globalism doesn’t work because there are too many talentless and lazy people taking out, whilst talents and hard working people are at their wit’s end trying to get by in an increasingly overcrowded planet. “Overcrowding” doesn’t get talked about nearly as much as “Man Made Climate Change” though, which I don’t believe in. There’s natural climate change, which we cannot do anything about. One prepares for it, not acts like Canute on the seashore trying to order the bloody tide to stop coming in!

[rjan]

Winseer:

Rjan:
I have of course come round to the idea that war needs to be waged on the neoliberal elements of the EU though - an end to the competition laws, for example, and an end to free movement - which is why I’m supporting Corbyn’s Brexit.

If he’d only define it, I might have some leaning towards it. I Meanwhile, I have not heard any denouncement of the Socialist experiment that is the EU, and therefore continue to hold Corbyn’s Labour in high suspicion over him getting power for five years first, and throwing Brexit under the bus the moment the EU demands it for “Full funding for Labour’s incoming spending plans”.

On that point I agree with you. Labour’s Brexit agenda needs to become properly defined.

I think hitherto the thinking has been that by remaining silent on detail and offering dithery rhetoric, Labour has avoided having hard arguments about collective policy, and can instead be a reservoir of all hopes for all men.

But the time for letting the Tories embarass themselves on their own account has passed - they’ve shown their hand and it’s turned out to be a pair of deuces - so Labour needs to start creating it’s own crystal clear negotiating narrative with the EU, and offering this as a clear alternative to the country.

I think red lines on ending further free movement, and on democratic control of the economy (covering nationalisation and state investment), both of which are extremely popular (even wider than Labour’s electorate, with many Tory voters supporting it, and citizens in the other member states of the EU) should be the headline of the policy. And Labour needs to be crystal clear that those already settled here will continue to enjoy the same rights and won’t suffer Home Office harassment.

And it needs to, and can, win the argument on these issues, showing both that they are widely democratically-supported, and that they are reasonable.

I don’t expect any “denouncement of the socialist experiment of the EU”, because of course the Labour party is a socialist party.

Labour can never outdo the right-wing radicals in Ukip or placate anti-EU headbangers, but what it can show the electorate is that there are only two real choices at the next election, incoherence and mendacity with the Tory party pursuing a Brexit pipe dream that it is now clear will never be delivered, or a sensible, deliverable, and trustworthy position on Brexit with Corbyn’s Labour, along with a substantial manifesto of other pro-worker measures.

While Shore at least would have had the balls which I’ve described to have kept Ford’s operations at least,onshore here.On the basis if you remove production from the country then you can no longer sell your products here with the resulting win win for BL if they refused to back down.That’s just one example of protectionism and Nationalism in action.

I agree with your logic as far as the domestic economy goes, but it wouldn’t work for the export economy which was (and is) a large source of jobs and wealth.

This is why I say to you that pulling the drawbridge up is not a solution to all our ills. We must be economically competitive with other European nations - the only question is whether it is on the high road (with a left-wing Labour party promising industrial investment, consolidation, and rationalisation) or the low road (with the Tories).

All we had to do to make this big EU experiment work - was to enforce the rules equally, like the law is supposed to be enforced.
Instead, we have the high-ups and low-downs getting away with murder, whilst the middle earners end up suffering from the crimes, and paying for it all via PAYE taxes.
This failure alone, was perfectly good reason to vote the Centerists into oblivion, only to have them rise back up again as “unelected” and “anti-democratic” Bureaucrats that cannot ever be removed.

The real way in which the British working class is paying is not through taxes, but through wages being diverted into profits, and the fragmentation of industry that brings in many more bosses taking unearned incomes whilst employing lower and lower paid workers on poorer and poorer conditions and more insecure contracts.

It’s the money that people never see in their pay slip, and thus are never taxed on, and the intangible aspects like deteriorating working conditions and job security, that is the real issue with the British economy as it has been under Tories and New Labour.

