Has Brexit started the ball rolling?

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Franglais:
If we were to stay in a customs union, then agreed, no need for a fudge. But that isnt being spoken of is it? Or have I missed something? Could the current May Gov survive saying we will stay in a customs union? Wouldnt there then be potential for a vote of no confidence?

As if the current omnishambles weren`t enough, a General Election!

Well the Labour party has come out for a customs union.

The Tories haven’t come out openly in favour of one, but their DUP partners are clear about their position on the matter (without whose support the Tories simply lack a majority), and the Tory moderates have also expressed an intention to vote with Labour on the matter.

The real threat for May is that if she doesn’t support a customs union, then she’s effectively going to lose a vote of confidence, and the Tories are probably going to have to go to the country again, but they’ll be in total disunity when they do so.

Some in Labour like Field have nay-sayed a customs union, but as with the Tories, I haven’t heard an alternative argument for how they actually address the Northern Ireland problem, so it remains an unsolved puzzle on that front.

I suspect the Tories will be waiting to see how this Russian scandal plays out, and they’ll go to the country if it provides a bounce in the polls - but so far, I don’t have a great sense that it’s going in their favour, because the media has taken a second thought and started to ask questions, and the affair has drawn attention to the Tories’ own dirty laundry (literally, their corrupt Russian money connections, and the fact that just a couple of weeks ago they voted down Labour who were trying to introduce measures to hit the Russians in their pockets where it hurts).

Remainer May was put in place by the Con Europhiles ( who took us into the EU ) to sabotage Brexit and she’s succeeded.

Corbyn is pretending to be onside with the Labour Brexit vote.While all the time knowing that Labour is actually onside with May’s remain agenda because Labour,being a Socialist rabble,is ideologically opposed to what can only possibly be an ideologically Nationalist agenda of Brexit.

The Russian issue has all the signs of a desperate,dangerous and all too conveniently well timed false flag set up.As part of project fear to divert attention from the above treachery of the government defying the Leave referendum vote and to obviously hopefully create an environment that promotes continuing our ties with the EU while damaging the case for Brexit.

While even if there is a Russian threat on our own turf it’s only that which the government itself has brought here and invited in as part of the above plan and which has grown bolder because of the deliberate downgrading of the NATO nuclear deterrent.Combined with a dangerous EU and NATO game of trying to ‘contain’ Russia while pretending detente.Instead of the proven defence policy based on deterrents and compromise while keeping our guard up,which kept the peace through the Cold War.On that note it seems difficult to believe that Russia would have bothered with such a stupid pointless operation just to get back at one of its traitors or even just to warn us.When surely the best plan of action,from Putin’s point of view,would have just been to take him/them out properly followed by the expulsion of Brit embassy staff and the official nuclear threat that was issued by Russia anyway.While as it stands it looks like a typical remain project fear stunt that has backfired possibly catastrophically depending on what Putin does next.

No surprise bearing in mind that the remain scum have WMD’s zb liar Blair on their side now trying to drag us into an even bigger fight all to save their EU project and that we might not get out of anything like as easily this time.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

Remainer May was put in place by the Con Europhiles ( who took us into the EU ) to sabotage Brexit and she’s succeeded.

I’m not sure she’s done anything to actually sabotage the Tories chances. It’s like I say, right-wing Brexit has collapsed under the weight of it’s own contradictions.

It’s all very well whipping up jingoistic fervour at home and the ballot box, but when it comes to concrete negotiations with your declared opponents, you’re going to come up against hard reason. Davis, who is a right-winger, but I’ve always sensed has some intellectual capacity and personal integrity, has ended up on a learning curve himself about the issues at stake, and has hopelessness written on his face like a man who has already conceded (quite properly) that his opponents are actually on the stronger intellectual ground on every point. The simple fact is that the other EU nations are not going to do a deal that creates opportunities for regulatory arbitrage or undercutting of standards at their direct expense. Like Tusk said, himself looking genuinely worn down at the time and seeming totally frank, the concessions being sought are just not in any other nation’s own interest. They’d rather have a total Brexit and clean break, and bear whatever it’s costs may be as a one-time hit, than maintain a trading relationship under the terms sought by Davis.

This is because the concessions sought would dysregulate the single market - the market that the right-wing Brexiteers do not actually want to completely abandon, but want to retain access to as well as gaining access to those of other third nations. It’s not just a case of them saying those are the rules, take it or leave it - it’s a case of the rules having to have some integrity and internal consistency in order to achieve their regulatory aims.

