advertisement


Vast Brexit thread merge part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
richgilb said:
If you can be arsed to trawl back, I can't, but Jack was a brexiteer until the 11th hour. I think it was mainly a socialist stance of protecting workers' rights. I'm not sure, though. Jack, what was your pro-brexit stance again? Eventually, he felt that brexit was too racist for him, so he jumped ship and started slinging mud the other way. It's a complicated world we live in.

But anyway, if I am right, and it was about protecting workers' rights from them foreigners.....where does that sit in the non-civic-nationalists' agenda, please? Somewhere at the forefront, I believe?

Sorry if I got it wrong, Jack, I don't think you were a racist!
Click to expand...

I have utmost respect for people who can overcome the cognitive dissonance compulsion and change their minds when they are in possession of more of the facts.
 
Colin Barron said:
The smiles on Barnier and the EU team are a worry. It is the smile that says we will continue with the billion a month EU subsidy and have full ECJ control. I could be wrong but the brexit MEPs may be redeployed after the next election in Westminster.
Click to expand...
I'm all in favour of ECJ control. We're in the unfortunate position of living with a government that clearly needs close supervision.
 
“Michel Barnier has set Boris Johnson a midnight deadline to concede to EU demands and agree to a customs border in the Irish Sea or be left with nothing to take to the Commons”.

Them prison camp guards is administering another punishment beating. Aaron banks didn’t build airfix models with one hand and w**** with the other during two imagined wars to take this.
 
ff1d1l said:
Er, yeah, what you said....quick, nurse, the screens...
Click to expand...
722.jpg
 
Steven Toy said:
The problem with nation states as absolute units of sovereignty is they tend to go to war with each other or form alliances which then go to war with other alliances. If you think the current European map (of institutions) looks complicated, try the pre-WW1 map of alliances. The allied countries weren't even joined up with each other in some cases!

This kind of geopolitics was, I suppose, ok in the days of muskets, horses and brightly-coloured uniforms but swap them for machine guns, artillery that can fire from a hundred miles away, tanks, planes, rockets, nukes and camouflage and the nation state sitting on the top of the administrative pile has had its day if we don't want to be blowing ourselves to smithereens.

Some of us realised this mid-way through the 20th Century. Other deluded souls cling on to the old order to this day.

I identify with those who believe in labour, capital, goods and services freely crossing borders instead of soldiers and tanks.

And no, you can't separate out the politics from the economics, unless, of course, you think a race to the bottom on worker, consumer and environmental protections is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I would argue that WW1 was the result of an existential clash of imperial powers in a race for raw materials and the naval dominance required to secure them - Austro-Hungary, Russia, Britain and France - and a complex web of alliances, primarily between those empires, Japan, an expansive Germany, Serbia and Belgium.

Bernard Connolly, a pro-Brexit economist and ex-EU Commissioner, compares the EU directly with with Austro-Hungarian empire as an 'Anarcho-imperial' construct, specifically for its absence of proper democratic accountability, indeed absence of a true 'demos', and its centralisation of power within the EU élite, and further points out that, in its drive to become the sole political entity of its member states it is denying the peoples of those states their own political identities, thereby forcing them to search for an identity elsewhere. He surmises that there is an absolute inevitability of that search becoming focussed upon something that they are not - that they are Swedish, and not Somalian, to take an example. He blames this form of resurgent nationalism squarely upon the power grab of the EU through the successive treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon.

richgilb said:
If you can be arsed to trawl back, I can't, but Jack was a brexiteer until the 11th hour. I think it was mainly a socialist stance of protecting workers' rights. I'm not sure, though. Jack, what was your pro-brexit stance again? Eventually, he felt that brexit was too racist for him, so he jumped ship and started slinging mud the other way. It's a complicated world we live in.

But anyway, if I am right, and it was about protecting workers' rights from them foreigners.....where does that sit in the non-civic-nationalists' agenda, please? Somewhere at the forefront, I believe?

Sorry if I got it wrong, Jack, I don't think you were a racist!
Click to expand...

Jack was pro-Corbyn, and pro-Brexit because he thought that there were too many foreigners competing for jobs, homes and services in London. He wasn't racist though.
 
eternumviti said:
I would argue that WW1 was the result of an existential clash of imperial powers in a race for raw materials and the naval dominance required to secure them - Austro-Hungary, Russia, Britain and France - and a complex web of alliances, primarily between those empires, Japan, an expansive Germany, Serbia and Belgium.

Bernard Connolly, a pro-Brexit economist and ex-EU Commissioner, compares the EU directly with with Austro-Hungarian empire as an 'Anarcho-imperial' construct, specifically for its absence of proper democratic accountability, indeed absence of a true 'demos', and its centralisation of power within the EU élite, and further points out that, in its drive to become the sole political entity of its member states it is denying the peoples of those states their own political identities, thereby forcing them to search for an identity elsewhere. He surmises that there is an absolute inevitability of that search becoming focussed upon something that they are not - that they are Swedish, and not Somalian, to take an example. He blames this form of resurgent nationalism squarely upon the power grab of the EU through the succesive treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon.



Jack was pro-Corbyn, and he thought that there were too many foreigners competing for jobs, homes and services in London. He wasn't racist though.
Click to expand...
But was he a nationalist?
 
Bernard Connolly sounds like the love child of Bernard Manning (not Mathews) and Billy Connolly.

From memory, B Manning was racist.
 
Mogg is considering cancelling this Saturday’s Parliamentary sitting. The Tories seem to be incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery since Cameron won a majority. “Britain - a country you won’t want to do business in”.
 
thebigfredc said:
Bernard Connolly sounds like the love child of Bernard Manning (not Mathews) and Billy Connolly.

From memory, B Manning was racist.
Click to expand...
Yeah Bernard Manning used to say it was just an act but there is a moment on Mrs Merton where he said he was racist and did not follow up with punchline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top