287

The Brexit Vote and Psephology of the Outer-Party

Frank Lee

Identity politics. Three Women MPs are attempting to form an emergency cabinet of women in order to reverse the Brexit vote. Please note that according to the above only women can save Britain from a fate worse than death. But how and why do the above think that they can reverse the democratically elected outcome of Brexit? Caroline Lucas, Green MP – left – has openly stated that she does not accept the outcome of the Brexit vote.

Middle-class hubris on display.

The outer-party, a category used by Orwell in 1984, would in modern terminology be called the middle-class (in British not American terms).

This is not a compact group, but a highly stratified and differentiated social formation wedged between the ruling, inner-party and the proles, and recognisable by its wearing, in Orwell’s novel, of the blue boiler suit.

The inner-party, black boiler suit, is in our own times the haute bourgeoisie; an assemblage as diffuse and variegated in many ways as the outer-party, and being composed of an informal coalition of ruling class strata including political coteries at the higher levels of state and leadership of political parties, the media, the judiciary, cultural elites (the trendsetters) and economic elites: industry, banking, finance and land ownership.

And then, of course, there are the proles.

At a rough guess, I would say that the proles represent around 60% of the population, the middle-class (petit-bourgeois) around 30% and a ruling class of a further 10%. But this latter figure can be almost infinitely sub-divided into a 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1% ad infinitum.

The stability of the overall social structure needs as an absolute prerequisite the support of the 30% of the middle-classes. Generally speaking, this has usually been achieved through the endowment of material benefits such as income, housing, education for themselves and their children and some middle-range luxury goods including expensive holidays and travel.

But perhaps, more importantly, status is involved: the middle-class must be politically and ideologically cultivated into a sense of their superiority – inured and inducted into a worldview which corresponds to the values and priorities of the ruling class proper. But there is a slight snag here: namely, that some of the middle-class may get radical ideas into their heads and start to stir up the proles with views which are antithetical to the given social order and an affront to the ruling class. But in general, these are very minor disturbances not difficult to contain and did not constitute a problem for the elites.

However, it could and does become problematic when the system experiences strains and crises. In these situations, the middle-class is whipped into obedience and reminded in no uncertain manner that its privileges are not necessarily irrevocable and should not be taken for granted.

At the present time a new and ruthless dispensation has seemingly emerged where what was taken for granted is now being contested. The PTB have rewritten the rules and the middle-strata are required not only to obey, but also to enthusiastically endorse and practise the new credo. (See Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman: The Manufacture of Consent).

This phenomenon of enthusiastically endorsing the new credo, is vividly instanced in 1984 during the ‘two minutes hate’. During these hate sessions the elite members, who are much fewer than the outer-party mob, sit in the front of the hall totally impassive throughout with deadpan expressions on their faces, but the outer-party mob seated behind are reduced to screaming banshees as the images of the renegade leader, Emmanuel Goldstein, are flashed up on the enlarged telescreen.

Comparisons between the outer party and the Brexit Remainers come readily to mind.

The class hatred is palpable. The Guardian, New York Times readers have become militant defenders of the faith. There are apparently now correct opinions, and incorrect opinions, and woe betide anyone who transgresses the border between the two. Dangerous thoughts and utterances must be stopped.

That there is an area of ‘dangerous thoughts’ in every society is scarcely debatable. Whilst we recognise what is dangerous to think about from one country to another and from one epoch to another, on the whole the subject marked with “Danger – do not touch” are those which the society, or the controlling elements in it, believe to be so vital and hence so sacred that they will not allow toleration of their profanation by discussion.

But what is not so easily recognised is the fact that thought, even in the absence of official censorship, is disturbing, and under certain circumstances dangerous and subversive.

For thought is the catalytic agent that is capable of unsettling routines, disorganizing habits, breaking up customs, and generating scepticism. This also must be stopped!

Knowing which way the wind is blowing the middle classes are falling into line.

The liberal press – the Guardian, New York Times, Die Welt, Le Figaro, Le Monde – are now the most partisan and uncritical spokespersons of the liberal-globalist establishment. Reading any of these publications this much is self-evident.

But what is interesting is the social and political structure of the middle class. Traditionally, The Guardian and more generally the liberal press were at one time the news-sheets of record for the left.

Basically, social-democratic these publications gave their unstinting support to the social-democratic parties including the Labour party and various good causes around the world which were vaguely anti-imperialist.

Today, however, the ‘left’ MSM is a staunch defender of the liberal-globalist order having basically gone over to the other side. I would argue that this was a top-down Damascene conversion rather than a bottom-up mutiny.

This was amply illustrated by the Brexit vote. In England London and the Southeast and one or two other cities Oxford/Cambridge voted to Remain whilst of the rest of the country voted Leave. The middle-class, private sector and public sector, teachers, solicitors, small potatoes businesspersons, PR executives, and so forth, went ballistic. Disaster! How could this have happened!

This is perhaps because the middle-class always has a choice, and it chose its advantages, albeit in a mediated fashion. The middle class is now inherently conservative, and the Brexit vote provided ample evidence of this. The gloves were off, and a threatened middle class promptly went into class war overdrive. What is new, however, is the sight of the liberal-left middle-class joining with the traditional conservative-right middle-class in defence of their interests, imagined or real.

This ability to adapt themselves and attach themselves to classes to which they originally did not belong – in this instance the haute bourgeoisie – was possible for bourgeois intellectuals because they could adapt themselves to any viewpoint and because they and they alone were in a position to choose their class affiliation whilst those who were immediately bound by class affiliation were only in rare exceptionable to transcend the limitations of their class outlook.

Returning to Orwell and the outer-party, we can pinpoint two or possibly three types of the Remainer typology.

  1. Parsons: The absolute dolt who will believe quite unselfconsciously any claptrap which the party will impart to him through the propaganda machine.
  2. Syme: The party intellectual is also able to imbibe the most abject ideological and political theories but with some difficulty including the use of doublethink and doubletalk.
  3. Winston Smith: Who doesn’t believe a word of it but simply lacks the courage of his convictions.

This seems to be an unstable social/political coalition brought about by the independent variable of economic and political upheaval at a more fundamental level. Where it will end is a matter of guesswork, but we can be sure of a really quite vicious backlash from these people as their sense of worth and entitlement begins to erode. This is just the beginning of a very nasty period bordering on open warfare. Time to choose sides, I think.

Political discussion possesses a character fundamentally different from academic discussion. It seeks not only to be in the right but also to demolish the basis of its opponents social and intellectual existence. Political discussion, therefore, penetrates more profoundly into the existential foundation of thinking than the kind of discussion which thinks only in terms of a few selected ‘’points of view’’ and considers only the ‘’theoretical relevance’’ of an argument. Political conflict, since it is from the very beginning a rationalised form of the struggle for social predominance, attacks the social status of the opponent, his public prestige and his self-confidence.”
Karl Mannheim – Ideology and Utopia – p.34)

Frank Lee left school at age 15 without any qualifications, but gained degrees from both New College Oxford and the London School of Economics (it's a long story). He spent many years as a lecturer in politics and economics, and in the Civil Service, before retirement. He lives in Sutton with his wife and little dog.

Filed under: Brexit, featured, latest

by

Frank Lee left school at age 15 without any qualifications, but gained degrees from both New College Oxford and the London School of Economics (it's a long story). He spent many years as a lecturer in politics and economics, and in the Civil Service, before retirement. He lives in Sutton with his wife and little dog.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

An unelected PM seeking to shut down parliament – perhaps a ‘no-deal’ Brexit is a lot closer than we thought in Britains exciting new democracy?

Anyway, I’m sure Boris and Trump are not the sort to let their own grubby ambitions subvert future trades deal in order to benefit a tiny cohort of swivel-eyed libertarians rather than communities ravaged by a decade of austerity.

On the other hand perhaps we should have taken a bit more notice of Russel Brand’s warning?

Tony
Tony

Farage puts his opinions to voters in elections. Russell Brand is a professional comedian who doesn’t put his opinions to the electorate.

andyoldlabour
andyoldlabour

Brand is also a very wealthy person, who has no idea what ordinary working people have to go through. When was the last time he was “made redundant” (got rid of) to make way for a cheaper model. Both my wife and I have gone through this gut wrenching process, where you are out of work, possibly looking at losing your house, facing the humiliating procedure which is the jobcentre.
The champagne socialists, the Islington crowd are totally detached from reality.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Following the opposition meeting under Corbyn this morning here is how the narrative massaging is going right now.