[rjan]

Winseer:
This is bulleh’s Bar. We’re essayin’’ fer chariteh. Now flash yer ■■■■!

Do you think I could get sponsored? £10 per mile of text written? Another £10 for each 1,000ft of rhetorical heights reached?

[winseer]

Rjan:

Winseer:

Rjan:
I have of course come round to the idea that war needs to be waged on the neoliberal elements of the EU though - an end to the competition laws, for example, and an end to free movement - which is why I’m supporting Corbyn’s Brexit.

If he’d only define it, I might have some leaning towards it. I Meanwhile, I have not heard any denouncement of the Socialist experiment that is the EU, and therefore continue to hold Corbyn’s Labour in high suspicion over him getting power for five years first, and throwing Brexit under the bus the moment the EU demands it for “Full funding for Labour’s incoming spending plans”.

On that point I agree with you. Labour’s Brexit agenda needs to become properly defined.

I think hitherto the thinking has been that by remaining silent on detail and offering dithery rhetoric, Labour has avoided having hard arguments about collective policy, and can instead be a reservoir of all hopes for all men. That makes sense. Corbyn is a 40+ year experienced politician after all. Perhaps his younger “not afraid of getting into trouble with plod” days might then reach out to those that otherwise don’t have much love for Labour nor Corbyn otherwise.

But the time for letting the Tories embarass themselves on their own account has passed - they’ve shown their hand and it’s turned out to be a pair of deuces - so Labour needs to start creating it’s own crystal clear negotiating narrative with the EU, and offering this as a clear alternative to the country. You’d be surprised how many poor poker players would consider “drawing to an underset” as a way to go on with a hand. The trouble is, it’s far easier to make a good player fold than an idiot - who then ends up winning, because despite the odds tipped in the good player opponent’s favour - the cards then don’t fall right. Eg. Player A has 2-2, player B has A-K, and the board comes 6-7-8 rainbow… A-K moves all-in, and 2-2 calls - “because he has a hand”. What does he think he’s beating here? - A bluff? (which turns out to be the case…) Too many idiots will make that call, and many a good player has gone broke having made the bad play that “you can bluff an idiot”. You cannot. Don’t bother trying.

I think red lines on ending further free movement, and on democratic control of the economy (covering nationalisation and state investment), both of which are extremely popular (even wider than Labour’s electorate, with many Tory voters supporting it, and citizens in the other member states of the EU) should be the headline of the policy. And Labour needs to be crystal clear that those already settled here will continue to enjoy the same rights and won’t suffer Home Office harassment. In fairness, “ending free movement” is the very most difficult (I’ll avoid using the word “hard”) part of a full Brexit to achieve. We’re talking about having our borders as they were during WWII rather than 1975-1999. The only way it could be enforced - is to check everyone coming and going, which has already been lamblasted as “unworkable”. So what then? I would favour a HARD policing of illegal immigrants already within our borders, and deporting them to whatever country we see fit. Let’s see how many “No Papers, I’m a syrian” types - volunteer to be deported to Raqqa, should they persist with this “Yuman Rights Protected” line of thought. Once out of the EU, we’ll be tearing up our adherence to the Strasbourg accord, and going back to Magna Carta. All we have to do then is enforce Magna Carta properly, which means “If you ain’t British, you have no rights at all” - kinda Hard Nationalism argument. This, I think - would and should have been the main difference between “Left” Brexit and “Right” brexit of course. I don’t believe Labour would ever want to leave the EU institutions that protect the rights of the “Few”, even if there are a lot of lowlife criminals, terrorists, and imposters among them.

And it needs to, and can, win the argument on these issues, showing both that they are widely democratically-supported, and that they are reasonable.

I don’t expect any “denouncement of the socialist experiment of the EU”, because of course the Labour party is a socialist party.

