• PRE should be functioning as per usual. Please email admin@puntroadend.com to report anything odd that is occuring over the next few days as we settle a few database issues.

Brexited

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
The Guardian notes:

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said: “This evening the Brexit secretary voted against his government’s own motion on Brexit, which earlier in the day he had defended in the House of Commons. That’s the equivalent of the chancellor voting against his own budget. This is a government that has completely lost control.”

Labour’s divisions over Brexit were also clearly on display, however. The party whipped its MPs to abstain on an amendment calling for a second referendum – but 24 Labour MPs defied the whips to vote for it; and 17 rebelled to vote against, including several frontbenchers.
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
antman said:
Corbyn still ten points down in the polls... they are a mess as well.

Yes, the Referendum was technically advisory and non-binding (as a matter of law), but David Cameron etc promised it would be fulfilled, so it's mixed messages there as well. Interestingly given the illegality of the Leave campaign, if it had been legal and binding the result would have been revoked! But as an "advisory" there is nothing to revoke.

I see this morning parliament has voted overwhelmingly for a motion to extend A50 for three months. But 8 cabinet ministers voted nay!!! Crazy. Will the EU accept an extension? Let's see. You couldn't blame the EU for saying "no, *smile* you, get the *smile* out" at this stage.
People seem to forget, Corbyn comes from a faction of the Labour Party who have Brexit sympathies. Hence why he was quiet as a mouse during the referendum itself and why his leadership is just as rudderless as those on the opposite benches.

Corbyn is from the part of the Labour movement that have old school Socialist to even Communist tendencies. Trade Unions and Labour Party of this ilk were just as protectionist, nationalist and isolationist as the right wing populists in groups such as the BNP and National Front, but with some different motivations and these tendencies manifesting themselves a bit differently (although not always). It was all about protecting the local working class from what they saw as adverse neo-liberal forces of economic globalisation. So while their central motivations may have differed, they end up in the same place as a BNP or National Front right winger on some policies. In actual fact, far-right wing groups, such as the BNP, are mainly made up of people of working class background. This is where the whole exiting the EU movement is not really a partisan issue, it actually crosses traditional political tribalism (conversely, as does the remain cause).

As a local example in Australia, just remember our trade union movement and the attached Australian Labor Party were enthusiastic supporters of the white Australia policy. As it was a way of keeping competition of cheap Asian labour out of the local labour market and protecting against the downward pressure on working class wages that such competition could potentially bring, or indeed, the unemployment of local labour this could contribute to. British Labour and the attached trade union movement in the UK were not dissimilar historically in outlook. Revisionist history tends to gloss over this though. The reason being that history seems to be presented in the simplistic cliches of: left wing = tolerant, accepting, kind, open minded; right wing = nasty, bigoted, closed minded. The reality is that history is far more complex and multifaceted than such a simplistic optic.
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
Very good points PT.

With Brexit you have the weird combination of Eton toffs/disaster capitalists with unreconstructed working class xenophobes... that's a generalisation before anyone gets too offended. It's also rural vs city to some extent.

I think Corbyn and Labour's position on this has been despicable too - he's sat back and waited for the Tories to fall over rather than taking much of an active position against a thing that will damage many of his constituents... but on the other side many Labour seats voted for Leave. Labour is split on this too.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Corbyn and Labour are very much split on this. Corbyn is a bit hard to read on Brexit because he can't really say what he thinks. I would suspect Corbyn is anti-EU because of the neo-liberal policies of the EU. The obvious rejoinder to that position is that you change the EU from the bureaucratically controlled organisation that it is. Then you have Labour policy which I understand is to call for a second referendum. But Corbyn is more interested in forcing an election he hopes to win than in resolving the Brexit issue.

The Tories are just a mess.

Neither side is covered in glory at the moment, neither side, or even the factions within either of the main parties, are working for the best outcome for the UK whether they leave or not. They're all playing politics for their own interests.

The whole thing is a train wreck.

I can't see an extension doing anything except kick the can down the road and we all end up in the same place in a few months. Then, maybe, given a stark choice and a real deadline, parliament will have to decide.

DS
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,447
84
Brisbane
DavidSSS said:
Gia, I'm not a relativist, you're diverting again. How is Praxeology less of a prescriptive ideology than Marxism?

As for so called Anarcho-capitalism, privatising the oppression of the state is the same as keeping the state. Oppression is oppression no matter who dishes it out. Nothing libertarian about it at all, just domination by other means.