If Britain wants total freedom over its own interior market regulations or its trade relations with other nations around the world, then the EU is still willing to trade with us, but it has to reserve rights to impose tariffs, physical borders, customs checks, and other controls, to protect itself, its citizens, and its rights to determine its own interior market regulations and trade relations.

Fox meanwhile, who unlike Davis is an utter turd, has been around the world seeking trade deals, and has essentially come back empty handed and with nothing to declare. There are no third nations who want to do any appreciable extra trade with us, because developing nations want to develop their own domestic industry and the capability of their workforces, not to import finished goods and services that would create jobs in Britain - what they do want mainly is our soft skills and culture, which means they want to send immigrants to work here (British people are already free in practice to emigrate almost anywhere in the world). For Brits, there is just no beneficial deal here - the one thing they want we’re not willing to give.

It’s like I’ve said, it’s free trade fantasy land.

Corbyn is pretending to be onside with the Labour Brexit vote.While all the time knowing that Labour is actually onside with May’s remain agenda because Labour,being a Socialist rabble,is ideologically opposed to what can only possibly be an ideologically Nationalist agenda of Brexit.

It’s not Corbyn pretending. It’s many of the Labour MPs that are pretending to be onside with Corbyn’s preference for Brexit! Blair is up in arms but he’s so reviled by the public that he daren’t show his face on telly, lest he taint the Remain case by his association with it. And it’s not predominantly the left-wingers who are resisting Corbyn, it is the Blairites, the hard centrists who want to maintain the economic status quo.

The Russian issue has all the signs of a desperate,dangerous and all too conveniently well timed false flag set up.As part of project fear to divert attention from the above treachery of the government defying the Leave referendum vote and to obviously hopefully create an environment that promotes continuing our ties with the EU while damaging the case for Brexit.

While even if there is a Russian threat on our own turf it’s only that which the government itself has brought here and invited in as part of the above plan and which has grown bolder because of the deliberate downgrading of the NATO nuclear deterrent.Combined with a dangerous EU and NATO game of trying to ‘contain’ Russia while pretending detente.Instead of the proven defence policy based on deterrents and compromise while keeping our guard up,which kept the peace through the Cold War.On that note it seems difficult to believe that Russia would have bothered with such a stupid pointless operation just to get back at one of its traitors or even just to warn us.When surely the best plan of action,from Putin’s point of view,would have just been to take him/them out properly followed by the expulsion of Brit embassy staff and the official nuclear threat that was issued by Russia anyway.While as it stands it looks like a typical remain project fear stunt that has backfired possibly catastrophically depending on what Putin does next.

No surprise bearing in mind that the remain scum have WMD’s zb liar Blair on their side now trying to drag us into an even bigger fight all to save their EU project and that we might not get out of anything like as easily this time.

Well I don’t agree on this conspiracy theory, but nothing much turns on it.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
I’m not sure she’s done anything to actually sabotage the Tories chances. It’s like I say, right-wing Brexit has collapsed under the weight of it’s own contradictions.

It’s all very well whipping up jingoistic fervour at home and the ballot box, but when it comes to concrete negotiations with your declared opponents, you’re going to come up against hard reason. Davis, who is a right-winger, but I’ve always sensed has some intellectual capacity and personal integrity, has ended up on a learning curve himself about the issues at stake, and has hopelessness written on his face like a man who has already conceded (quite properly) that his opponents are actually on the stronger intellectual ground on every point. The simple fact is that the other EU nations are not going to do a deal that creates opportunities for regulatory arbitrage or undercutting of standards at their direct expense. Like Tusk said, himself looking genuinely worn down at the time and seeming totally frank, the concessions being sought are just not in any other nation’s own interest. They’d rather have a total Brexit and clean break, and bear whatever it’s costs may be as a one-time hit, than maintain a trading relationship under the terms sought by Davis.

This is because the concessions sought would dysregulate the single market - the market that the right-wing Brexiteers do not actually want to completely abandon, but want to retain access to as well as gaining access to those of other third nations. It’s not just a case of them saying those are the rules, take it or leave it - it’s a case of the rules having to have some integrity and internal consistency in order to achieve their regulatory aims.

If Britain wants total freedom over its own interior market regulations or its trade relations with other nations around the world, then the EU is still willing to trade with us, but it has to reserve rights to impose tariffs, physical borders, customs checks, and other controls, to protect itself, its citizens, and its rights to determine its own interior market regulations and trade relations.