Labour can never outdo the right-wing radicals in Ukip or placate anti-EU headbangers, but what it can show the electorate is that there are only two real choices at the next election, incoherence and mendacity with the Tory party pursuing a Brexit pipe dream that it is now clear will never be delivered, or a sensible, deliverable, and trustworthy position on Brexit with Corbyn’s Labour, along with a substantial manifesto of other pro-worker measures. It’s “Brexit” or “No Brexit”. Any half-measures will be considered a “soft” or “Non” Brexit then.

While Shore at least would have had the balls which I’ve described to have kept Ford’s operations at least,onshore here.On the basis if you remove production from the country then you can no longer sell your products here with the resulting win win for BL if they refused to back down.That’s just one example of protectionism and Nationalism in action.

I agree with your logic as far as the domestic economy goes, but it wouldn’t work for the export economy which was (and is) a large source of jobs and wealth.

I don’t think we’ll ever have the type of “Protectionist” economy that Trump envisiges for America. We’ve already done away with enough power stations that we are now dangerously dependent upon EU energy supplies, especially since the (in my mind deliberate) trashing of relations with Russia recently.

This is why I say to you that pulling the drawbridge up is not a solution to all our ills. We must be economically competitive with other European nations - the only question is whether it is on the high road (with a left-wing Labour party promising industrial investment, consolidation, and rationalisation) or the low road (with the Tories).

It is the EU that won’t let us stay in the single market and customs Union on UK terms - i.e. for free. If it were for free, we woudn’t even be talking about leaving it in the first place!

All we had to do to make this big EU experiment work - was to enforce the rules equally, like the law is supposed to be enforced.
Instead, we have the high-ups and low-downs getting away with murder, whilst the middle earners end up suffering from the crimes, and paying for it all via PAYE taxes.
This failure alone, was perfectly good reason to vote the Centerists into oblivion, only to have them rise back up again as “unelected” and “anti-democratic” Bureaucrats that cannot ever be removed.

The real way in which the British working class is paying is not through taxes, but through wages being diverted into profits, and the fragmentation of industry that brings in many more bosses taking unearned incomes whilst employing lower and lower paid workers on poorer and poorer conditions and more insecure contracts. “Profit” is hardly a dirty word, not when a company ploughs back profits into higher wages for their staff, and only increases an already measly dividend by “less than the increase in profits” let’s say… Eg. Company made £100m last year, paid share dividend of 5p. Increases profits to £220m this year, gives it’s workers a 6% pay rise, and one-off bonus lump sum, - and increases the dividend from 5p to 6p. The face of Capitalism when it’s actually working - is a face the Far Left would rather never saw the light of day, of course. It is those companies like BHS, or M&S or Tescos or Carillion that make the headlines - all for Anti-Capitalist reasons of course. One could even argue that for reporting all the negative aspects of “Moral Hazard” Capitalism without balancing it out with some sterling stories of “Great firms to work for” elsewhere - is nothing short of Mainstream Media’s broadcasting of Far Left Propaganda right out of the pages of Das Capital!

It’s the money that people never see in their pay slip, and thus are never taxed on, and the intangible aspects like deteriorating working conditions and job security, that is the real issue with the British economy as it has been under Tories and New Labour.

Once again, we need to hear more about the “nice” companies that have “dead man’s shoes” reputations, and a whole lot more DONE rather than “said” about the shysters that think it’s OK to loot the company pension fund, sack people for whilstleblowing, and deny pay rises that even keep up with the rate of inflation, let alone exceed it. I think we can agree that a firm like Sports Direct are “Shysters” here, compared to the top-hole reputation an outfit like John Lewis has…

[rjan]

Winseer:
I think hitherto the thinking has been that by remaining silent on detail and offering dithery rhetoric, Labour has avoided having hard arguments about collective policy, and can instead be a reservoir of all hopes for all men. That makes sense. Corbyn is a 40+ year experienced politician after all. Perhaps his younger “not afraid of getting into trouble with plod” days might then reach out to those that otherwise don’t have much love for Labour nor Corbyn otherwise.