DS
Ok so why do you have a problem with a one true answer approach then? You're contradicting yourself again. Praxeology is not an ideology, it is a methodology for discovering knowledge concerning human action. I'm not anti-Marxism because it is an ideology, I'm anti-Marxism because it is wrong. As a theory and in practice it completely fails to deliver what it claims to deliver.


Defence of private property is not oppression. You can argue on what constitutes private property but to argue as you do gives anyone free reign to maim you and kill you as they please. Please answer these two questions: "Is it just to use force to prevent someone from killing you?" and "Why/why not?".
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
antman said:
Very good points PT.

With Brexit you have the weird combination of Eton toffs/disaster capitalists with unreconstructed working class xenophobes... that's a generalisation before anyone gets too offended. It's also rural vs city to some extent.

I think Corbyn and Labour's position on this has been despicable too - he's sat back and waited for the Tories to fall over rather than taking much of an active position against a thing that will damage many of his constituents... but on the other side many Labour seats voted for Leave. Labour is split on this too.
If it goes to a second referendum, do you actually try and beat the Brexit campaign at their own game and court the xenophobic vote by presenting the point that a united Europe is in a much stronger position to ward off external political threats? Namely a resurgent China that is increasingly showing a willingness to throw it's weight around. This has become increasingly apparent over the past couple of years.

Russia is still a thorn in the side. But i think the long game to be increasingly watchful of is China. Despite the bluster, long term, Russia is in terminal decline.
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
And lo it came to pass that the speaker of the house invoked a 16th century law to prevent May from presenting her WA to parliament for the third time.

9 days to go and the UK still a shambles. May to beg the EU for an extension now. They might refuse and say GGF, we don't want you morons any more, here have a big fat No Deal. Tories are in open revolt - they reckon May won't be PM by Saturday.

Meanwhile David Cameron swans it up on the continent pretending it was all worth it.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Giardiasis said:
Ok so why do you have a problem with a one true answer approach then? You're contradicting yourself again. Praxeology is not an ideology, it is a methodology for discovering knowledge concerning human action.
:cutelaugh :duh

Hahahahahaha

This is priceless. You have certainly outdone yourself now: you defend one true answer and then claim your true answer is not ideological. What a farce.

To quote Zizek: " 'ideological' is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence "

Sums you up quite well, see, even Marxists come up with useful insights sometimes. Then again, an easy target is not hard to hit.

So, how do you deliver one true answer if not with coercion? Just like a Marxist, you claim to have the one true answer and everyone else is wrong (gee, maybe they have false consciousness).

Giardiasis said:
I'm not anti-Marxism because it is an ideology, I'm anti-Marxism because it is wrong. As a theory and in practice it completely fails to deliver what it claims to deliver.
Ooh, and another thing Marxism has in common with free market fundamentalism. It fails to deliver except for the rich (for Marxism just substitute the apparatchiks for the rich).

This also raises another point. If you link freedom to property ownership then those who have more property end up with more freedom. If you have no property you have to sell your labour, sell your freedom, to survive. But the owner of property does not need to sell labour to survive and has more freedom. It is a fundamentally screwed up way of making sure we are all free, but some of us are more free than others. As Ayn Rand said: The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Giardiasis said:
Defence of private property is not oppression. You can argue on what constitutes private property but to argue as you do gives anyone free reign to maim you and kill you as they please. Please answer these two questions: "Is it just to use force to prevent someone from killing you?" and "Why/why not?".
That would be one question, a question based on a false premise that somehow people have ownership over themselves. So they are simultaneously the subject and the object of their ownership of themselves. It's like saying I am an object separable from my subjectivity. It's rubbish. Freedom or liberty, at least in my view, is a fundamental right, not some sort of derived right based on property.

And, yes, I do believe I am entitled to use force to defend myself, I am not a pacifist. You need to stop making assumptions and trying to pigeon hole everyone. The point really is that you always need to ask why someone is trying to kill you and work on ways to prevent the situation arising.

So, I answered your question, you still haven't explained how purchasing justice in a free market won't lead to conflicting outcomes. You also haven't answered how private property is either not an enforceable right or, if it is an enforceable right, how it can be enforced without coercion (see above about free market fundamentalism not delivering). Which is it?

