What, like having a referendum on Brexit?

It has been a persistent theme of this blog that the march of neoliberal capitalism has been away from democracy and towards neo-feudalism. The evidence that this is the case is compelling and largely provided within a UK context by the Conservative Parties contempt for almost everything that upholds democratic rights and traditions.

20 comments on “What, like having a referendum on Brexit?

  1. Whut? – like the democratic right of the UK ( with its bigger population, and clout form that net contribution ) to have more say over what the Irish can legally smoke and import and over the incentives on how they use their land than the Irish do themselves.

  2. Not saying anything anybody doesn’t know but the campaign for a meaningful vote on the deal is stupid.

    If they really wanted a meaningful vote then they would be arguing in favour of an open no-deal scenario as a back up plan. You then see that you can get an awful lot of this transition for free
    – state now that you won’t impose tariffs or any new customs annoyances (the earlier you give this commitment the better as companies may rebase/expand in the EU not the UK to avoid the risk of future incoming tariffs)
    – state now that EU products will be deemed acceptable for sale in the UK, and even if we modify our rules the EU version will always be acceptable (flag it and let customers choose). Then you can avoid wasting a bunch of money on new customs infrastructure
    – state now that UK firms are free to trade with EU banks and EU banks to do business here. I know that civil servants are being paid to work on the suitability of EU fin inst when we should just say that if you could trade with them before you can continue to. (Given passporting means that a malta firm is legal here you always need to do your own thinking on who to have as a counterparty). Which also shows that the EU is just being insane when they claim that regulatory equivalence is impossible – recognise each other and let customers choose who to work with….or is this all a protectionist scam?
    – state that for n years EU workers are welcome on the current rules – plenty of time to then figure out what new rules should look like. Note workers, keep a free hand on benefits etc
    – fishing, let the UK locals who would be impacted choose what they want rather than treating them as a poker chip to be traded away (fishing doesn’t matter for its economic importance, it matters as it shows how you will behave and treat those you govern)
    – Irish border, nothing on our side (our host the clear thought leader on this one) and offer whatever assistance the Irish need to manage whatever they want to put on their side

    Once you map out what you get for free it starts looking like you are paying the EU £40bn in order for them not to impose tariffs on their trade with the UK…..which both would seem to be their problem not ours and you would have thought was an easy choice after all the EU rhetoric aimed at Trump on that subject. Now if the EU needs some money in order to transition to having a lower budget then we can be understanding and help them.

    Oh, they don’t want a meaningful vote. They want the choices for MPs to be: approve the deal; or reject and require the government to go back to the EU and beg to be let back in on whatever terms.

  3. Totalist language. Ritchie doesn’t care about democracy. He uses the word because others do.

  4. If it was just muppet man that would be fine (ish – given he is treated as an expert by some).

    The problem is this stupid definition of meaningful vote is pretty widespread.

  5. For people like Spud, Democracy means the plebs doing what people like Spud think is best for them.

  6. “Can he supply a definition of “neo-feudalism” please.”

    Any system of government not run by Spud that isn’t neo-liberalism.

    Neo-liberalism: any system of government not run by Spud that isn’t neo-feudalism.

  7. With all todays headlines on EU rejecting anything sensible, I reread my comment. To clarify:
    – if the vote is “accept the deal or chaos” then it is not meaningful
    – if the vote is “accept the deal, failing that this is our plan” then the vote is meaningful. As a bonus you can look at the marginal gains from the deal, and decide if they are worth whatever money/control it is proposed to pay. You shouldn’t pay anything for gains that you can achieve unilaterally
    – “go and see if the EU will let us back in” is the same as the chaos option as the outcome remains unknown (needless uncertainty has an economic cost), and with such a pathetic negotiating position any entry terms would be abusive

  8. isp – why would we need to be let in? Until we leave we haven’t left, and we aren’t leaving until at least next year.

  9. And that’s presuming the 28 who have to agree to whatever agreement do all agree. If they don’t then doesn’t matter what we want.

  10. Come next march everything terminates (as it should). The public campaign for another referendum on whether we should accept the deal or stay in the EU is dishonest. There is no “stay in the EU” option available to the UK.

    The path to “stay” in the EU is to try and persuade the EU to accept a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice and they would presumably exact a very heavy price for that – especially given the implicit weak negotiating dynamic. I think that negotiating to stay in would be a bad choice, but my primary point is that the public campaign claiming that we should vote to choose between the negotiated deal or just stay in is dishonest.

    The only meaningful vote parliament can have is between choices that are within UK control. Those choices are to accept the deal, or on a series of unilateral changes (e.g. on trade) to optimise the no-deal scenario. Those who campaigned for the vote should be pushing for detail of the no-deal plan.

    I completely agree that people ignore the need for 28 others to vote – which is a further reason to have a clearly articulated no-deal plan now.

  11. “The evidence that this is the case is compelling and largely provided within a UK context by the Conservative Parties contempt for almost everything that upholds democratic rights and traditions”

    So his “evidence” is his unsupported opinion of someone else’s motives?

  12. Which also shows that the EU is just being insane when they claim that regulatory equivalence is impossible – recognise each other and let customers choose who to work with…

    Regulatory equivalence and , presumably , you also mean , mutual recognition, is what we have got. It is possible but it would not be available without the EU and as the EU requires deep interstate cooperation in order to create this freedom those unwilling to pay the cost are not going to get the goodies

    Now this is what we like to call fucking obvious .

  13. It is not obvious to me that there is any good reason to prohibit UK entities from obtaining financial services from EU regulated companies if they wish. Ditto on the reverse.

    What you refer to as “goodies” I would call is my right to trade with whom I wish.

  14. And note mutual recognition does not need regulatory equivalence. Mutual recognition says the other regime is good enough. Regulatory equivalence says that the approach is substantially the same. There are some very fundamental reasons why diversity in regulatory standards can be an extremely good thing for the world.

    e.g. on food the US system is not equivalent to the EU system but that does not imply US food is dangerous. It would make a lot of sense to recognise both the US and EU systems as ensuring a sufficient level of safety and let customers choose.

  15. Murphy means democracy in the same sense that the official country title is ‘The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ – with him in the Kim Jong- un role….

  16. Interstate co-operation Facepainter?

    Like the kind between your German bosses and the Russians on gas deals for the Fatherland?

    The EU are corrupt scum. We are out anyway it goes.

    And the next step will be to settle the accounts of womiccumalobus sell-out dross like yourself.

  17. Some of the US complaints about NAFTA are that Canadian food regulations are effectively protectionist in nature

  18. @isp

    e.g. on food the US system is not equivalent to the EU system but that does not imply US food is dangerous.

    Good example one can easily relate to.

    .
    You mentioned EU rejecting anything sensible again.

    It’s about time May, Davis et al stood up to them and stated “RoI border is not our problem, you are free to do whatever you desire”

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.