Brexit: the rotting corpse of a unicorn

Undermined

Well first let’s have some background information on the video

Douglas Murray “has been described as a conservative, a neoconservative and a critic of Islam Murray's views and ideology have been described as being proximate to the far-right by a number of academic and journalistic sources and he has been accused of promoting far-right conspiracy theories and for being Islamophobic The author has been linked to the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web”, a loosely affiliated group of intellectuals who are critical of social justice and identity politics”

He is very much part of the British establishment.

He is introduced as an associate editor for the Spectator, the Spectator is a right wing magazine owned by the tax dodging Barclay brothers and is basically used by them to retain and funnel money to right wing journalists and politicians, for example Boris Johnson. It is extremely pro-Brexit and has for years attacked the EU.

Peter Robinson is someone else described as a neoconservative who was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan and George Bush, again someone that is very much part of the US right wing political establishment.

Uncommon Knowledge – is funded by the right wing Hoover Institute that is funded by a number of wealth sponsored right wing foundations

*

So it’s got a definite bias, it’s a right winger been interviewed by a right winger on a right wing show – it’s worse than Fox New as it’s seems to want to claim that it is serious discussion where it is no such thing. There is no serious analysis or criticism of what is been said just acceptance of what is often just open and unsubstantiated waffle. Douglas would be crucified by anyone with who had an objective viewpoint and a scintiller of knowledge on the subjects presented, instead he gets a free pass because this is right wing propaganda not serious debate.

Sorry Undermined but if you take this seriously then you are falling for the right wing con game, please start looking beyond simplistic propaganda.

 

undermined

What are you basing this on?

You will need to explain this as I’m not sure what you are trying to get at or what you basis for it is?

What is the self centered human behavior that won't go away

What benefits are you talking about?

Again can you please explain what you mean?

Sorry but I really don’t understand what you are wanting to say.

What has the British Empire and Russia go to do with the EU?

What do you mean by the term ‘bystander’?

 

Undermined

What immigration are you talking about?

In relation to EU migrants studies showed they didn’t take away jobs from UK workers and actually contributed more into the system than taking out.

As to migration from outside the EU that was always under UK control and had nothing to do with the EU

We do have migration from other countries usually linked to the UK by the historical ties of Empire, the biggest groups are Indian and Pakistani, this migration is unaffected by EU entry.

Many analysists believe that if the number of immigrants coming from EU countries drop then the numbers from outside the EU are likely to rise.

 

Listen to what Douglas is saying. The message is what is important and not the messenger. British Conservatives are more like a U.S moderate. In the U.S ,the two parties only differ on ,Immigration and Minimum wage and not so much womens rights anymore Which ever conglomerate funds their election sets the policy for the country while they serve their term.

It's funny you criticize FOX but CNN is just a infomercial for a Covid vaccine. The DNC hired CNN news hosts for a reward for loyalty. Bill Clinton got speaking payments from the financial sector for releasing gov oversight. What did Obama get dropped in his lap?

If you don't know what Soft Money is you can't have a discussion about world affairs.Do you know what a NGO is?

I suppose it is unknown why Britain wanted colonies and what their purpose to Britain was? This would be a benefit/privilege/entitlement to the British at large.

 

Undermined

Again it would be better if you answered the questions put to you already without raising new ones otherwise people will begin to think you haven’t got any answers.

I did and its waffle – what do you think of what he talks about is important and clear, what is the message in your opinion– maybe we could start there?

The messenger in many ways dictates the message, if the messenger is honest you are likely to get honesty, but if the messenger is duplicitous you are likely to be misled

In what way - can you please explain your thinking?

Again not sure what this is meant to do with Brexit?

I was pointing out that just like Fox News the Uncommon Knowledge was right wing propaganda and that in fact it seemed worse to me because people already know that Fox is right wing and pushes propaganda while someone might not realise Uncommon Knowledge was doing the same.

So are you saying you are unable to explain what you mean by it?

Non-governmental Organisation – so what?

So do you have a point?

And what has it to do with the EU?