But, back to the topic of this thread:

I think if it went to a second referendum remain would likely (likely, far from certain) win. However, the issue is that it is very difficult politically to get to a second referendum. The Tories promised they would be guided by the referendum result, and Labour have a second referendum in their platform but a leader who doesn't really support it and a party which is very split.

I think the best chance of a second referendum would be to put May's deal to the vote, and if it is voted down, then revisit the Brexit decision. Highly unlikely though.

DS
 

spook

It is only the intellectually lost who ever argue.
Jun 18, 2007
11,059
1,156
antman said:
Meanwhile David Cameron swans it up on the continent pretending it was all worth it.
He truly is the Pontious Pilate of this whole sorry mess. The special kind of retarded only a life of private education can deliver.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,066
61
Ireland
It is such a mess. A **** sandwich sold as a good old fashioned chip butty to a public who were hoodwinked into believing that having a smorgasbord to choose from was in fact oppression and that chip butties were all they would ever want or need. (forgetting of course that what was on offer was always a **** sandwich)

In truth Cameron knew it was **** sandwich but he was wanted to shut down the chip butty lobby up so he sent it out to the people. He expected them to recognise the idiotic choice and to vote for the smorgasbord. It would kill the chip butty lobby off and he would be seen as a hero and hopefully no one would notice that everyone was stood exactly where they had been yesterday. He underestimated the capacity of the chip butty lobby to bewilder and befuddle the simple choice.

Corbyn knew it was a **** sandwich all along but saw political gain to be made in calling it a chip butty if asked, but never to broadcast this un-provoked. He dreamed of returning Britain to a land of warm delicious chip butties as far as the eye could see. He thought that the public would eat **** sandwiches for now as long as there was a promise of chip butties to come.

May was handed the **** sandwich. Her decision was that to be considered a strong a tough leader she should eat the **** sandwich and tell everyone how delicious it was, and that everyone could have **** sandwiches and in time would come to agree with her that were in fact delicious and nutritious.

The Irish/Brussels have been stood by watching and saying we have no reason to stop you from eating **** sandwiches if that is what you really want to do, but we are not going to call them chip butties just to make you feel better. And we are not going to tell your people that we think your **** sandwiches are delicious and that our smorgasbord is really not all that. We think our smorgasbord is pretty yummy.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,447
84
Brisbane
DavidSSS said:
you defend one true answer and then claim your true answer is not ideological. What a farce.

To quote Zizek: " 'ideological' is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence "

Sums you up quite well, see, even Marxists come up with useful insights sometimes. Then again, an easy target is not hard to hit.

So, how do you deliver one true answer if not with coercion? Just like a Marxist, you claim to have the one true answer and everyone else is wrong (gee, maybe they have false consciousness).
Libertarianism is an ideology not praxeology. You certainly have a tendency to shoot from the hip, you might want to have a think before you write if you want to stop looking so foolish. You criticise ideology yet you don't even realise you yourself follow ideology. Perfectly fine to think I am wrong and to argue why, but instead you criticise me because I claim to have an answer, yet you seem unaware that claiming to have an answer presupposes that other answers are wrong. So if you think it is wrong to claim to have an answer, then I can't see how you can argue that you aren't a relativist? You seem quite confident you know better than me, yet you haven't demonstrated this. You haven't really articulated what your philosophical standpoint is. It is quite cowardly.

DavidSSS said:
Ooh, and another thing Marxism has in common with free market fundamentalism. It fails to deliver except for the rich (for Marxism just substitute the apparatchiks for the rich).

This also raises another point. If you link freedom to property ownership then those who have more property end up with more freedom. If you have no property you have to sell your labour, sell your freedom, to survive. But the owner of property does not need to sell labour to survive and has more freedom. It is a fundamentally screwed up way of making sure we are all free, but some of us are more free than others. As Ayn Rand said: The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Compare the poorest people in western countries to the poorest people in Marxist countries and your claim here is clearly shown to just be incoherent ramblings. You are so boring DS.

The more productive you are, the more control you are given over resource allocation. Yet for some reason this is a bad thing, and instead it should be replaced with handing over control of resource allocation to non productive people. A sure fire way to send society to impoverishment. We will then all be in bliss, equally dirt poor.

DavidSSS said:
That would be one question, a question based on a false premise that somehow people have ownership over themselves. So they are simultaneously the subject and the object of their ownership of themselves. It's like saying I am an object separable from my subjectivity. It's rubbish. Freedom or liberty, at least in my view, is a fundamental right, not some sort of derived right based on property.