I don’t think there’s anything cynical about it, in the sense of it being a grand ruse by an old-hand politician, who is now giddying his fists with success - I think they are genuinely paralysed by division, like a person who knows they are in a minefield simply stops and thinks, and everyone can see that it’s the case. And true, it stops mines going off, but the stasis can’t be maintained indefinitely.

But the time for letting the Tories embarass themselves on their own account has passed - they’ve shown their hand and it’s turned out to be a pair of deuces - so Labour needs to start creating it’s own crystal clear negotiating narrative with the EU, and offering this as a clear alternative to the country. You’d be surprised how many poor poker players would consider “drawing to an underset” as a way to go on with a hand. The trouble is, it’s far easier to make a good player fold than an idiot - who then ends up winning, because despite the odds tipped in the good player opponent’s favour - the cards then don’t fall right. Eg. Player A has 2-2, player B has A-K, and the board comes 6-7-8 rainbow… A-K moves all-in, and 2-2 calls - “because he has a hand”. What does he think he’s beating here? - A bluff? (which turns out to be the case…) Too many idiots will make that call, and many a good player has gone broke having made the bad play that “you can bluff an idiot”. You cannot. Don’t bother trying.

I find it an interesting expression of how the weak only have to be lucky once, whereas the strong have to be lucky every time.

I think red lines on ending further free movement, and on democratic control of the economy (covering nationalisation and state investment), both of which are extremely popular (even wider than Labour’s electorate, with many Tory voters supporting it, and citizens in the other member states of the EU) should be the headline of the policy. And Labour needs to be crystal clear that those already settled here will continue to enjoy the same rights and won’t suffer Home Office harassment. In fairness, “ending free movement” is the very most difficult (I’ll avoid using the word “hard”) part of a full Brexit to achieve. We’re talking about having our borders as they were during WWII rather than 1975-1999. The only way it could be enforced - is to check everyone coming and going, which has already been lamblasted as “unworkable”. So what then? I would favour a HARD policing of illegal immigrants already within our borders, and deporting them to whatever country we see fit. Let’s see how many “No Papers, I’m a syrian” types - volunteer to be deported to Raqqa, should they persist with this “Yuman Rights Protected” line of thought. Once out of the EU, we’ll be tearing up our adherence to the Strasbourg accord, and going back to Magna Carta. All we have to do then is enforce Magna Carta properly, which means “If you ain’t British, you have no rights at all” - kinda Hard Nationalism argument. This, I think - would and should have been the main difference between “Left” Brexit and “Right” brexit of course. I don’t believe Labour would ever want to leave the EU institutions that protect the rights of the “Few”, even if there are a lot of lowlife criminals, terrorists, and imposters among them.

But the issue with borders is not about people flows, it is about worker flows, and much of the infrastructure at borders is already in place. You don’t need to stop people coming into the country, you simply need to stop them being employed if they do not have the right to be so. And enforcement does not need to be absolute, it simply has to mow the lawn.

And it’s important to recognise that it is the employer not the worker who is the criminal - the worker is doing the work and getting his pay for it (probably at less than the going rate to boot), it is the boss who gains the additional competitive advantage and profit from these crimes in the marketplace, and it is the state’s responsibility to prevent the attraction that illegal employers create for migrant worker flows.

It’s precisely because the right-wing are the agents of the bosses and don’t want to attack businessmen (or materially undermine their use of cheap labour), nor pay the cost of enforcement, that they demonise workers as a distraction, and complain that that “yuman rights” stop them sending back people who’ve been here 5 or 10 years working and have partners and children in school by that time.

Indeed, you don’t even need to deport illegal workers, just impair their ability to find work, and for those who find themselves on hard times as the clampdown on the market progresses, offer free travel home (without incarceration or criminalisation), because creating consensual outflows feeds information back into foreign cultures that Britain is not a place where unlawful employment opportunities continue to exist. Or indeed, offer a one-time amnesty (at the same time as the employment clampdown) to those who can demonstrate settlement or community links (i.e. if they can find a number of people to come to a police station with ID and vouch for them), and clear up the illegal economy, and debrief those who submit themselves to gain intelligence.