Again what are you talking about?

 

Undermined

If you are talking about the British imperal period – I have just recently posted something in another thread which I’ll repeat here.

The British (or rather English) Empire was one of the biggest and wealthiest in history and many on the right of UK politics us that to bolster ideas of English exceptionalism and greatness (many claim that this English nationalism and ideas of exceptionalism was and is the driving force behind Brexit).

But when you look more closely at what the empire was based on and who benefited from it and it becomes more difficult to defend it and the time it was around as ‘great’. What underpinned the founding and to a great extent drove the expansion of the empire was exploitation, both within Britain and its holdings. The great amount of money that came from slavery, both in the selling of people and in working them. In India as just the largest exemplar millions died due to British neglect or mismanagement and the country impoverished by those whose only desire was to squeeze as much money as they could from their position and the native peoples to send back home.

As to the British Isles it should be remembered that this was the time of the works of Dickens, with its work houses and child exploitation and that in the time of the English empire millions of Irish and Scots fled the country in search of better lives.

Wealth was confined to a few the majority of Britain’s lived in poverty (it has been argued that one reason why we didn’t import large numbers of African slaves into the UK was because it was cheaper to exploit the British poor).

Much is pontificated by right wingers on Britain been the home of the mother of Parliament as if Britain had somehow always been ‘democratic’ and its governments had always work in the interests of the British people, that is far from the truth.

A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million and even after agitation for reform by 1831 it had only increased to 366,000 in fact at the time of the third Reform Act in 1884, Britain was less democratic than many other countries in Europe. It wasn’t really until the empire was declining and beginning to cost more than it made that the British people got the voting power to actually gain from its existence even if they had wanted to, in other words the English Empire was never a great thing for the British people.

 

I'm mostly posting to the OP and any one that is interested in the subject. Even if you don't agree with what I state you will still know the opposing side of the subject.

In my opinion, a major force that drives Germany so liberal is so they do not host the next world war in their country. I don't think it's prudent to try to base national security on softmoney but that's their strategy. Britain collectively disagrees but without imperialism, they have to have treaties to have a part in international issues. Britain built two of the biggest aircraft carries but can't afford the planes to go on them.The carriers are built to be compatible with U.S fighters though. This makes the UK's carriers basically 'plug and play' with U.S hardware if they are both involved in the same conflict. The EU is taking a stand against Russia about the treatment of Alexey Navalny. Are the smaller EU members going to? No! It's up to Germany to do the dirty work and deal with the Russians. The EU does help organize the smaller European countries with Germany and not a aggressive Russia.

I don't think Britain should have ever been in the EU because they collectively don't want to be part of Europe. Back in the day of the British Empire, everything was a issue of 'The Balance of Power' to favor Britain but now this is not the case. The British ;in any event, feel that the EU does not benefit them fairly so they wanted out. Island Nations have a built in National Security measure of the ocean so their attitudes are different. The EU was not the way to deal with their 'back yard'.

 

You are funny matey - had a good laugh at your latest contribution. So the Germans are going to deal with the Russians ??? Hmmm - just like they did at Stalingrad ??? or like they did at Kursk ???

 

Undermined

But your opposing view seems confused, lacking in substance and ill thought through as can be seen by your complete inability to answer any questions on it.

Just throwing stuff out doesn’t make it a viable argument. Just giving a opposing view doesn’t mean that view is worthwhile giving - looking at black and claiming it is white just to be giving an alternative viewpoint doesn’t make it white.

Sorry if you don't even understand or believe in your argument - why are you giving us it?

*

.

What the hell does that mean? Have you ever heard of NATO?

You keep repeating softmoney softmoney softmoney - but you seem unable to explain what you mean - your refusal to do so makes me think you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

What does Britain ‘collectively disagree’ with?

Well dah - that its the most idioltic statement of the bloody obvious about ANY country - what are you going on about?

Well again dah - NATO

As are many countries - so what?

Do you even hear yourself - The EU is taking a stand - but members in the EU are not.