On LBC the Mair show leads with Farages speech! ( he is also on their daily 6 o clock slot following – tell me that is not stuffing the Fartage down peoples throats?).

This after opening with the false headline that opposition parties had met and agreed to REJECT brexit. When what they actually agreed and signed upto is reject a HARD brexit.

Finally they turn to Corbyn … err no words just a quick report.
And now the first vox pop caller – its a Brexit party canvasser from the NE having a kick at Labour! Surprise. Mair giving her plenty of time… shameless!

This is the spin being deployed across the msm and on various boards btl.

I think that todays ratchetting of Corbyns letter from couple weeks ago is yet another killer move and has got the Cummings hard brexiteer boys and girls on the run.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Ha yes they’ve gone running to the Queen!

Tony
Tony

As opposed to going running to the Speaker (as Greave did), and the Speaker changed standard parliamentary procedure in order to allow remain sabotage, using the bullshit excuse that parliament had to evolve. As though that wasn’t a GENUINE constitutional outrage.

Adam Dubock
Adam Dubock

While I think I understand the points made, I still don’t see how a no-deal Brexit with a Tory government will do anything other than make the lives of people living in working class areas suffering decline from decades of Neo-Liberalism even worse. The power structures stay the same, this isn’t a victory for the poor, it’s just different shit. Happy to be enlightened though.

lundiel
lundiel

Very true Adam. However, at least we hope that we can change our government and economic policy, something we had no choice about inside the EU. No matter how many people say “we can change it from within”. The likelihood of 28 nations agreeing to do so at the same time is negligible.

Mr A Dubock
Mr A Dubock

Ok, but this is only going to be better if we get a Socialist government, which is a big if. It might never happen.

William
William

Not only is it highly unlikely that we’ll ever elect a truly socialist government given the weight of propaganda against that occurring, it’s also highly unlikely that they’d be allowed to practice socialism even if they were elected (pompeo’s pronouncement?) the USA and the neoliberals have a vested interest in ensuring socialism doesn’t take root or be successful anywhere in the world.
We should learn to live and work within the confines of the capitalist system, globalisation is very real and isn’t going to go away, competition from all corners of the world is growing through technology and development of erstwhile “backward” economies. The neoliberals will not give up control without a fight and it’s a certainty that any whiff of true socialism will be quickly sniffed out, just like it has been in Venezuela etc. The eu is of course also a neoliberal construct, but with 28 or more countries all ‘watching’ each other the likelihood of groups like the tories being able to have it all their own way is minimal…that’s why they want out. With all it’s faults…and there are many, the eu was the only hope we had of maintaining a controlling influence over the etonians …alone and under the cosh from the USA?….we haven’t got a hope in hell.

harry stotle
harry stotle

It is said US corporations own 50% of the world – Britain was more or less acquired after WWII and US control has grown ever since.

Maggie & Ronnie, Tony& Dubya and now the grotesque pairing of de Pfeffel and Trump.

The EU may be an undemocratic institution but since Britain developed into ‘Airstrip 1’ democracy has only existed in a theoretical form due to internal and external factors that suppress the interests of median income families.
Those in the bottom third of the income distribution scale are not even treated with basic human civilities nowadays (despised by the faux left, centrists and right wing).

More people need to wake up to the fact that democracy has been supplanted by corporatocracy – and this form of control is highly resistant to the transient influence of politicians, not least because few politicians attain high office without first being owned by corporate entities first.

William
William

Correct. ..and the corporates will only respond to pressure if enough people are represented by their government. 500million can be more persuasive than 60 million even if only by virtue of their purchasing power. Democratic deficit is obviously a factor in either scenario but at least with a veto and a left of centre government we could exert at least some pressure. ..as poodles of the USA and a right wing out of control tory government we’re screwed.

mathias alexand
mathias alexand

Venezuela is still standing.

Ken Kenn
Ken Kenn

Adam

I am utterly lost as to how Lexiters can think that a No Deal can lead to Sunny Uplands etc etc. with Johnson and his mad Cabinet in charge?

Why George and his mates thought they would be consulted over Brexit plans is beyond me.

This is a Tory internal machination and the left should have had nothing to do with it.

But – we are where we are as Blair used to say.

So’ where do we go from here as they say?

It appears that Corbyn has deferred to the idea that he is not going to be the interim leader – therefore another leader is required to head up the Anti No deal charge.

OK.

But it still leaves the matter of removing the government/PM who are hell bent on implementing No Deal.

Do ‘ they ‘ ( meaning the anti no dealers ) want to do it or not?

Yes – but with caveats.

In my opinoon the caveat is very simple:

One:Mandate whomever is the PM – temporary or otherwise to ask for an extension to the EU.

Two: Arse cover: In order to legitimise the reason for an extension there has to be a reason for the extension – that is a Referendum on a possible futuredeal that parliament might come up with.

Thirdly: a GE that may not happen until 2022 ( unless Johnson calls it).

I can guarantee the first two – but not the latter.

These manouverings are about avoiding a GE ( and the possibility of a Corbyn led Labour government ) make no mistake about it.

Watch not this space but that space.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Having read through to the bottom of the comments there is a certain jarring note that needs addressing in my view.

That of why we gate crashed into the EC knowing it was planning to become the EU?

I’ll just state the facts (i did on another article but it belongs here). If it seems too long to read hete is my conclusion.

It is wrong to believe that we were tricked by pesky europeans or others to entrap us in the EU. We went in with our eyes wide open.

——
So, lets start with a legal JUDGEMENT from back in the day:

“It does appear that if this country should go into the Common Market and sign the Treaty of Rome, it means that we will have taken a step which is irreversible. The sovereignty of these islands will thenceforward be limited. It will not be ours alone but will be shared with others.”
(10 May 1971, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, gave judgement in the case of Blackburn v Attorney General)

——–
Now let us look at what brought us to that case.

In the late 1950s was when we were considering an association agreement with the Six …The United Kingdom wanted to create a European Free Trade Area with the EEC where tariffs would be eliminated but none of the further encumbrances would be required.

January 1963 President De Gaulle made it clear that, contrary to views of the other members of the EEC, negotiations with the United Kingdom for entry into the EEC should stop. It did.

The UK’s second application to join the EEC started on 2 May 1967.

It was obvious …that the Treaty of Rome was only the beginning;the EEC was not going to be confined to trade and economic issues but would lead to political integration.

President De Gaulle’s second veto …November 1967.

When subsequently President Pompidou indicated that France would no longer block the UK’s application negotiations began afresh.

——-

Now let us address what the position was of the Tory party using the words of a pro-brexit site.

http://doortofreedom.uk/a-big-lie

‘the claim made by the Heath government in their White Paper of July 1971, that British entry into the Community would not involve any loss of essential national sovereignty, was a big lie.’

On the 11th June 1970, following a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the EEC two days before, the President of the Council Pierre Harmel issued an invitation to the United Kingdom to begin negotiations on the 30th June for our entry into the EEC. Despite a General Election on the 18th June, and the replacement of Wilson’s Labour Government was replaced by Heath’s Conservative Government, the negotiations began as scheduled on the 30th.

At the same meeting on the 8/9th June, the Council of Ministers approved the conclusions of Pierre Werner’s ‘Interim Report on the Establishment by Stages of Economic and Monetary Union’.2 The commissioning of the report had followed a decision taken at the Summit Conference at The Hague on 1/2nd December 1969 that ‘a plan in stages should be worked out during 1970 with a view to the creation of an economic and monetary union

The resolution was adopted officially by the Council and the Representatives of the Member States on 22 March 1971.

…there was now definite agreement on a transfer of economic policy-making, and parliamentary oversight of that policy-making, from the national to the Community level. The consequences for national economic sovereignty that had been foreseen by British civil servants in the event of the adoption of the Werner Plan, would now have to be faced.