Fox meanwhile, who unlike Davis is an utter turd, has been around the world seeking trade deals, and has essentially come back empty handed and with nothing to declare. There are no third nations who want to do any appreciable extra trade with us, because developing nations want to develop their own domestic industry and the capability of their workforces, not to import finished goods and services that would create jobs in Britain - what they do want mainly is our soft skills and culture, which means they want to send immigrants to work here (British people are already free in practice to emigrate almost anywhere in the world). For Brits, there is just no beneficial deal here - the one thing they want we’re not willing to give.

It’s like I’ve said, it’s free trade fantasy land.

It’s not Corbyn pretending. It’s many of the Labour MPs that are pretending to be onside with Corbyn’s preference for Brexit! Blair is up in arms but he’s so reviled by the public that he daren’t show his face on telly, lest he taint the Remain case by his association with it. And it’s not predominantly the left-wingers who are resisting Corbyn, it is the Blairites, the hard centrists who want to maintain the economic status quo.

Well I don’t agree on this conspiracy theory, but nothing much turns on it.

As I said the Tories are an ideologically Federalist Party and May has been put there on that basis.Just like all the other Con leaders from Heath to Major to Cameron.IE Tory chances in this case being those of the remainers by default.

It seems obvious that you’re looking at it from the same old ideological anti nation state point of view as ever.IE Nationalist = irrational jingoistic,EU Federation = good,independent sovereign Britain = bad.On that note why should we be the ones who’d give a zb about the EU wanting to impose tariffs when we’re the ones in the disadvantageous position of being a net contributor for the privilege of being a net importer.Great if they want a trade war in that position then bring it on.But of course you’ve already made it clear that you support the EUSSR’s aggressive moves in that regard not your own country for the ideological reasons which you’ve made clear enough times.

As for Corbyn it’s clear that the lying Socialist toe rag can only possibly share your pro EU anti Nation State view because anything else would be an ideological contradiction as I’ve said.

As for the Russian question.Great go along with the EU Federal Army and its obvious aims regarding Ukraine and see what happens.Bearing in mind that for all her bluster and posturing the useless waste of space old hag obviously couldn’t/didn’t even meet an obvious nuclear threat from Putin with a bigger one in return.No surprise being that her false flag op was only mean’t for the consumption of the domestic audience regarding the ongoing sabotage of Brexit, not Putin regards potential WW3.The problem being that her and her bunch of remainer morons in her cabinet aren’t bright enough to realise that Putin will justifiably see it as a move towards the latter not the former.On that note why would he have wanted to hit us with a supposed chemical weapons attack when he’s made his far more effective nuclear option clear to May in his reply to her bs ‘ultimatum’ to him.

IE if Putin really wanted to do what he’s being accused of then surely a double tap by Russia’s James Bondski,obviously with the required diplomatic immunity from prosecution even if he was caught,followed by the same nuclear warning that he gave to her anyway,would have been far more effective in getting his point across.Rather than go to all the trouble of using an obviously weakened strength chem weapon,with made in Russia supposedly written on it,just to knock of an old traitor and to pointlessly send the same warning to May as his nuclear one did.You’re avin a larf if you’re trying to say that the whole thing isn’t just a remain instigated false flag op with Blair’s grubby prints and MO all over it.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
As I said the Tories are an ideologically Federalist Party and May has been put there on that basis.Just like all the other Con leaders from Heath to Major to Cameron.IE Tory chances in this case being those of the remainers by default.

It seems obvious that you’re looking at it from the same old ideological anti nation state point of view as ever.IE Nationalist = irrational jingoistic,EU Federation = good,independent sovereign Britain = bad.

But the right-wing Brexiteers are not being nationalist in the self-contained manner you imagine. The Brexiteers are bellicose nationalists, who seriously think other nations are going to provide an open door to their marketplaces without their having any say on how we behave in their marketplaces. And these swivel-eyed loons in the Tory party are getting their eyes wiped.

On that note why should we be the ones who’d give a zb about the EU wanting to impose tariffs when we’re the ones in the disadvantageous position of being a net contributor for the privilege of being a net importer.

If that’s the case, then why are the Tories even at Europe’s door with the begging bowl wanting a trade deal - making total fools of themselves in the process - if it would make more economic sense to simply leave and be done with it?

Great if they want a trade war in that position then bring it on.But of course you’ve already made it clear that you support the EUSSR’s aggressive moves in that regard not your own country for the ideological reasons which you’ve made clear enough times.

There is no trade war to have. The EU will just outplace us, and get on with their own business inside the single market. It’s simple arithmetic that they represent 27 nations having to deal with the departure of one nation from their marketplace - an economic sting to them but not an economic shock - whereas we represent just the one nation having to deal with the departure of 27 nations from our marketplace!