And it needs to, and can, win the argument on these issues, showing both that they are widely democratically-supported, and that they are reasonable.

I don’t expect any “denouncement of the socialist experiment of the EU”, because of course the Labour party is a socialist party.

Labour can never outdo the right-wing radicals in Ukip or placate anti-EU headbangers, but what it can show the electorate is that there are only two real choices at the next election, incoherence and mendacity with the Tory party pursuing a Brexit pipe dream that it is now clear will never be delivered, or a sensible, deliverable, and trustworthy position on Brexit with Corbyn’s Labour, along with a substantial manifesto of other pro-worker measures. It’s “Brexit” or “No Brexit”. Any half-measures will be considered a “soft” or “Non” Brexit then.

But is it considered a “half-measure” if we still have tariff-free trade with Europe at the end of the day? Is it considered a “half-measure” if we give a binding commitment on human rights, supervised by the ECHR, as a reassurance that existing citizens’ rights will be protected, as the condition of a continued trade deal?

The reality is, other members are not going to let us do what we like just for trade reasons, because there are larger political issues raised over things like citizens’ rights that won’t be traded simply for economic advantage. No nation in the world can politically afford for it’s citizens to be flagrantly abused by foreign powers for the price of a couple of percent of GDP - and as the Windrush scandal shows, in their eyes the British Tory party cannot be trusted to be fair and reasonable in respecting accrued rights.

This is why many Brexiteers are going to have another thing coming when they realise that they can’t have “cakeism”, and that the price of trade with other EU nations is recognising their own sovereign influence and getting along with them politically.

I agree with your logic as far as the domestic economy goes, but it wouldn’t work for the export economy which was (and is) a large source of jobs and wealth.

I don’t think we’ll ever have the type of “Protectionist” economy that Trump envisiges for America. We’ve already done away with enough power stations that we are now dangerously dependent upon EU energy supplies, especially since the (in my mind deliberate) trashing of relations with Russia recently.

Indeed, and that shows that our hand is extremely weak when we say we will simply walk away from EU trade. It would be a major embarassment for the Tory party to end up with us on a three-day week and gas embargoes, and so too it would be against their agenda to find themselves using the state to throw up quick-and-dirty power stations and get coal mining going again.

This is why I say to you that pulling the drawbridge up is not a solution to all our ills. We must be economically competitive with other European nations - the only question is whether it is on the high road (with a left-wing Labour party promising industrial investment, consolidation, and rationalisation) or the low road (with the Tories). It is the EU that won’t let us stay in the single market and customs Union on UK terms - i.e. for free. If it were for free, we woudn’t even be talking about leaving it in the first place!

But something like half the entire EU budget is spent on the CAP - at the very least, they wouldn’t be able to allow free trade in food and agriculture if we refused to play our part in the CAP. And by destroying the markets and subsidies that come with EU trade and participation in the CAP, the Tories would alienate a major constituency of theirs which is farmers and rural communities. The Tories probably haven’t even attempted to negotiate a solution along these lines, in terms of reduced contributions in exchange for ceasing participation in key EU policies, because it just doesn’t make sense for them politically.

The real way in which the British working class is paying is not through taxes, but through wages being diverted into profits, and the fragmentation of industry that brings in many more bosses taking unearned incomes whilst employing lower and lower paid workers on poorer and poorer conditions and more insecure contracts. “Profit” is hardly a dirty word, not when a company ploughs back profits into higher wages for their staff, and only increases an already measly dividend by “less than the increase in profits” let’s say… Eg. Company made £100m last year, paid share dividend of 5p. Increases profits to £220m this year, gives it’s workers a 6% pay rise, and one-off bonus lump sum, - and increases the dividend from 5p to 6p. The face of Capitalism when it’s actually working - is a face the Far Left would rather never saw the light of day, of course. It is those companies like BHS, or M&S or Tescos or Carillion that make the headlines - all for Anti-Capitalist reasons of course. One could even argue that for reporting all the negative aspects of “Moral Hazard” Capitalism without balancing it out with some sterling stories of “Great firms to work for” elsewhere - is nothing short of Mainstream Media’s broadcasting of Far Left Propaganda right out of the pages of Das Capital!