Just as we were entering into negotiations on our entry to the EEC, therefore, the Community was beginning to plan, at the highest level, for an economic and monetary union that could involve not only the abolition of national currencies, but the transfer of economic policy-making from the previously independent nation states to the Community. The potential implications were by no means lost on the civil servants involved. On 20th June, on his second day as Prime Minister, Heath received two submissions, classified Secret, from Sir William Neild, Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, on the subject of the forthcoming negotiations. In the first, Neild draws attention to two developments in the European scene which ‘significantly affect the background against which the negotiations will be taking place. The first concerned a possible diminution of the role of the United States in Europe. The second concerned a new interest and enthusiasm for European integration after the resignation of De Gaulle in April 1969.

….referred not only to ‘the Community’s development towards full monetary and economic harmonisation’, but also to ‘their intention to require us to accept this as an objective’. Britain would have to agree to this before we would be allowed in. Accordingly, on 30th June, in his statement to the Council of Ministers at the opening of negotiations, Anthony Barber, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and UK Government spokesman, affirmed that ‘We welcome the moves which you have already made towards closer economic and monetary integration and are ready to play our full part.’6 That this had implications for British sovereignty was also of course not lost on the officials. A note from Nield to the Prime Minister, classified Secret, and dated 2nd July 1970, two days after the start of negotiations, advised that:

We ought at least to give some forethought to, for example, the implications of monetary and economic harmonisation for political institutions and sovereignty in the UK and in Europe…

Neild made it clear that the Werner Plan, if adopted, would entail ‘the renunciation of national sovereignties in the economic field’. He was also sure that if the Six were to agree to it, then the UK would be required to agree to participate with the programme before we could enter the Community. Obviously, the Six would want to ensure that we would not wield the veto to prevent their plan proceeding.

Etc etc etc.

lundiel
lundiel

Interesting theory. We knew exactly what we were voting for the first time around but we didn’t have a clue the second time.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

FACT not THEORY.

It seems that we were voting to leave because exactly what was being planned for the EU in 1970 when we joined and promised to help deliver – happened – and when out veto couldn’t be used anymore , we set about leaving with maximum damage.

Hypocrisy and treachery by the Tories, upon the EU and the citizens of the UK.

PROVEN.

They can not be allowed to succeed.

William
William

I suspect most people didn’t have a clue the first time either, just back then they weren’t able to ‘google’ what’s the eu…the day after the vote

Mucho
Mucho

Boris Johnson is not British. He was born in New York City. He is an American, plain and simple, and had to change his passport to British only, in order to be able to do this job. Does anyone here trust a US born, lying piece of slime like Bojo, to sign off a “beautiful” post Brexit trade deal with the US? I fucking don’t. His loyalties are not 100% with the UK. We are being told the deal is all but done. Hello, is there anybody there? Is anybody paying attention, this is quite important. Lol.
Brits will soon long for the good old days of the EU. I imagine a certain other country, with massive inroads into the Britsh political system will also be salivating at the opportunities Brexit will provide. Nation of fools. Take back control? Hahaha, yeah right, dream on suckers. Brexit, setup by Cameron, closed off by Bojo. You’ve been had, people.
Here are some very important details about Boris Johnson. TRUE MUST WATCH!
Boris Badenov Johnson – A message from deepstate insider Steve Pieczenik about Bojo’s REAL identity

Mucho
Mucho

Just throwing this out there, so people can understand the kind of democracy the West truly has. The ratio he quotes is interesting., Hmmm, what does that 51-49 ratio remind me of? I can’t quite remember, but I’m sure we had a big vote in this country with the exact result he quotes.
American Election Hacker Testifies

Mucho
Mucho

Why have you deleted my links and replaced them with clips I have never posted?

Mucho
Mucho

Please can you correct those links, I did not post those videos

Admin
Admin
Admin

Your comment is exactly as you submitted it. If the links are not what you intended the mistake is yours. If you add the proper links below we can replace them for you.

milosevic
milosevic

There is a persistent problem on this website wherein specifically Youtube embeds are replaced with a different video which was previously linked. I have observed this several times; there is a bug somewhere in your website code.

flaxgirl

My experience is that whatever I do in YouTube will affect the link I see embedded in the comment. I see the video entitled American Election Hacker Testifies as named by Mucho on his post. You need to remember that it is the YouTube app that is embedded along with the link and whatever you do in YouTube yourself will affect what is played when you click. Perhaps by closing and re-opening your browser and then click you will see that the correct link is displayed but I think the correct link is displayed.

Admin
Admin
Admin

what flaxgirl says is broadly correct. The right video is embedded but individual readers may see a different vid, depending on what is stored in their browser cookies. If you clear cache and cookies that should fix the problem for you.

It’s a client side issue not a server side issue.

flaxgirl
DunGroanin
DunGroanin

And here is the other shoe dropping

“So many things have been said about Brexit since the British public decided in a 2016 referendum to leave the world’s biggest trading block. But will this unprecedented move be good for the Israelis? The short answer is ‘yes’.” …

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5102325,00.html?&tb_cb=1

Please read before any kneejerk response.

Mucho
Mucho

Zionist interests are ruling at the moment. The US government is all but captured. Ultra Zionist Brit PM David Cameron announced Brexit, ultra Zionist Brit PM Bojo is about to close the deal. Bojo was born in the USA. The silence surrounding these vital issues is deafening, and very telling.

Peugeot
Peugeot

Any attempt to impose a no-deal Brexit challenges the very legitimacy of government. Britain does not, of course, have a written constitution; but, as John Locke, the English philosopher and ‘father of liberalism’ pointed out: if a government acts in ways that are contrary to the public good, by misplacing the trust placed in it, it renders itself illegitimate and ‘dissolves’ itself.

That is, it ceases to exercise legitimate political power and the people have, not only the right, but the duty, to overthrow it.

kevin morris
kevin morris

Disagree since nobody is attempting to impose a no deal Brexit. However, the ‘deal’ negotiated under the watch of Theresa May was actually a surrender of UK interests to Europe. It is worth remembering what Tony Benn said in the run up to the 1975 referendum.

‘If I don’t like a government in Britain, I can help vote it out. I cannot do that with the (then) Common Market. There is a real risk that once in, we will not be allowed to leave again.’

His clearsightedness has been demonstrated to be correct and Europe really does wish to make our leaving Europe as unpleasant as possible. Since Europe negotiates without good faith because they fear our departure, and with the last ‘deal’ in mind, the only possible negotiating stance is to show a willingness to leave on October 32st, whatever Europe’s response.

Europe is undemocratic and an economic basket case with several countries on the brink of collapse and with Europe on the verge of creating a European Army to guarantee social stability whatever the economic cost, leaving should be our number one foreign policy aim. Even a no deal Brexit will very quickly see the country bouncing back. After all, every doomladen economic prediction of the remainers has been shown to be empty. Although I cannot say the same for Europe, the UK will quickly recover from any short term disadvantages

Arby

The Duran (on Bitchute) has some good videos discussing this. Trump, it seems, is happy to encourage Boris to do a hard Brexit, which Boris will do because his personal political fortunes depend on his not angering his base going forward. His Party also needs this Brexit to happen, although I have zero faith in any of the UK Parties. Trump wants to do a free trade deal with the UK – really, because he doesn’t know better. The US economy, contrary to what Alex Jones says, is not in good shape. It will never be. The US ruling class takes its marching orders from corporations who destroy all but themselves and their highly paid top officers, as Dean Baker makes clear. He discusses the US economy with someone (I forget who) who brought up this recent jokey announcement by a group of US CEOs that they would no longer skew their businesses toward enriching shareholders. As Baker noted, they really haven’t been that kind to shareholders even, if you examine (in a sensible manner) the historic figures for remunerating shareholders. Also, not only do CEOs make hundreds of times more than the average employee in their companies, but the entire top level of company management makes obscene amounts of money, even if the lowest one in that group is far lower than the CEO. Those faker CEOs could start there, but they won’t.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Bull shit.

Bobo just said that he won’t allow parliament to stop no deal!

Are you purposely ignoring my post that PROVES we went into Europe knowing EXACTLY what it wanted to develop into?

We barged in to disrupt that. We are storming out to disrupt it.

De Gaul has been proved right in knowing perfidious Albion would never change its spots and shouldn’t have ever been allowed in.

All these idiots who are thinking that the EU will ‘fold’ or would be diatraught at a poxy 40 billion divorce bill being witheld or they are desperate to keep us in are DELUDED.