It’s like when Ken Morley left Coronation Street to go on to better things, he claimed, and all he’s really been known for since is Safestyle double-glazing adverts! It’s where the right-wing Brexiteers would have us heading!

As for Corbyn it’s clear that the lying Socialist toe rag can only possibly share your pro EU anti Nation State view because anything else would be an ideological contradiction as I’ve said.

Indeed, anything other than Corbyn’s views would be a contradiction - such as your contradictory views. But there is no deception occurring - the fact that he doesn’t share your incoherent views doesn’t mean he’s ever been untruthful about his own.

As for the Russian question. […]. You’re avin a larf if you’re trying to say that the whole thing isn’t just a remain instigated false flag op with Blair’s grubby prints and MO all over it.

Well, maybe you should swing behind a Corbyn Brexit. 4 million Ukippers, I’m led to believe, already have.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
As I said the Tories are an ideologically Federalist Party and May has been put there on that basis.Just like all the other Con leaders from Heath to Major to Cameron.IE Tory chances in this case being those of the remainers by default.

It seems obvious that you’re looking at it from the same old ideological anti nation state point of view as ever.IE Nationalist = irrational jingoistic,EU Federation = good,independent sovereign Britain = bad.

But they’re not being nationalist in the self-contained manner you imagine. They’re bellicose nationalists, who seriously think other nations are going to provide an open door to their marketplaces without their having any say on how we behave in their marketplaces. And the swivel-eyed loons in the Tory party are getting their eyes wiped.

On that note why should we be the ones who’d give a zb about the EU wanting to impose tariffs when we’re the ones in the disadvantageous position of being a net contributor for the privilege of being a net importer.

If that’s the case, then why are the Tories even at Europe’s door with the begging bowl wanting a trade deal - making total fools of themselves in the process - if it would make more economic sense to simply leave and be done with it?

Great if they want a trade war in that position then bring it on.But of course you’ve already made it clear that you support the EUSSR’s aggressive moves in that regard not your own country for the ideological reasons which you’ve made clear enough times.

There is no trade war to have. The EU will just outplace us, and get on with their own business inside the single market. It’s simple arithmetic that they represent 27 nations having to deal with the departure of one nation from their marketplace - an economic sting to them but not an economic shock - whereas we represent just the one nation having to deal with the departure of 27 nations from our marketplace!

It’s like when Ken Morley left Coronation Street to go on to better things, he claimed, and all he’s really been known for since is Safestyle double-glazing adverts! It’s where the right-wing Brexiteers would have us heading!

As for Corbyn it’s clear that the lying Socialist toe rag can only possibly share your pro EU anti Nation State view because anything else would be an ideological contradiction as I’ve said.

Indeed, anything other than Corbyn’s views would be a contradiction - such as your contradictory views. But there is no deception occurring - the fact that he doesn’t share your incoherent views doesn’t mean he’s ever been untruthful about his own.

As for the Russian question. […]. You’re avin a larf if you’re trying to say that the whole thing isn’t just a remain instigated false flag op with Blair’s grubby prints and MO all over it.

Well, maybe you should swing behind a Corbyn Brexit. 4 million Ukippers, I’m led to believe, already have.

Did you actually read the post.I said the Tories,like Socialists,are ideologically Federalist not Nationalists that’s why Heath took us in and it’s also why Powell was chucked out/walked away from the treacherous rabble.In which case it isn’t surprising that they won’t deliver Brexit because Brexit is an ideologically Nationalist agenda and therefore an abhorrent anathema to them.

As for Corbyn read Conservative.IE ideologically opposed to the Nationalist idea of secession and National self determination.So another liar assuming that he’s saying that he’s for Brexit.

Yes we know there are plenty of Labour supporters who don’t understand the contradiction in supporting a Party that has been hijacked by Socialism and which therefore has as much credibility in delivering Brexit as the Cons have.

While if the electorate really wants to believe that ideologically anti nation state Socialists in the form of Corbyn and/or Conservative Federalists like May would ever deliver Brexit.Then they’ll obviously also be stupid enough to allow May to lead them into a war with Russia based on the latest Blairite false flag scam.As I said the smoking gun in that regard being the question why would Putin want to supposedly send a warning in the form of a pointless chemical WMD attack with his calling card attached,which strangely doesn’t seem strong enough to even kill anyone,only to then resort back to his nuclear deterrent when challenged on it after.When just shooting the mark and then using the nuclear threat after would have been the logical approach.

Just like the question ‘if’ Labour are really all for Brexit why would they choose an anti Nation state Socialist like Corbyn and not a Nationalist like Hoey,to lead it ?.