By definition, “profit” is what is left over after you have paid wages, so it makes no sense to say “higher profits lead to higher wages”. I understand the sense you’re using it in, in reference to a not-as-yet-allocated trading surplus, but that is not profit - if the entire surplus went to workers as deferred or conditional wages, then the profit would be zero.

It’s the money that people never see in their pay slip, and thus are never taxed on, and the intangible aspects like deteriorating working conditions and job security, that is the real issue with the British economy as it has been under Tories and New Labour. Once again, we need to hear more about the “nice” companies that have “dead man’s shoes” reputations, and a whole lot more DONE rather than “said” about the shysters that think it’s OK to loot the company pension fund, sack people for whilstleblowing, and deny pay rises that even keep up with the rate of inflation, let alone exceed it. I think we can agree that a firm like Sports Direct are “Shysters” here, compared to the top-hole reputation an outfit like John Lewis has…

I agree. But the key point with John Lewis, if I understand their business model correctly, is that there is no trading profit - trading surpluses are either reinvested or distributed to those who work in the operation. The only way you get profit out of John Lewis, is through rents or interests that the company has to pay externally (for example, shop rents or mortgage debts).

And indeed, the reason why firms like BHS, with solid terms and good pensions, are going bust, is because there are newcomers that have been allowed to establish themselves that undercut wages. They say the reason pensions have become uneconomic is because we’re living longer, but in truth it is really because of the existence of undercutting firms in the marketplace and the amount of surplus in the economy that has been diverted into profit. We aren’t actually living any longer than actuaries in the 50s and 60s already expected us to.

Indeed, the undercutting and erosion of future obligations, and thus the cheapening of shop prices today, is one of the ways in which attacks on workers since the 70s has been concealed. It was the same with housing. Rents and mortgages have far exceeded wage growth, meaning that most workers have taken a real-terms cut in their standard of living, but because it proceeds slowly and mostly eats up the next generation of workers, it has avoided the objections that would have arisen if rents had stayed the same but bosses had attacked wages across the economy outright.

[winseer]

The EU don’t want us “Leaving” because they know any form of real leaving will bring it down.

Leaving the single market and customs union is only necessary because the EU insists that we “cannot legally stop paying Brussels” if we “remain” IN both of these.

THat means the only way to leave legally - is to leave both, even if that’s not in the UK’s interests.
Alternatively, we could act IN our own interests, albeit “illegally” - by just defaulting the entire Treaty of Rome, and that is a distinct possibility for next March, when “No deal has even begun to be seriously negotiated for Britain’s ongoing trade with the EU”.

We’ll either be leaving with “no deal”, I predict - or the authorities are just gonna go “Oh well never mind, we tried our best to talk you around to asking again. The only way the liberal elites were ever going to let you do this was by YOU holding a gun to OUR heads!”

I don’t think Britain is “Politically Unstable” as of yet. Germany, Hungary, Poland, and now Italy - are a lot further down the road to that thing which the centerists globalists fear the most - a nation that’s grown balls, and is now sticking up for itself.

Any future would-be government has to appeal to that spirit within Britain right now - Or face the consequences of never being a majority government again.

The centerists would be quite happy with “everlasting weak coalitions, leaving them to wreak their devisive havoc around Europe, with the UK still inside it”.

If Trump can tear up TTIP and the Iran Treaty - then why can’t we tear up the Treaty of Rome?

…If only we had a strong “from the hip” leader in this country to vote for. Theresa May might have seemed closest to that a year ago - but now? They are all pandering to the EU centerists.

Corbyn won’t commit, May has moved to the center, only recently vacated by all of the Libdems we tried to get rid of, and those same Libdems don’t have a single Brexiteer among them.