It seems that a few trolls have been deployed on this backwater to control the narrative! I suppose that means Off-G’s profileus going up.

andyoldlabour
andyoldlabour

DunGroanin, you seem to be getting worse than the posters on the Guardian, calling anyone you disagree with a “troll”.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

KevinM stated that ‘nobody is trying to impose a no deal brexit’.

I disputed that and the PM and his cabinet are saying that is what they will insist on at the end of the extended A50.

The rest of the controlled opposition chicken littles who pretend they don’t want a hard brexit are now going to enable that by ignoring a VONC – a general election – which is the ONLY way to stop that hard brexit when A50 expires.

The trolls are out – how many new posters have you counted here? That is because Dom and his gang of bad boys and girls know it is their last chance to deliver the hard brexit they always planned.

Just because I call that spad a spad, you call me paranoid and ignore every fact that i am posting. That’s how the specialist 77 tupes also worked on the Groan and msm and increasingly on these alternative sites which are gaining traction.

andyoldlabour
andyoldlabour

WTH is a “specialist 77 tupe”.
If the EU try to refuse every reasonable Brexit idea – points based immigration, no hard border in Ireland, relatively easy transit to and from Europe, then it will be the EU which is backing the UK into a “No deal Brexit corner”.
I have no wish to see a no deal Brexit, but I am realistic enough to know, that the EU will sorely miss our financial contribution to the club.
Germany, France and the UK are the three top contributors to the EU budget.
In 2017 the UK were the second highest net contributor after Germany.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48256318

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

More BS.
Tell us what the annual EU budget is and tell us what the net UK contribution is?

The EU has negotiated the WA – that is the divorce bill – it is legally enforceable. And the political declaration on the FUTURE negotiations and accepted the legal guarantee offered by May on the gfa… ALL based on Mays unilateral red lines!

A disorderly brexit happens at the expiry of A50 if there is no ratified WA.

It is us who are not ratifying that agreement because it was set up to fail and thus deliver the Hard Brexit which was always the plan A of the brexiteers.

You appear to be shilling for them.

Tupe should be type.

And if you don’t know what the 77th is look it up.

Tony
Tony

Yes, the EU has never shown the slightest bit of interest in getting 39 billion (originally a lot more) out of us *groan*. Now, where’s that cup of coffee?

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Coffee before bedtime? Can’t help in getting a restorative sleep.
No wonder you are confused.

In any divorce, pleasant or unpleasant, there is a difference between a divorce bill and future relations.

That divorce bill is agreed or if the couple can’t , a judge decides how much. Either way it is legally binding. Running away or hiding does not stop that liability. Which if not paid leads to further penalties, asset forfeiture, arrest and even prison.

Our divorce from the EU has legal consequence. The monies WILL be paid through the courts.

Tony
Tony

Lawyers for our government have quantified 9 billion legally owed. The rest of the 39 billion was just a sweetener, to encourage future co-operation. I can’t find specifics of said lawyers’ calculations, but I know they won’t include our investment in the ECB, of which it’s policy to leave intact. But I strongly suspect the figure doesn’t take account of our share of the real estate, which, if cashed in, would mean that the EU legally owed us money.

Arby

Well, Just following discussion by folks who know more than me (the Duran again), it seems that Merkel has handed over power over Europe to Macron who is in the process of destroying the European Union. Now, I don’t know enough about it all to agree or disagree. Going forward, I’ll no doubt learn a lot more about it, since I scour the alternative media (focussing on progressive sites, but, it seems, finding Conservative ones useful as well) for articles to present to (the very few) readers of my blog.

Europe, by the way, has it’s army, as far as I know. BSNEWS looks into all of that.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

‘Merkel has handed over power over Europe to Macron ‘

Where do you get this bs from?

Mutti slapped down the would be new Jupiter king of Europe, the bankers appointee on the French, when she survived the organised alt-right kippery putsch against her at the last election. She sidelined him on Syria and told him to fuck off on nordstream2 and further kiboshed his plans for a joint US EU naval escapade in the Gulf.

You need better sources.

lundiel
lundiel

You haven’t stopped groaning and your comments are increasingly deranged.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Kindly argue against my statements of fact – you aren’t in this thread link as far as i can see – maybe you are responding to a comment i made to someone else…?

Groanin btw refers to the putrid organ.

Peugeot
Peugeot

How you can complain about the E.U . being undemocratic when we’ve just had an Oaf occupying the PMs office elected by 0.0002 of the population is beyond me, that’s without taking in to account unelected lords, civil servants, the head of state,etc and then claim thieving the remaining side said was untrue is beyond belief, what happened to the £35.000.000. for the NHS, we can have our cake and eat it, we hold all the cards, they need us more than we need them, the German car manufacturers will be banging on Merkels door the easiest trade deal in the history of mankind, we can have all the benefits of EU membership without any responsibilities, you really can’ t make it up , and now as we predicted, it’s all the E.Us fault, I think your being taken for a ride and you’re able to see it, it’s purely a plan by the elite, just look at the ones wanting to leave, all of the multi millionaires, the main promoter is the barclay bros owners of the Telegraph , you know the one’s that own the Ritz well they’ve certainly got my interests at heart haven’t they?

Admin
Admin
Admin

Clarify please. Are you suggesting the fact the UK is corrupt and undemocratic makes it illegitimate to point out the EU is also?

Peugeot
Peugeot

No, it’s just a case of the pot calling the kettle black, we could maybe get our own house in order before criticising others

Editor
Admin
Editor

The UK has been part of the EU for forty years. The amount of democracy it has is largely governed by EU statutes. So ‘getting our own house in order’ would not really be an option.

Arby

“The middle class is now inherently conservative, and the Brexit vote provided ample evidence of this.” Even Noam Chomsky has said that political labels are difficult. There’s much complexity and confusion. For example, as Chomsky notes in a number of places, Richard Nixon was the last liberal president, even though he was a Republican. Liberals (in the sense of US political discourse) today are moderate Republicans, according to Chomsky. Anyway, All politics – due to the power of the resource-rich Right – moves rightward (toward fascism). Peter Lavelle, Alex Christoforou (The Duran), James O’Keefe, Dave Cullen (on Bitchute) are all Conservatives. I find them to be fairly right about most things. I don’t know exactly how each would self-identify, although I have heard Peter self-identify as Conservative. My own way of understanding that is that there are Conservatives who are like the Conservatives of old. They weren’t all that bad. They didn’t see any virtue in shredding social safety nets, the way todays neocon/neolibs do. So, It is confusing. I find myself chastising Conservatives, who I wouldn’t regard as fascist, for those instances when they exhibit brain rot and call real leftwingers names, as though there was only ‘one’ Left. They have a real hard time being fair and honest sometimes, in that way. Do they want me confusing them with fascists? No. Then when Peter Lavelle, for example, tells Medea Benjamin (who corrected him) that NBC is Left, period, perhaps he shouldn’t do that. He’s perfectly capable of honestly noting that NBC is “fake Left.” I think he doesn’t like the competition that the real Left represents to his reasonable Conservative brand.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

As you may know but fail to make clear here – there never was a right and left.
There was and is, only RICH and POOR.

From the biblical Kings and Slaves to the American Rebellion 0f the 1770’s to every revolutionary momment in history across every nation – it has always been about the aristocrats against their poorest.

The left- right conceit is just a sleight of hand by the richest to insulate themselves from the never ending class war.

Arby

We are using words to communicate. What do you want to call the Right? If you don’t know what Right means, that’s your problem. Give it some thought, I would advise. If we stop using labels, because we think that they’re wrong, then we will only end up replacing them with other labels. Should we stop calling ‘socialists’ socialists? Okay. What do you want to call them? That there are manipulators and liars out there who sow confusion is another subject. I’m not going to stop being intelligible just because there are those who sow confusion and those who are confused.

The political Right (and I always capitalize the ‘r’ when referring to the political Right because it makes things clear) is comprised of people who wish for their class, only, to have the benefits of collective society-building and collective problem-solving. The political Left on the other hands wants socialism (what I just explained) for ‘all’. I find that useful and I have no intention of jettisoning the labels. And I’ve been asked by others over the years what do those terms mean. And that’s the answer I’ve always given. Those were completely ignorant people who expressed a healthy, natural curiosity that I was able to satisfy. What they did with their new-found knowledge I’ll never know.