As I said lying zb remainers who intend to sabotage Brexit and who’d rather risk all out war with Russia than to let go of their stinking EU project and liar Corbyn,like liar May,pretending to support Brexit as his insurance policy.No surprise that you are making the same old bs remainer case that we stand to lose anything by ridding ourselves of a one sided trading relationship that actually costs us billions in deficit added to by our net contributions for the privilege.Also no surprise that unlike Benn,Heffer,Shore and Hoey,Corbyn has unsurprisingly never once mentioned the issue of sovereignty.Because the lying Socialist zb is as ideologically opposed to the idea of it and the nation state as Callaghan,Jenkins and Blair.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

Did you actually read the post.I said the Tories,like Socialists,are ideologically Federalist not Nationalists that’s why Heath took us in and it’s also why Powell was chucked out/walked away from the treacherous rabble.In which case it isn’t surprising that they won’t deliver Brexit because Brexit is an ideologically Nationalist agenda and therefore an abhorrent anathema to them.

But the Heathite faction of the Tories are the Remainers, not the Brexiteers!

Even Farage has been supporting seeking a deal with the EU (albeit entirely on our terms, and leaving if we don’t get it). If he had his ducks in a row as a “nationalist” of your kind, he would object to such a deal on principle, because it would mean two nations mingling their economies and binding themselves into a trade deal in a way incompatible with your self-contained nationalism.

The reality is that demanding a one-sided deal from the EU is not evidence of your kind of nationalism, it’s evidence of the bellicose nationalism and jingoism that I’ve refered to.

As for Corbyn read Conservative.IE ideologically opposed to the Nationalist idea of secession and National self determination.So another liar assuming that he’s saying that he’s for Brexit.

He isn’t against Brexit though, is he?

The fact that he doesn’t share your muddled views is immaterial - no sensible person does, or ought to.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Did you actually read the post.I said the Tories,like Socialists,are ideologically Federalist not Nationalists that’s why Heath took us in and it’s also why Powell was chucked out/walked away from the treacherous rabble.In which case it isn’t surprising that they won’t deliver Brexit because Brexit is an ideologically Nationalist agenda and therefore an abhorrent anathema to them.

But the Heathite faction of the Tories are the Remainers, not the Brexiteers!

Even Farage has been supporting seeking a deal with the EU (albeit entirely on our terms, and leaving if we don’t get it). If he had his ducks in a row as a “nationalist” of your kind, he would object to such a deal on principle, because it would mean two nations mingling their economies and binding themselves into a trade deal in a way incompatible with your self-contained nationalism.

The reality is that demanding a one-sided deal from the EU is not evidence of your kind of nationalism, it’s evidence of the bellicose nationalism and jingoism that I’ve refered to.

As for Corbyn read Conservative.IE ideologically opposed to the Nationalist idea of secession and National self determination.So another liar assuming that he’s saying that he’s for Brexit.

He isn’t against Brexit though, is he?

The fact that he doesn’t share your muddled views is immaterial - no sensible person does, or ought to.

It’s obvious that that the Cons are ideologically Heathite by definition ( Unionists ) and the rest are either liars or they are naively clinging to the false hope that the Cons can be turned Nationalist ( no chance ).

The same applies to the Labour Party in that Nationalists like Benn,Shore and now Hoey could never turn the Party away from being ideoligically anti nation state Socialist.Which is why it’s now led by Corbyn and not Hoey just as Callaghan hijacked the Party from Benn and Shore etc.On that note yes Corbyn can only be against Brexit ( or even a Confederal Europe ) because like you he is an anti nation state Socialist who is ideologically programmed towards being part of an EUSSR not an independent sovereign Britain.

As for Farage it’s clear that he is onside with the idea of Nationalism it’s just the economic arguments left if/when we ever get it.The relevant bit being that we can’t have those economic policy arguments until/unless we get the country’s sovereignty back first.On that note no we’re obviously not looking for a one sided trading relationship with the EU.The issue is that it’s the EU which is doing all the one sided trading with our deficit proving it.Let alone expecting us to pay for the privilege of that and being ruled by zb’s like Merkel and Juncker.But being a pro EUSSR Socialist you already knew all that just as you know that the idea of Corbyn supporting Brexit can only be an ideological lie.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
It’s obvious that that the Cons are ideologically Heathite by definition ( Unionists ) and the rest are either liars or they are naively clinging to the false hope that the Cons can be turned Nationalist ( no chance ).

The majority of Tories are not Heathite, they are Thatcherite. They support small states with as little democracy as possible, and big international markets in which to promote their wealth.