And, yes, I do believe I am entitled to use force to defend myself, I am not a pacifist. You need to stop making assumptions and trying to pigeon hole everyone. The point really is that you always need to ask why someone is trying to kill you and work on ways to prevent the situation arising.

So, I answered your question, you still haven't explained how purchasing justice in a free market won't lead to conflicting outcomes. You also haven't answered how private property is either not an enforceable right or, if it is an enforceable right, how it can be enforced without coercion (see above about free market fundamentalism not delivering). Which is it?
Two questions, the first question was a yes or no answer, the second required more than that. Serious question but can you count? Ok so it is a fundamental right? You haven't really answered what that means and how such a right comes to exist. Can you please elaborate?

I have already told you where to find the answer to the first question. For your second question, I thought this has already been made obvious but what the hell. Yes I think is an enforceable right and yes it is enforced through use of violence otherwise the enforceable part loses its meaning after all. Defending yourself is a tad hard to do without the use of violence DS. Asking someone with a gun to your head why they are trying to kill you is not advisable, you are much better off warding them off with a gun pointed at theirs.
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
Nice work KR.

So May has asked the EU for an extension til June 30 to persuade MPs to vote for the sh!t sandwich again but at the same time told them they were idiots and it's all their fault which you could argue is not good strategy on her part.

Meanwhile JCorb stormed out of a cross party meeting because members of the Independent Group were there. Not very smart either Jeremy.

Rumours that the patience of some of the 27 EU members is growing thin and they'll boot the UK out so it doesn't continue to "infect the EU with its weird politics".

On a more comical note the #marchtoleave from Sunderland to London promoted by Nigel Farage and which cost £50 to join got about 70 mostly elderly participants. Farage saw the sh1t turnout and promptly abandoned it. Meanwhile the poor punters who paid to March struggle on
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,066
61
Ireland
antman said:
Nice work KR.

So May has asked the EU for an extension til June 30 to persuade MPs to vote for the sh!t sandwich again but at the same time told them they were idiots and it's all their fault which you could argue is not good strategy on her part.

Meanwhile JCorb stormed out of a cross party meeting because members of the Independent Group were there. Not very smart either Jeremy.

Rumours that the patience of some of the 27 EU members is growing thin and they'll boot the UK out so it doesn't continue to "infect the EU with its weird politics".

On a more comical note the #marchtoleave from Sunderland to London promoted by Nigel Farage and which cost £50 to join got about 70 mostly elderly participants. Farage saw the sh1t turnout and promptly abandoned it. Meanwhile the poor punters who paid to March struggle on
Cheers mate. I work for a company that had started water down its admin in Dublin, with most going to Serbia but some to London. We have guys who have to cross the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland every day. No one knows what will happen when Brexit lands and Management are pretending it isn't an issue. Fun times.
 

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
861
130
Was told a story about Corbyn yesterday
He once gave a speech at the Europarliament, as part of a campaign . And there is a significant number of poms there. This was pre Brexit.
Not one mention of Europe in 30mins.
He just doesnt seem to care about it.

The moral was Brexit doesnt float his boat
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Aah Gia, showing your limited ability to see more than 2 views on any issue. If you ain't a free market fundy you must be a socialist, if you don't allocate resources to the so-called "productive" then you must be arguing to allocate to the unproductive. It must be nice to live in such a black and white universe, very reassuring for the small minded.

I'm not the one claiming my ideology is not ideology, you are the one doing that. Praxeology is ideology. Am I ideological? Gee, does the Sun rise in the East? Whaddaya reckon?

Economic power does not come from productivity, it comes from ownership of resources. Are you seriously claiming that imbalances in resource ownership is all down to productivity? What a joke. I assume from this that inheritance should be outlawed as that is gaining property not through any productivity, or even mixing the property with your labour. By the way, nice straw man there about how I'm suddenly advocating for resources to be allocated to the non-productive, I didn't even realise I said it.

I would have thought the right to freedom for humans was something most people could agree on. But, hey, never assume morals from the far right. Sorry, should have known better.

When's the next screw up on Brexit due, was at the footy so haven't seen the news, how are the UK going with asking for an extension on their assignment?

DS
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
KnightersRevenge said:
Cheers mate. I work for a company that had started water down its admin in Dublin, with most going to Serbia but some to London. We have guys who have to cross the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland every day. No one knows what will happen when Brexit lands and Management are pretending it isn't an issue. Fun times.
No Deal would be a disaster as it means a hard border between NI/ROI. So **** for business and a good chance to kick off new sectarian violence.