George
George

Au contraire, Orwellian substitutions are going on all the time – especially in a capitalist consumer society whose underlying strategy is “Tell them what they want to hear!” e.g. I can’t think of a more variable term than “liberal”. It used to be a swear word for the Left (who viewed it as referring to a covert Right winger) but has now leaped across to the opposite meaning cf. “Left /liberal”.

Or how about the word “Conservative”? Most who call themselves this subscribe to unrestrained capitalism i.e. the most anti-conservative force of all. Speaking of which, when Thatcher was once asked what she considered her greatest achievement, she said, “Tony Blair” – recognising full well that “New Labour” was pretty much identical to the “Conservative Party” – who aren’t conservative at all!

Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do.

Arby

Good points. I’m not clear about the ‘au contrarie’ part. Cheers.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

The problem with the left-right spectrum is that it us created by the top for protection from the bottom. The 2 dimensional pyramid is obscured and turned into a 1 dimensional line.

That obfuscation regularly runs into nonsensical paradigms. For example when they try and fit fascism into that left- right line and find that there are left as well as right fascists! When clearly in a 2 dimensional top- bottom pyramid it would be easy to see where that fascist layer begins and reaches to the top.

The sooner we all recognise that in sticking to the paradigms handed down to us by the top (aristo/elite/super rich) to keep us from punching up at them – the sooner we’ll stop the absurd Three Stooges face slapping as they ( the top) divide us (the rest of us).

Arby

Well, leftwing fascism makes zero sense to me. I just wouldn’t use the phrase. Why do you say the ‘terms’ Left and ‘Right’ were handed down to us? I have a vague recollection of their origin, but I don’t think there was anything more involved than distinguishing the parliamentarians who sat on one side of the room from those, with different views, who sat opposite. But, you have your views. And I have mine. We’ll just leave it at that I guess.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Yeah leave it Arby – now that you suddenly decide that you don’t even know of the bs left-right crap that you were teaching people all this time.

You of course can look up Whigs and Torys. Or even Roundheads and Cavaliers. And the other incarnations of the two party system.
In the US the GOP were initially more ‘liberal’ than the redneck southern Democrats.

Yeah pretend that the great top-bottom. Ancient class divide is not the real and only substantive difference. While you collaborate in the equally age old divide and rule strategy using everything from race, religion to the modetn sexual identity politics and the latest weaponisation of children and the groovy XR crap with the trillions to be made from the GND.

Yup. Leave it at that. Keep your word.

Arby

I’ve replied multiple times to this. Those replies keep disappearing. This site is being meddled with, it seems.

Admin
Admin
Admin

I’ve checked the spam folder. Nothing from you in there. It could be a local issue for you.

Arby

Thanks. These days, anything’s possible.

Peugeot
Peugeot

Doesn’t Chomsky believe the ‘official’ explanation of 9/11?

Arby

I believe he does, but don’t quote me on that. I think it’s more like he wants evidence for whatever position you look at. I began to see a new and degraded Chomsky with this turn. I watched a video discussion he had with Michael Albert about 9/11 and found his tone to be arrogant and nasty. His biases were showing. (He has what looks to me like a love/hate relationship to the corporate media. He’s very good at critiquing the offerings of this or that compliant journo, but I suspect that his disdain for new alt/progressive media and the internet has left him open to manipulation. And if he’s relying on research assistants who aren’t progressive, but perhaps pretending to be… Add to that ego. If he doesn’t think other journos and authors, like Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett and Stephen Gowans have anything to teach him, How will he continue to learn?) His book about 9/11 is excellent, in my view, but he needn’t discourage others from investigating 9/11. Of course, Not all of those who don’t accept the official version are the same. Some of those ones are thoughtful and others are loons. And some are no doubt simply trying to sow chaos. Chomsky is right to warn us away from jumping mindlessly into rabbit holes, but he could do a better job of that. He could commend those who seek to know more about big events like 9/11.

Admin
Admin
Admin

That reply is right here. I think your computer is reloading cached versions of the page which is why you can’t see it. In the circs I’m going to delete this comment in a short while to keep the thread as uncluttered as possible.

Arby

For sure. Good to know. That will slow me down, but now that I see that it’s a thing, perhaps I can deal with it and not make so much noise. I happen to believe in noise-making though. 😉

milosevic
milosevic

Arby

Chomsky has lost the plot.

Arby

“For thought is the catalytic agent that is capable of unsettling routines, disorganizing habits, breaking up customs, and generating scepticism.” Indeed. The Right is very, very aware of that. Those who own, rule and ruin the world fear political innovators. Where do political innovators – threats to the status quo – come from? They come from among that group of regular people (educated formally or not) who ‘think’ and ‘pay attention’. Counterrevolution is the elite’s way of managing that ever-present threat.

Arby

“…the ‘left’ MSM…” Thank you Frank for employing single quotation marks there.

“Brain Rot And Darkness” – https://arrby.wordpress.com/2019/08/25/brain-rot-and-darkness/

Arby

“There are apparently now correct opinions, and incorrect opinions, and woe betide anyone who transgresses the border between the two.” That is very correct. An opinion is an opinion and all should be treated as equal. One can be wrong about an opinion, but that is another subject. Our expressed opinions – and none should be disallowed – form the arena of discussions and debates, where some opinions will survive in the gladitorial polemics and some won’t. But no one should be banned from the contest. And the ‘failure’ of opinions in that polemicist’s arena should have no consequences for the right of people to hold their opinions.

lundiel
lundiel

Why I despise Liberals and consider them to be worse than Conservatives. They more than anyone are guilty of imposing, across all sectors, (but especially in care, employment and increasingly, social justice, public-owned industries) the practice of “performance evaluation and targets”. This horrific practice of judging care providers and employment coaches by their ”performance” is worse than anything I can imagine. What kind of regime employs people who are judged by their ability to hit ever-increasing targets? This is an American sales import that has been applied across many industries but is the go-to measure of “success” in publically funded employment, especially the NHS, DWP and care providers.
It has been increasing since Thatcher but went full-on during the Conservative-Liberal coalition. It has made workers slaves, chasing targets that rise all the time while trapped by their mortgages/rent and is epitomised by the EUs competition law which claims to stop ‘predatory business practice’ while forcing adherence to the lowest common denominator.
People don’t count.

Arby

“What kind of regime employs people who are judged by their ability to hit ever-increasing targets?” Interestingly, that’s looked at in William Greider’s “One World, Ready Or Not.” Japanese industrialists were brutal. They constantly squeeze ever bit of productivity out of their employees, forcing the bulk to perform at the same level as the most physically able among them do. I believe that scientific management, originating in the US and also known as Taylorism, promotes to bosses the same approach to managing labor.

Frederick Taylor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management

The working class is the enemy – to our fascist overlords.

lundiel
lundiel

Interesting link. Reminds me of the hated time-and-motion studies and piece work in the factories of my youth. Performance management is the same thing renamed.

Arby

Acknowledged.

Arby

I did respond to this. I’ve notice that responding from my email (aol, what a fake-out!) is a waste of time. Either that, or everything’s being held up here. I have no way of knowing. I just wanted to acknowledge, and thank you for, your comment.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

“Traditionally, The Guardian and more generally the liberal press were at one time the news-sheets of record for the left.”

Traditionally and factually The Guardian has never been, nor has its core operators ever viewed it as being, left of centre; rather, it was founded as an organ serving the interests of 19th century cotton mill owners and traders against those of their workers and it has remained a centre-right publication ever since. Far more apt than Orwell in accounting for its political position is Charles Perrault and his pre-industrial tale of an enterprising wolf who eats a kindly old grandmother then dresses up in her clothes into order to lure her innocent and gastronomically more desirable young granddaughter into an identical culinary fate. That the Guardian has been able to maintain such a position of editorial duplicity for over 150 years, thus helping the bourgeousie to render politically impotent generations of Britain’s working class radicals, is one of the most impressive feats of journalistic subversion since Gutenberg convinced European mediaeval shape shifters of the value of equally movable type.