The same applies to the Labour Party in that Nationalists like Benn,Shore and now Hoey could never turn the Party away from being ideoligically anti nation state Socialist.Which is why it’s now led by Corbyn and not Hoey just as Callaghan hijacked the Party from Benn and Shore etc.On that note yes Corbyn can only be against Brexit ( or even a Confederal Europe ) because like you he is an anti nation state Socialist who is ideologically programmed towards being part of an EUSSR not an independent sovereign Britain.

As for Farage it’s clear that he is onside with the idea of Nationalism it’s just the economic arguments left if/when we ever get it.The relevant bit being that we can’t have those economic policy arguments until/unless we get the country’s sovereignty back first.On that note no we’re obviously not looking for a one sided trading relationship with the EU.The issue is that it’s the EU which is doing all the one sided trading with our deficit proving it.Let alone expecting us to pay for the privilege of that and being ruled by zb’s like Merkel and Juncker.But being a pro EUSSR Socialist you already knew all that just as you know that the idea of Corbyn supporting Brexit can only be an ideological lie.

Given that Corbyn is considered by all in Labour to be a politician in the tradition of Benn and Foot (he was in fact one of the few new Labour MPs elected on the 1983 manifesto, following the defection of Michael O’Halloran to the SDP), I don’t know why you’re so against him.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
It’s obvious that that the Cons are ideologically Heathite by definition ( Unionists ) and the rest are either liars or they are naively clinging to the false hope that the Cons can be turned Nationalist ( no chance ).

The majority of Tories are not Heathite, they are Thatcherite. They support small states with as little democracy as possible, and big international markets in which to promote their wealth.

The same applies to the Labour Party in that Nationalists like Benn,Shore and now Hoey could never turn the Party away from being ideoligically anti nation state Socialist.Which is why it’s now led by Corbyn and not Hoey just as Callaghan hijacked the Party from Benn and Shore etc.On that note yes Corbyn can only be against Brexit ( or even a Confederal Europe ) because like you he is an anti nation state Socialist who is ideologically programmed towards being part of an EUSSR not an independent sovereign Britain.

As for Farage it’s clear that he is onside with the idea of Nationalism it’s just the economic arguments left if/when we ever get it.The relevant bit being that we can’t have those economic policy arguments until/unless we get the country’s sovereignty back first.On that note no we’re obviously not looking for a one sided trading relationship with the EU.The issue is that it’s the EU which is doing all the one sided trading with our deficit proving it.Let alone expecting us to pay for the privilege of that and being ruled by zb’s like Merkel and Juncker.But being a pro EUSSR Socialist you already knew all that just as you know that the idea of Corbyn supporting Brexit can only be an ideological lie.

Given that Corbyn is considered by all in Labour to be a politician in the tradition of Benn and Foot (he was in fact one of the few new Labour MPs elected on the 1983 manifesto, following the defection of Michael O’Halloran to the SDP), I don’t know why you’re so against him.

The fact is Thatcher,and Heath knowingly stood for the same EU Federal government.Not different seperate Thatcherite and Heathite EU’s but the same EU.The same EU that you’re all for.

As for Corbyn.There is no way that the ideology of Socialism can deliver what can only be the Nationalist idea of Brexit which is why Benn was easily defeated by Callaghan for the Labour leadership and also why all the other Nationalists within Labour like Shore and Heffer weren’t allowed to get into positions of power in the Party.It also explains why Corbyn didn’t appoint Hoey as shadow Brexit minister instead of remainer Starmer.

IE like the Conservatives judge Corbyn ( and his supporters ) by their ideology not by their opportunist jumping on and off the Brexit bandwagon as and when it suits them.With Brexit by definition being ideologically Nationalist not possibly Socialist or Conservative Unionist and that’s why we are where we are with Brexit having been sabotaged by the cross party remain agenda just as Cameron intended when remainer May was put in the top job.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

The fact is Thatcher,and Heath knowingly stood for the same EU Federal government.Not different seperate Thatcherite and Heathite EU’s but the same EU.The same EU that you’re all for.

Indeed, but there is a big difference between internationalists on the left, and globalists on the right. They support a global marketplace governed by one pound one vote, and support political nationalism so that the working classes can be played off against one another, and national democracies (whenever they threaten to regulate the market or theaten the wealth and profiteering of the rich) can be competed against one another, or so that other autonomous political jurisdictions exist into which the rich can move their capital if there are any national political ructions (assuming the working class does not rise up everywhere at once, of course!).

For internationalists on the left, the point of international politics is to reimpose democracy upon the global economic system (and such economic globalism has existed since the 18th century), both to regulate it better and to resist those nationalist tactics that the rich use to attack workers.