Meanwhile May presses on regardless.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,447
84
Brisbane
DavidSSS said:
Aah Gia, showing your limited ability to see more than 2 views on any issue. If you ain't a free market fundy you must be a socialist, if you don't allocate resources to the so-called "productive" then you must be arguing to allocate to the unproductive. It must be nice to live in such a black and white universe, very reassuring for the small minded.
I think the fundamental question for how to categorise someone's political beliefs is to what extent they believe violence can be justified. The whole left/right divide is a bit of a furphy because it suggests the left is the opposite to the right, but really both the right and the left justify violence outside the scope of defense of private property. They just justify its use in different ways. I accept that people exhibit a differing degree as to how far they believe violence can be justified hence there is a big difference between a communist or a national socialist and someone that believes the vast majority of libertarian tenants except perhaps that a government should control national defense. However fundamentally once someone deviates from the non aggression principle, then they are accepting of socialist ideas. Someone can either be productive in the sense that they contribute more to the productive capacity of the economy or unproductive in the sense that they consume the productive capacity of an economy. If you want to dispute the fact that productive and unproductive are by definition the opposite of each other, then by all means please explain this. Labeling it as small minded is not an argument.

DavidSSS said:
I'm not the one claiming my ideology is not ideology, you are the one doing that. Praxeology is ideology. Am I ideological? Gee, does the Sun rise in the East? Whaddaya reckon?
Praxeology is not an ideology, it is a methodology just like how the empirical method of hypothesis testing is not an ideology but a methodology. Perhaps pick up a dictionary?

DavidSSS said:
Economic power does not come from productivity, it comes from ownership of resources. Are you seriously claiming that imbalances in resource ownership is all down to productivity? What a joke. I assume from this that inheritance should be outlawed as that is gaining property not through any productivity, or even mixing the property with your labour. By the way, nice straw man there about how I'm suddenly advocating for resources to be allocated to the non-productive, I didn't even realise I said it.
Economic power can not be maintained if the holder of such power does not continue to satisfy consumer demand. If they do not, they will lose their economic power to those that can better satisfy consumer demand. It is a common mistake that people that do not understand economics make, they can't get their minds out of looking at economics as static. It is perhaps the most dynamic process in existence. No I'm not suggesting that, there are a fair number of people that have successfully used government power to transfer wealth to themselves using the government's monopoly on violence, such as politicians, bureaucrats, corporate groups, lobby groups, unions, bankers, etc. This involves the theft of resources from productive uses to unproductive uses.

DavidSSS said:
I would have thought the right to freedom for humans was something most people could agree on. But, hey, never assume morals from the far right. Sorry, should have known better.
The problem is people have a different understanding of what freedom means. I've asked you to explain the philosophical basis for your understanding of it because it is in stark contrast to my understanding of it. Fair enough if you can't answer that, but then seriously shut the **** up telling me how right you are and how wrong I am.

Lol, the far right, dear oh dear.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
Looks like the EU is giving them limited time, hardly surprising, they could well do without all this crap.

The Irish border is a huge issue. I think the only solution is for the UK to allow an open border in Ireland and effectively move the border to between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. It is not a good solution but the alternatives look even worse.

DS
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
DavidSSS said:
Looks like the EU is giving them limited time, hardly surprising, they could well do without all this crap.

The Irish border is a huge issue. I think the only solution is for the UK to allow an open border in Ireland and effectively move the border to between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. It is not a good solution but the alternatives look even worse.

DS
Yes, except then you have NI as part of the Single market/customs union which is fine by me but not sure if the rabid Brexiters will go for that. Brexit as presented by the Leavers was always an unobtainable unicorn.

Compare the EU yesterday - 27 countries in a quick huddle,looked at the UK's request, summed up the options, agreed to give an extension in a day. The UK has May berating her parliamentarians for not approving a shitty deal that it took her two years to cobble together.

 

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
1,161
462
Melbourne
I agree the Brexiteers are unlikely to make Northern Ireland an exception, but it is really hard to see any other alternative if they want to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

They were sold a pup with Brexit, and those who sold it are not interested in picking up the pieces.

If May's deal goes down again (if they get it on the parliamentary agenda again) and they don't revoke Article 50 it is looking like a no deal Brexit is quite a possibility. That means a hard boder somewhere.

What a mess.

DS