Francis Lee
Francis Lee

I recall that in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992. I voted Labour in all four general elections and was on the losing side each time. I thought that the Thatcher ascendancy was going to be a disaster for the UK. And so it turned out. So what did I do? Nothing much, just went back to work the next day and carried on with my life, hoping in due course the political environment would change for the better. Fat chance! we ended up with Blair instead. The Talleyrand to Mrs T’s Danton. I supposed I should have joined the movement for another election, but that never occurred me, that was outside the rules of the game. But apparently things have changed. Now elections,and referenda can be contested. On what criteria is it can this annulment take place? Well I support if there was any meddling in the count, or other illegal activities then there might be a case for a re-run. Fair enough. But now apparently electoral results can be invalidated because the losing side objects to the initial outcome. ‘Oh but we were not told the truth and were lied to.’ When did politicians and journalists ever start telling the truth? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If anything the argument of the Remainers was basically – let’s have more of the same, which is why it was rejected. The social-democratic utopia as promised was out of date even 20 years ago after Maastricht. The EU is a neoliberal juggernaut which rules of the basis of technological edict stripping nations states of sovereignty democracy. I wouldn’t mind if it actually worked, but in economic terms it is totally dysfuntional. (That deserves an article on its own.) Little wonder that is becoming increasingly bereft of supporters, without any popular support outside its urban bastions. Moreover, we have a situation where the engine of the euro economy – Germany is running down into slow growth, no growth or negative growth. This bears comparison with the UK.

Latest Figures:

Germany: GDP Y-O-Y = 0.4% GDP Q-O-Q = -0.1% (negative)

UK: GDP Y-O-Y = 1.2% GDP Q-O-Q = – 0.2% (negative)

There’s your dynamic Eurozone; these are depression figures. If the Germans can’t make it work it seems difficult to imagine who can. Is it worth it? Remainers seem simply unaware of this tottering edifice and its deep-seated insoluble economic and political problems. Like the fact that German Bunds are 85% negative yield (-85%) Italian Banks are insolvent and the Eastern periphery is rapidly depopulating … But hey, I could go on but it seems pointless – the facts just bounce off these people.

But the real point is that now there is a new type of political dispensation. There are the right opinions and policies and there are the wrong ones. It seems to have been established, that firstly only the elect have the right opinions and secondly their votes and their votes alone should determine the outcome of any referendum. Those with the wrong opinions will not be allowed to vote, or if they do they will have their votes annulled.

Welcome to the amalgam of Brave New World (Huxley) 1984 ( Orwell) The Iron Heel (London)

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

There are certainly problems with the E, but I’d much rather be part of that club than to be handed over to the voracious US neoliberals that will devour this country. Better be careful for what you wish for.

Bal S
Bal S

This country has been slowly devoured by successive Tory/NewLab/LibDem neoliberals for the last 40 years….with the full support of it’s neoliberal EUSA pimp.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

And it’s hard to think of a much more slavishly pro-USA crowd of people than the New Labour elites.

Junaid

The head of the White House, Donald Trump, said that it is quite possible to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Starting point”: Trump may call Putin to the G7 summit

https://www.writenaregiven.com/2019/08/starting-point-trump-may-call-putin-to-the-g7-summit.html

J D
J D

I voted Leave because I thought it was important that we are able to elect the people who govern us and make our laws… and the EU didn’t allow that. I voted Leave because I want a socialist economy….and the EU doesn’t allow that. I voted Leave because I experienced the devastating impact on the availability of work and the conditions of work that occurred because of the elites ability to freely move capital and cheap labour around the continent. I voted Leave because I thought the EU was a neoliberal dictatorship which is relentlessly impoverishing the European working class.
Apparently though, my social superiors have informed me that I didn’t know what I was voting for. I was lied to. I was hoodwinked. I am stupid and I am a bigot and and racist. I shouldn’t have been allowed to vote because I voted wrong.

DomesticExtremi
DomesticExtremi

Well said.
I pointed out that the last time that the Eastern periphery was denuded of it’s labour force to satisfy the needs of the industrialised nations was under the Third Reich – for which I had my posting abilities permanently suspended.

DomesticExtremi
DomesticExtremi

… at the Graun, natch.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

“I shouldn’t have been allowed to vote because I voted wrong.”

Wrongly, pleb. Says it all.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

What exact direct personal examples can you give of how the EU did to you – personally.

J D
J D

After working for a furniture removal firm for five years I was promised the firm was going to put me through lorry driver training and give me a permanent contract. I came to work one morning to find they had given the role to a lovely bloke who’d recently arrived from Slovakia who had an HGV licence. He was employed for way less than they had promised me.
I also used to work for a marquee firm who employed myself and 30 or 40 other blokes from my home town from March until October each year. I bumped into my former foreman in 2008 who told me he had resigned because they had replaced the entire workforce with men from Poland.
If I had the time I could give dozens of examples of how work disappeared and wages and working conditions deteriorated if you were a manual worker in the years following open borders.
I have nothing but warm feelings and comradeship for those workers who left their homes and families and came to the U.K. to better themselves. However, you don’t have to be a corporate executive to understand that if 4 million workers flood into a relatively high wage area, eg. Britain, from a low wage area, eg. Eastern/ Southern Europe then the jobs available and bargaining position of the workers in the receiving country are going to be devastated. It is supply and demand.

DomesticExtremi
DomesticExtremi

Yes – we deplorables don’t blame the immigrants for coming here – their own homekands have been lain waste by neo-liberalism and I’m sure almost all would have preferred to stay home had there been decent, well paid jobs for them to do there.
We instead blame the politicians for holding the floodgates open at the behest of high finance and big business.
For that we are labelled gammons.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Yes – we deplorables don’t blame the immigrants for coming here – their own homekands have been lain waste by neo-liberalism

The neoliberal can be blamed for lots of things, but the Eastern European migrants cam here because the countries were wasted by decades of Soviet communism, not neoliberalism.

lundiel
lundiel

They weren’t allowed to join untill they satisfied stringent neoliberal requirements that saw highly educated people scrabbling for jobs as care assistants.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

But you don’t blame the politicians – you blame our membership of the EU.
( please see my respons to JD above for a fuller response)

DomesticExtremi
DomesticExtremi

I blame our politicians for slavishly implementing EU directives (often with their own business-friendly embellishments) and when the people complain, their cowardliness when they say ‘don’t blame, it’s the EU).
I blame the EU for creating the framework, the politicians for enacting it.
The poor people are merely acting as best they can within the system.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Thanks for that JD.

I can understand that you personally have some cause to feel that your itenerant and largely unskilled work and lifestyle choices were somewhat curtailed by the availability of a worker who had trained and qualified and was in search of using their hard earned skill set.

The villain in that example is ?

A) the qualified worker looking for a job?
B) the boss who employs a qualified worker that he needs and takes advantage of that person by paying less then he otherwise should to make more profits for himself?
C) You for not having got the training yourself quickly enough and had a contract with your employer?
D) Some one or something else?

If I were in your position and my cushy lifestyle choice was undermined then I too would feel agrieved.

Then if somebody told me they knew who’s fault it was and I could help to sort out the villain – i can see that i’d be willing to take up the cudgel to beat the crap out of that villain.
—–

1. I don’t believe that the majority of the brexit voters were/are racists or xenophobes- some of my best mates are brexiteers, almost none of them is racist – and aren’t we all a little bit xenophobic about something.

2. The EU’s reckless expansion which allowed all these people to leave their relatively impoverished economies and families and homelands to use their locally financed skill sets for the benefit of another country, depriving their communities and homelands of these skills – did not seem to affect the other EU nations as much as the UK!
You must ask why?

The answer is that for all the proximate reasons given for why people voted for brexit – the ultimate reason is AUSTERITY.

Let me explain that quickly – the reason you voted for brexit was because you felt poorer than you had in previous years.

You were told that the country needed ‘austerity’ – a big lie.

Yoy were told that after years of that austerity you were still poorer because of all these EU foreigners taking your share of the pie!

You were told that the only way to get your fair share of the pie after your sacrifice for the lie of austerity was to get out of the EU!

And you took up that cudgel and marched to the tune with 17 million others who also had believed the austerity lie and made sacrifices and saw thay they were still poorer then a decade before.

Genuine hard working sensible people – not deplorables (another invention to get a reaction) – led by the ‘elites’ of THIS country to get themselves away from the EU and its levelling of the field under an open legal system.

So do you blame the piper to whos tune you danced to? Or do you merrily carry on dancing to their tune?