That is the contradiction with the EU as it is, that for example there is free movement of workers, but Brits have no say on minimum standards of wages in Eastern Europe, and that contradiction between a Europeanised economy but still-nationalised democracy is how the rich shaft British workers, and they have successfully captured the EU institutions since the 1970s in order to ensure that it has a pro-market, anti-democratic configuration.

The effect has been to drive down wages, drive down tax rates, drive down conditions for workers, all across Western Europe - in the same way that the unholy unity between the American and Chinese economies has driven the American worker into the ground.

I’ve said before that I don’t disagree with promoting development in Poland and elsewhere, but if it is done then it must be done through taxation of the wealthy in Western Europe and support at the state level as the price of supporting our strategic political interests, not on the backs of attacks on workers.

In the American case, the relationship with China is naked class war on the American worker (it doesn’t have any strategic political interest for America), because there they are promoting and enabling the growth of an illiberal and undemocratic regime and furthering the interests of an ideological opponent.

As for Corbyn.There is no way that the ideology of Socialism can deliver what can only be the Nationalist idea of Brexit which is why Benn was easily defeated by Callaghan for the Labour leadership and also why all the other Nationalists within Labour like Shore and Heffer weren’t allowed to get into positions of power in the Party.It also explains why Corbyn didn’t appoint Hoey as shadow Brexit minister instead of remainer Starmer.

There is one thing we can be sure of, your nationalist ideas will deliver nothing that Hitler couldn’t have given us. As I say, Benn was a muddled thinker, but Benn is solid on the principle that there must be democracy and democratic supervision of the economy.

IE like the Conservatives judge Corbyn ( and his supporters ) by their ideology not by their opportunist jumping on and off the Brexit bandwagon as and when it suits them.With Brexit by definition being ideologically Nationalist not possibly Socialist or Conservative Unionist and that’s why we are where we are with Brexit having been sabotaged by the cross party remain agenda just as Cameron intended when remainer May was put in the top job.

I don’t think you have been sabotaged. Remain is becoming discredited by it’s association with the Blairites, right-wing Brexit is collapsing from it’s own contradictions, which is why I’m swinging behind Corbyn’s Brexit based on protection of the rights of Europeans who are settled here for the long haul, but an end to free movement and an end to migrants being bussed in by the bosses to erode the bargaining power of the working class already here.

And of course, I’m also in favour of Corbyn’s Brexit because it gives the British government more power to intervene in the marketplace, to support efficient and nationalised public services and drive out the suckers of profit, and to invest directly in production and economic productivity like they did in the post-war period when our economy and living standards boomed as a result.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
I don’t think you have been sabotaged. Remain is becoming discredited by it’s association with the Blairites, right-wing Brexit is collapsing from it’s own contradictions, which is why I’m swinging behind Corbyn’s Brexit based on protection of the rights of Europeans who are settled here for the long haul, but an end to free movement and an end to migrants being bussed in by the bosses to erode the bargaining power of the working class already here.

And of course, I’m also in favour of Corbyn’s Brexit because it gives the British government more power to intervene in the marketplace, to support efficient and nationalised public services and drive out the suckers of profit, and to invest directly in production and economic productivity like they did in the post-war period when our economy and living standards boomed as a result.

Firstly it’s clear that Starmer is going for the continuation of free movement of Labour not the ending of it.While Corbyn has obviously made no attempt to change that position.Nor does it answer the ideological question of the contradiction between anti Nation State Socialism but you then going for what is clearly a Nationalist protectionist economic policy that’s clearly all about using our National Sovereignty and borders to do it.In which case you won’t find anyone better to deliver that than Hoey and you definitely wouldn’t be going with Starmer to deliver that.IE It’s you who’s got all the contradictions within your ideology here no one else.In that we know what May stands for and we know what Callaghan stood for and what Blair stood for.

It’s now time for Labour to have that light bulb moment when it realises that Nationalist doesn’t mean ■■■■ nor Neo Con.With you yourself having clearly now gone for a Nationalist,not an anti Nation State,solution by definition ‘British’ meaning within these borders and not the EU which you’ve finally seen is a dead duck.IE Nationalism means protectionism which is good ( Benn,Heffer,Shore,Hoey ).Wile anti nation state Socialism ( Callaghan,Jenkins and whatever it is that Blair and what Starmer are obviously all about ) = bad.No contradictions there whatsoever.In that Corbyn has to abandon Socialism in favour of Nationalism to make even what you’ve described in the form of Nationalist lite,work.