You seem to be calling both heads AND tails

But we are part of Europe - oh there are little Englanders and English right wing nationals that would like to move the country somewhere else but that's not going to happen.

Yes there are little Englanders and English right wing nationals that do not want to be part of the EU - and they lied and cheated to pull the UK out - but as many warned that was not a good idea.

Again I’m really not sure what you are going on about and I suspect you don’t either.

Many people in the UK were bamboozled by wealth sponsored propaganda into supporting a Brexit which would work against their and their country’s best interests.

What the hell are you going on about - do you even know?

What do you mean by ‘back yard’?

 

The identity argument is often brought up by Brexit supporters

The problem si that none of the people that bring it up seem able to answer the question that immediately come to mind

1 - What do they mean by British identity?

2 - What has this got to do with the EU?

What do they mean by British identity?

Although the people who say it don’t seem able to explain what they mean by British identity they do often seem to give hints of what they think it shouldn't be - for example undermined post an interview with a far right islamophobe and my old friend Booze calling the English capital Londonistan and claiming to be shocked by the number of people there with brown and black faces.

So there seems to be an ethnic and religious dimension and also such people often link to right wing groups and people that talk of an assault on ‘liberal’ European or British values. The problem with this for me is that many of the people putting forward such arguments are the same kind of people that at other times attack ‘liberal’ views and idea and if anything lean toward the authoritarian. It’s like the MAGA hatted in the US claiming to be defend liberal democracy by trying to destroy it.

So back to the ethnic and religious dimensions - so if this is about trying to somehow ‘save’ white British and religious identity the question immediately jumps forward - What do they mean by that?

According to the last census the UK was made up of 87.1% people that thought of themselves as white. I once read some far righter who claimed that white people were been drowned in a tidal wave of non-whites. I don’t think you can call just 13% a tidal wave?

But anyway if the identity they wish to save is about skin colour, how do they intend to ‘save’ it? The vast majority of people with brown and black skin in Britain are British, if they declare only white people can be British what are they going to do with those British people that are not white skinned?

Then you come to religion and the right wings seeming obsession with Islam. The UK’s official religion is Christianity but the thing is that most people in the UK are not that religious we celebrate those Christian festivals we enjoy celebrating Christmas for presents, Easter for chocolate maybe Strove Tuesday for pancakes and many people like a good wedding but the rest of the time we don’t give it much thought. Chritianity to me does not seem a strong brand identity for most British, who on the whole are more secular than religious. There are some people that do take their Christian beliefs more seriously just as there are those that take their Hindu, Jewish or Islamic beliefs more seriously but again there does not seem to be any tidal wave of the religious able to force a mass conversion.

So again if there is no real threat over skin colour or religion what exactly is the identity these people wish to save?

What has this got to do with the EU?

The other leg of the indemnity argument is that whatever that identity is it can somehow be saved by not being part of the European Union.

And again nobody who has presented this argument seems able to explain why.

As I've said, if the identity they are talking and wish to ‘save’ is white skinned and Christian then being a member of the EU seems to have little to do with that or if looked in some ways would seem to help them in their mission.

For example the majority of people coming to stay in Britain from the EU when we were a member of that Union were white and had a Christian background, the Polish and Irish topping the list.

The vast majority of British people with brown and black skin came from other countries usually linked to the UK by the historical ties of Empire. The majority with black skin colour coming from the Caribbean and Africa who by the way have a mainly Christian background and browner skinned people originating from Indian and Pakistani for example (often Hindu and Muslim) - that migration had nothing to do with the EU.

Many analysts believe that if the number of immigrants coming from EU countries drop then the numbers from outside the EU are likely to rise as the result of the need to fill gaps in the job market, although the shrinkage of the economy due to Covid and Brexit might affect the numbers.

Conclusion

Basically the identity argument is a red herring a none argument that really doesn’t hold water when looked at - but it is a way that right wing pundits and politicians use to muddy the water and bamboozle the unwary and ill informed.