William
William

Keeping us at each other’s throats ensures there’s no mobs carrying torches trundling up the path to the country pile

Tony
Tony

I’m currently working my way through the second series of Mindhunter. They finally got around to interviewing Charlie Manson. His argument, put so persuasively, and not a little bit aggressively, was that he never killed anybody. He merely liberated peoples’ minds. What they did going forward was nothing to do with him. This is your argument to a ‘t’: it’s not the system, it’s the peoples’ misinterpretation of it.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

“After working for a furniture removal firm for five years I was promised the firm was going to put me through lorry driver training and give me a permanent contract.”

Long before Britain made its big time European Disinformation blunder in the mid 1970s, I was involved with a cheerful small company whose workers were all hired on a handshake and trust for jobs that then constituted their sole employment for years, even decades (except for those with direct involvement in specific client contracts who were required to sign various related short term contracts strictly limited to the duration of the associated client contracts).

One day the main (and, short of a major change of circumstances, pretty well indispensible) shop floor worker said to me, “I hear the boss is planning to sell the company.” “Who told you that?” I asked. “He did,” was the reply. “Well, sort of. He’s just suggested it might be a good idea if we got together and worked out a permanent contract.”

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

You voted leave because you want a socialist economy….but instead will get a neoliberal corporate tax haven where public services will be completely hollowed out. A lot of people were very naive.

Bal S
Bal S

Isn’t the City of London a corporate tax haven already? Haven’t public services like gas, water, electricity, nuclear power, railways, probation services etc already been hollowed out and privatised? Hasn’t this been going on for the last 40 years with the full blessing and support of of the EU?

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

‘Full blessing.. of the EU?’

NO – it hasn’t. It’s gone on because of our VETO on the EU trying to stop it.

We have at every turn disrupted the evolution of the EU. Including using our veto.

When our veto could no longer be used – we huffed and puffed and threatened to pull the whole house down or even LEAVE.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Please give an example of when the EU tried to stop our public services being hollowed out and privatised.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Eh? Another newbie? Crawled out? Or sent into action? Maybe we have engageg but I don’t recall you being in this conversation or another with me. Non the less – WELCOME to my little troll abbatoir!

So to business-

What has the EU got to do with the Tory and NuLabInc neolib con artistes privatisation programs?

Nothing.

Who sold what already belonged to the people back to them? The EU didn’t hustle ‘Sid’ to become a petty shareholder or an ex affordable social housing occupier.

Much of many EU countries state assets are still owned by their governments- they didn’t sell off their family silver so that US hedge funds and foreign pension funds control their utilities and infrastructure. In fact they have a stake in OUR utilities – who do you think is builiding our latest Nuclear plant?

The bs moronic squizzle pointing doesn’t work round here.

Admin
Admin
Admin

Don’t be pointlessly abusive DG. It’s a poor welcome, and Mike Ellwood is asking a perfectly reasonable question.

In fact please avoid troll-spotting as much as possible. Unless the troll is making it blindingly obvious.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

You are right Admin and am grateful that you ARE watching – I normally wait for any such behaviour to become obvious – it’s just that as i point out below, I had 3 replies from a new poster. Which i admit got my goat a bit 🐐

Hopefully i made a considered reply. I won’t engage with them any further on this thread.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

“Mike Ellwood is asking a perfectly reasonable question.”

So here:

https://www.guengl.eu/issues/publications/study-the-consequences-of-eu-liberalisation-directives-on-public-service/

is a perfectly reasonable answer, dated January 2019, from a grouping on the EU parliamentary left. The hollowing out of ;ublic services somehow related to the European Union is blatantly obvious across Europe and, furthermore, it’s easily seen by those on the sharp end as a clear attack on the working class poor and the plain old ever-with-us-poor poor.

But it’s not a plot by the Commissioners with a Directive entitled “Hollow Out your Public Services or Else You’ll All be Greeks by Breakfast”, it’s a result of an interplay between the irremediably fascistic (in the Mussolini sense of the corporate state) basis of the Union, with its latter-day litany of neocon-favouring of “liberalisation” directives, the oligarchical commercial logic of corporate entities whether state owned or not, and the political will of member governments whenever right wing (or, in the UK, Tory-lite) parties gain control.

And it’s that that Mr Elwood’s “perfectly reasonable” question is hiding behind.

andyoldlabour
andyoldlabour

J D,
Many people do not seem to realise that it is the EU forcing individual governments to impose austerity measures on their people, and we shouldn’t forget that austerity measures always hurt the poorest in society.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Greece of course being the obvious example.

andyoldlabour
andyoldlabour

I think it is worth pointing out, that the South East voted to leave, the following constituencies voted to leave the EU – Dartford, Gravesham, Medway, Maidstone, Swale, Shepway, Tonbridge and Malling, Canterbury, Dover, Ashford and Thanet.
In Kent, only Tunbridge Wells voted to stay in the EU.
Down here in the South East we also had some of the highest turnouts in the EU referendum.
I totally agree with the point about London, and would add Brighton and Hove, pus Scotalnd to the list.
Northern Ireland was far closer, and Wales voted to leave.
It was probably the most democratic vote we have ever had.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Not democratic in our parliamentry tradition
Not democratic in the sense that one vote out of millions could determine the whole outcome.
Not democratic in that illegal funds and sophisticated secret social media manipulation was used in specific localities to deliver the brexit vote.

You conveniently leave out the NE, Yorkshire, Midlands ‘hot spots’ which were also convinced to vote for brexit. WHY?

Tony
Tony

Sophisticated secret social media manipulation that nobody has managed to prove had any effect whatsoever on voting patterns. And the company that provided this manipulation was so good at what they did, they went bankrupt!

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Many voted leave out of a mischievous sense and many others because they were targeted via their FB as Cummings proudly crowed:

“In the official 10 week campaign we served about one billion targeted digital adverts, mostly via Facebook and strongly weighted to the period around postal voting and the last 10 days of the campaign…”

They are proud of their work! And now they have stormed into No 10 en masse to deliver the hard brexit they ‘won’ against parliamentry democracy.

People don’t like to admit they were tricked – Mark Twain said something about that.

Tony
Tony

Whatever that weirdo Cummings (and others) claimed/gloated over, there is not a shred of evidence that the Facebook campaign worked. And, like I said, the company that created it went out of business. Remainers need to stop their bullshit about manipulation. And they need to stop the course, childish insults. And they need to address the real reason why they lost the argument and lost the referendum: which is that Britain’s masses have been left behind by the globalist economic policies of the EU, and Britain’s masses understand this. And this problem ain’t going away through the onslaught of arrogant haranguing by their ‘betters’.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Cummings and his crew are in No 10. You have no objection.

Tony
Tony

That’s it. Change the discussion in typical remainer style.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

When did i change it?
Why did you ignore my first 2 points?

Tony
Tony

We were discussing social media manipulation. You tried to conflate my rebuttal of it’s efficacy with the current government. I’ve no idea why you think my rebuttal of your nonsense about Facebook spam winning mass votes connects me to a loon like Dominic Cummings.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

So you are claiming that FB ads have no effect?

Gee i wonder why their business model hasn’t collapsed and doesn’t earn them billions and billions …?

Why haven’t FB revealed what user data was made available to the Leave campaign?

Or how many users?

Or where?

And what specific adverts?

Are you doing a Clegg here?

Tony
Tony

Yes, I am claiming exactly that wrt Facebook political advertising. It’s just spam. Almost every real person who posts on Facebook posts there for social reasons. Politics is almost verboten. Post a link to anything political and, unless it’s hilarious, it will get almost zero ‘likes’. That is, unless you are one of the tiny minority who use Facebook to share such spam. In which case, your only friends will be a like-minded clique. Using Facebook to sell politics is like advertising escorts on Mumsnet. That’s why Cambridge Analytica went bump.

DomesticExtremi
DomesticExtremi

Well, I’m not on Facebook (many are not) and I’d decided how I would vote long before the campaign. It was an accumulation of distaste that began with Maastricht, increased with the Eastern Bloc accessions, worsened after Lisbon and turned to disgust after the GFC with the treatment meted out Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Spain and Portugal.
Thankfully, or perhaps scarily for the holy Remainers, this deplorable was able to see for himself and think for himself. I suspect the other 17 million had far more agency in their voting choice than the Remainiacs could possibly imagine.

andyoldlabour
andyoldlabour

This was only undemocratic in the eyes of people who voted to remain.
I ignored the other regions because the author of this piece lumped the South East in with London, when the voting patterns were clearly different.
Are these dark arts – “sophisticated secret social media manipulation” – a powerful phrase indeed, are they as strong as a Petronas charm in Harry Potter?
What you are saying is basically like blaming Russia for all the ills of the World.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

As I quote above Cummings admits to the manipulation.