My bet being that he can’t do that because his Socialist principles,like yours,are too strong to let them go.Which explains why Starmer is still in the job of Shadow Brexit minister,not Hoey,for just one example of the contradiction in your case and it’s also why we ended up with Callaghan as leader of the Labour Party not Benn,let alone Shore.Also bearing in mind that there’s no way that the EU will allow us to cherry pick between the single EU market and maintaining sovereignty.

While what’s so important about the single market anyway when it actually goes against all of the ideas,on stopping the free movement of Labour and the controls over domestic strategic industries and who invests in them and who benefits from them,which you’re now saying that you want.Having said previously that you don’t want a situation in which we put our own national interests first.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

Firstly it’s clear that Starmer is going for the continuation of free movement of Labour not the ending of it.While Corbyn has obviously made no attempt to change that position.Nor does it answer the ideological question of the contradiction between anti Nation State Socialism but you then going for what is clearly a Nationalist protectionist economic policy that’s clearly all about using our National Sovereignty and borders to do it.In which case you won’t find anyone better to deliver that than Hoey and you definitely wouldn’t be going with Starmer to deliver that.IE It’s you who’s got all the contradictions within your ideology here no one else.In that we know what May stands for and we know what Callaghan stood for and what Blair stood for.

It’s like I’ve said before, there is no inherent contradiction between protectionism and socialist principles, any more so than there is contradiction between the closed shop and socialist principles, provided they are used to promote inter-group fairness, and not to promote undue in-group favour or as a platform for workers to battle each other.

Bear in mind I don’t argue from an anti-EU perspective, I argue from an anti-market perspective. The Remain camp is infested with Blairites who want simply to maintain the pro-market status quo and don’t give a hoot about democratic reform of the EU, and now that there is a clear left-wing Brexit alternative under Corbyn and the country is swinging behind him, I’ve come around to supporting it decisively.

It’s now time for Labour to have that light bulb moment when it realises that Nationalist doesn’t mean ■■■■ nor Neo Con.With you yourself having clearly now gone for a Nationalist,not an anti Nation State,solution by definition ‘British’ meaning within these borders and not the EU which you’ve finally seen is a dead duck.IE Nationalism means protectionism which is good ( Benn,Heffer,Shore,Hoey ).Wile anti nation state Socialism ( Callaghan,Jenkins and whatever it is that Blair and what Starmer are obviously all about ) = bad.No contradictions there whatsoever.In that Corbyn has to abandon Socialism in favour of Nationalism to make even what you’ve described in the form of Nationalist lite,work.

I’ve shown before that your version of nationalism is utter nonsense and not at all in the democratic or solidaristic tradition of any of the strands of Labour. I’m not at all against the EU - I’d happily be a citizen of a European nation. The point is that EU must be democratic, it must submit the economy to adequate democratic controls and demands, and it must subordinate or purge market forces as necessary to further the public interest, and since it does not and is unlikely to reform in the short term, I can support withdrawing for the time being - not least because our leaving for such reasons may encourage embolden the working class in other nations to make the same demands with the ultimate menace of more exits, and thereby break the camel’s back and provoke reform in the long term and produce an organsation to which we can later re-subscribe (or else fracture and smash an unreformable organisation before it gains further power).

It’s like I say, what has persuaded me of this is that the Remain camp is infested with Blairites, many of whom are more hostile to Corbyn than they are to Brexit, and on the other side of the coin it is apparent that most of the working class Brexiteers share Corbyn’s view on the matter - not racist, not nationalist, not silly issues of passport colours or free-trade fantasy land, but purely about the class issues in this country of work, wages, and the right of workers to have a say on economic policy through the ballot box - and for that reason I’d rather be on the side of the working class than on the side of the Blairites.

My bet being that he can’t do that because his Socialist principles,like yours,are too strong to let them go.Which explains why Starmer is still in the job of Shadow Brexit minister,not Hoey,for just one example of the contradiction in your case and it’s also why we ended up with Callaghan as leader of the Labour Party not Benn,let alone Shore.Also bearing in mind that there’s no way that the EU will allow us to cherry pick between the single EU market and maintaining sovereignty.

I agree, the single market cannot be reconciled with democratic control by workers at the ballot box, and so long as there is wide support for leaving the single market, then we should do so.

While what’s so important about the single market anyway when it actually goes against all of the ideas,on stopping the free movement of Labour and the controls over domestic strategic industries and who invests in them and who benefits from them,which you’re now saying that you want.Having said previously that you don’t want a situation in which we put our own national interests first.

No, I couldn’t give a hoot about national interests. My position is that in Britain we put workers’ interests first, and a left-wing Brexit will do so.