Either we get rid of our own parliament - or our parliament gets rid of US then.

[rjan]

Winseer:
The EU don’t want us “Leaving” because they know any form of real leaving will bring it down.

But if that is the case, then clearly we are in the strongest negotiating position by agreeing to Remain, in exchange for substantial concessions or reforms. I certainly think that, for example, ending free movement would draw off a substantial amount of further support for hard Brexit amongst workers.

If the whole thing really is at stake from full Brexit, then that is both the biggest bargaining chip, and the thing that the EU must ensure we suffer gravely from in order to give it any chance of keeping itself together and salvaging itself. And yet Brexit hardliners seem to think that it’s going to fold and offer us a free trade deal even if we do Brexit hard, and for free - which is simply impossible.

Obviously, the EU can’t offer concessions that create more of the very strain that it’s trying to relieve - it can’t submit to “cakeism”. It has to be a new deal that involves some mutual settlement.

The problem is that many Brexiteers - the minority of hardliners - seem unwilling to countenance anything other than pressing the nuclear button - in other words, anything less than lodging impossible demands followed up by mutual destruction will be seen as a betrayal of the Brexit agenda.

[winseer]

Exactly, but despite that obvious situation, the EU sent Cameron home with nothing, not even one tiny concession to perhaps “talk about reform” in some kind of “Jam Tomorrow” deal that might have swung an extra 3% on the referendum to come… The arrogance of the EU is staggering. They clearly believed their own lies and spin, when the media reported “massive support for remain” going into the referendum.

If it hadn’t had been for the assassination of Jo Cox MP - the result might well have been more 65/35 for Leave.
What a sandbunker 52/48 was and still is to this country.

Now, two years on - we have 0% UK government progress on Brexit and the EU have also moved 0% in both any “voluntary Reforms” or even 0% in “reducing their budget, that can only last until the UK finally pulls the plug on the tribute payments…”

I’ll state again “Restricting free movement” is the thing that should have been pushed down the priority list - with “stopping the payments” raised to the priorty 1 position. Everything else will quickly fall into place ONCE we stop those payments - so WTF has this country done nothing towards that end? Culpable Civil Servants led by a Remainer senior cabinet.

All this talk of “Having our cake and eating it”. All we ever had to do was just stop paying the money. The EU will kick us out at their own speed, after that. They might not even be able to kick us out of the customs union and close down UK-EU trade routes any more than WE can.

There is no force on Earth that can make us pay any kind of “Brexit Bill”. It is also easy to leave any EU-based judicial authority as well.
“Leaving the Customs Union” and “Leaving the Single Market” will likely end up being the very EU sanctions they put upon us - once we stop paying the money over to Brussels. It is essential politically then, that we MUST be prepared to “give these up” - or we’ll always buckle under to the threat of “Nope, you stop paying - we take this that and the other away from you.”

Only when you are prepared to sacrifice something entirely - do you finally have any kind of real control over it.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
Exactly, but despite that obvious situation, the EU sent Cameron home with nothing, not even one tiny concession to perhaps “talk about reform” in some kind of “Jam Tomorrow” deal that might have swung an extra 3% on the referendum to come… The arrogance of the EU is staggering.

The only ‘reform’ which would matter and make any sense regarding reversing Brexit would be for the EU to change into a Confederation of Sovereign states with the right to agree to disagree in the form of opt out or substitution and the removal of the Commissioners.To apply immediately in the form of a new membership renewal under a new European treaty with all previous ones void.There’s no way that the Socialists will ever accept that because centralised Soviet style rule is what they are in it for.While their globalist allies see it as the only way that they can impose their world governance system on Europe because seperate sovereign states would be too fragmented to make it stick.

Meanwhile yet more proof of Corbyn’s blatant lies to trick the Labour Leave vote and why Starmer is where he is and not Hoey.

youtube.com/watch?v=GhLVobjKtrU