Tony
Tony

But does he, or anyone else, have any proof that it worked?

lundiel
lundiel

Of course it worked. They targeted people who had already indicated their intentions. It’s possible a few waverers were persuaded just as the official phamplet almost certainly did the same for Remain. But to attempt to morally nullify the vote and attribute it to Cummins as some kind of evil genius andis desperate nonsense.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

It was more insidiuos that is why the votes are concentrated.
It is about using influencers who spread the personalised propaganda they receive online into their locality.

Like i say – sophisticated. And they kept a full diary.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Yes he knows it worked. FB knows it worked.

Neither have turned up to a Parliamentary select committee to deny it !

Tony
Tony

A parliamentary select committee run by an expenses fraudster who sees Russians coming out of the walls everywhere.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

It is a select committee with multiple members who also get to ask as many questions as they like – that is how our parliamentry democracy works. The fact that there are some controlled arseholes on these committees- usually by compramat of our own DS does not invalidate the testimonies they elicit.

Cummings has refused as has Zuckerberg and others – why are they allowed to get away with it?

Why are you defending their actions?

Tony
Tony

In order to ascertain if a marketing campaign has worked, there have to be clear results in the case of goods for sale, or extensive follow-up research in the case of a political campaign. No such research has taken place. And it won’t be taking place in the future because the company has gone bust. Remainers really are desperate, clinging onto this nonsense. And they continue to stick their fingers in their ears as to the real reason why they lost the debate and the vote.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

They will not turn up and answer these questions in parliament- in effect pleading ‘the fifth’.

Which company are you talking of as having gone bust?

FB certainly hasn’t.

Tony
Tony

Cambridge Analytica. And Collins (who heads the committee) is clearly an intelligence asset.

As an aside, I couldn’t help noticing that RT had some VERY anti BoJo articles today, totally against proroguing parliament and forcing brexit through. How bizarre! RT is an instrument of Putin, is it not? And Putin’s propaganda machine and it’s social media bots helped win the brexit vote, did they not?

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

CA was instantly reborn as another company – i believe there are new rules on churning.

I didn’t claim that Cummings worked via CA.

I have never claimed that Putin had anything to do with brexit or wanted it.

I doubt that RT was ever pushing brexit.

I don’t quite understand why you even mentioned RT?

Tony
Tony

Companies setting up again after they failed the last time is the modus operandi of business fraudsters.

Talk to Damian Collins (or his Guardianista oppo Carole Cadwalladr) about Putin’s interference in the referendum. They will bore you all day long with their conspiracy theories.

You missed my point: the same people that claim Putin manipulated the referendum claim that RT is a Putin tool. These people are so inept: they just can’t get their lies straight.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Yes the localities that were targeted voted for Leave at a higher rate then elswhere.

The proof is witheld by FB from the parliamentry committee and Cummings refused to testify as well.

Tony
Tony

Sorry, if this pro0f has been witheld, how do you know it’s proof?

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

I keep saying it is by confession of the perpetrator that we are convinced.

I keep saying that by the refusal of the perpetrators to testify is further proof.

It is a fucking duck! Are you blind? Or doing a Nelson?

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

“Manipulation” – Nonsense. It was just a more sophisticated version of what political campaigners have always done.

If you’ve ever taken part in a traditional political campaign….leafleting and knocking on doors, etc, you will know that you target the people you know who might vote for you, and studiously ignore those you are pretty sure will vote the other way.

As I quote above Cummings admits to the manipulation.

I recently watched a Youtube video of DC speaking about the referendum campaign and how it was planned and how it worked. I was actually surprised at how “normal” he came across. Certainly not the evil genius figure that has been painted. He certainly didn’t “admit” to any “manipulation”. Just described how they had taken a chance and dumped most of their budget into the last 10 days or so of the campaign.

But more interestingly for this discussion, he (correctly in my estimation) described why he thought so many people had voted leave. They wanted to “take back control”, not just from Brussels, but from the people in the Westminster bubble. Cameron and Osborne (whom he described as arrogantly not listening to voices outside the bubble) completely missed out on this message, as did most people in the Remainer bubble. And as they are still missing out. They just don’t get it. The Guardian just doesn’t get it.

Mike Ellwood
Mike Ellwood

Not democratic in our parliamentry tradition

You mean that parliamentary tradition in which a party can lose the popular vote, but win the overall election?

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

Not one but three replies to me Mr ‘Mike Ellwood’ – I am honoured!

Don’t know whether I should play whakkamole with you – my statements of facts stand. You have not disputed any, from why we barged into an EC that didn’t want us, to crap about losing sovereignty, which was well understood back in the 60’s and confirmed by our highest law lord in the early 70’s – why not Mike Ellwood?

There is a lot more on the ‘Dr Strangelove’ Cummings demented superbrain self important narcism.
Do you want me to dig it out? His personal philosophy? His heroes? Hmm? Or is that how you intend to divert the thread?

Even as they (& you) make a last ditch full body fling for the line to snatch the grand prize of a HARD BREXIT to save the ancient vampire City – using today the most arcane of CROWN powers you have a go at the FPTP system? What are they going to do to force the little old lady in her palace to sign a decree. Threaten to publish recordings of her son inflagrante with Epsteins young girls?

Pathetic. Hasbara or 77th or straight out of the now fully infiltrated Mossad run Cabinet Office. Yes i said it.

Knees,elbows and face bloodied and covered in dirt – the stumps are exploding as the brexiteers try to slide in like some pound shop Ben Stokes –

OWZATTT.

Peugeot
Peugeot

Why it is deemed as being democratic, it’s a known fact it was corrupt, money being spent over and above what is allowed, people being told it will be the easiest deal in human history, £35,000.000.for the NHS which was denied literally four hours after the declaration, when asked about that the moron fromage said ” Oh, that was a mistake,” and that was the end of that and four point lead is not a mandate to take this country out of the biggest trading block on the planet, on to WHO trading terms, the only country that trades on WTO terms alone, if it’s that good how come?

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

“Why it is deemed as being democratic, it’s a known fact it was corrupt, …”

Hurrah for incorruptible parliamentary democracy. How a narrow four points crept out of the woodworm holes in ancient British ballot boxes and upset the projections of the world’s greatest free subjugations of nations east of Hanging Chad is one of the enduring mysteries of Political Science as she was known and practised by bodies realpolitik since Ghengis Khan brought the advantages of free trade to all who remained alive by the time he had finished.

LeRuscino
LeRuscino

£35 Million ? I think you’ve lost the plot somewhere and don’t have a solid grasp of English or knowledge of the loss in Court of the Remainers on the subject……

AND

“WHO” Trading Terms ? It’s WTO on which the UK already does the majority of it’s trade.

Only 12% of UK GDP comes from trade with the EU …………

If you are dyslexic then I apologise for being so harsh.

Peugeot
Peugeot

You are a moron

LeRuscino
LeRuscino

Says a Remainer who thought WHO (World Health Organisation) was WTO (World Trade Organisation) !

I rest my case …….

Peugeot
Peugeot

Well that was an obvious mistake, I’m sorry i fit’s confusing

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

Another ringer from Frank! Thanks …

Bootlyboob
Bootlyboob

Anyone watched the new doco on Netflix called American Factory? Such a good show, despite being from a company owned by a mass murderer.

Lots of interesting and mostly depressing things occur but I was particularly amused when the US manager went from trenchant anti-unionist to all of sudden giving a fuck about the ‘voice’ of the workers only after he realised he was expendable by the Chinese owners and had he arse hauled out of there when they replaced the management with Chinese.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

There is also a three wimen group at the SNP Scottish government- which has been trying to stuff Alex Salmond and Scottish independence.

Steve Bell skewered Swinson last week in his ‘if’ strip brilliantly.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

I like the above hot times three’s “Shove it up The People” badges.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin

I had to try and focus in on that badge – March for a Peoples Vote??
They want a peoples vote but not if Corbyn delivers it???