 

A classic con

Sorry but how do those that supported leaving the EU and who are now saying that it might be bad now but in 10- 20 -50 years Brexit will have benefits reconcile that position when not long ago it was all about the UK reaping huge benefits from leaving the EU immediately.

Isn’t this the classic con game –

The Conman gets someone to sign up to a contract for no fee on the promise that by doing so they will make a fortune – later they come back and explain that by the terms of the contract you have to hand over a third of your income – but everything is going to be OK because you will make a fortune in a couple of years – after two years you are still paying and they say that everything is on track to pay out in five years but y the terms of the contract you now need to pay them half your income. And so on and so on for years until the conman retires to the Bahamas.

The thing is that people that fall into such cons do keep paying because they can’t admit to been fooled or having more hope than expectation.

If your mother was approached by such conmen wouldn’t you call the police – because such things are a crime.

What is worse here is to imagine you try to help your mother before she signed up - explained it was a con and got experts in to explain it was a con only to see her sign up anyway.

 

To the Brexit supporters

If you don’t think you are being manipulated - imagine this - what if the whole Brexit idea had come from the left wing and not pushed by the far right and wealthy interests.

Do you think the right wing press would be going so easy on all the crap caused by Brexit so far?

I could see the Sun headline ‘THIS STINKS’ over a photo of rotting fish, every day the stories being buried on page six would be on the front page, BREXIT FAILURE, repeated over and over.

This is how they pulled your strings to bring about Brexit and are now desperately trying to keep you in the dark over its cost.

 

Balbus

I absolutely applaud your continued efforts here. Some of the responses given to your questions and comments are comedy genius on the part of the other contributors.

What have we gained? Not a single positive thing

What have we lost? International respect. Any form of internal cohesion. Most likely the Union. On a day to day basis, money. Everyday items are more expensive already. This will continue unfortunately.

As you have already pointed out, Brexit was based on a lie. A huge lie. A lie that was painted on the side of buses. A lie propagated by a man who despite lying about Brexit and constantly bemoaning Europe was then made Foreign Secretary. It boggles the mind.

 

Longstone

Thank you for your support

It is quite amazing to just go through the list of things that leavers said would be positives about Brexit that are now clearly negatives

Of course the frustrating thing about it is that so many leavers warned them that they would be negatives.

But sad to say we have what we have, I can only cry tears at the damage that has been done and will be done and move on

As once a remainer I’m now a rejoiner

To me re-joining seems inevitable because all the pressures that made us join the first time are still there – but how long and what hardships we might have to go through before then could be immense.

 

You’re most welcome.

That period before the inevitable rejoin should terrify us all. Unfortunately, the presence of Covid means that so many of the leaver deceivers will blame any hardships on that rather than Brexit

 

Longstone

Yes at times in darkened moments brought on by lockdown and too much Netflix I’m afraid that things might not go well at all because there seem to be those that would prefer to burn this place down to the ground than accept what will need to be done.

*

They would be happy to see the union end so we could lose Scotland and possibly Ireland leaving a rump state which given our dysfunctional democratic system would basically become a one party state controlled by a right wing English Nationalist Party.

This is likely to look in rather than out and blame others for its woes, think of a neoliberal Castro Cuba or Hoxha Albania.

Inequality would grow even wider, public services cut even deeper and the movement toward crony capitalism even greater and even authoritarianism could be contemplated.

And with legitimate funds of money drying up for the City it is likely to turn to even more illegitimate ones (a Putin style mafia state anyone?)

*

People might say that’s just fantasy – but to them I’d say we are living in a fantasy - Brexit was a fantasy – we are living in that fantasy - (although as i said the unicorn was dead on arrival) and there are those out there that just like the Maga hats that stormed the Capital in the name of another fantasy they are also willing to take some bad decisions to defend it.

 

To understand where we need to go we need to understand how we got here (this is going to be basic to cut down on length but I can expand any part if anyone wishes me to)

*

As I’ve written at length in the Brexit thread - - many people (especially in the establishment) joined the European Project the wrong reasons, but very pressing reasons.

I say European Project and not European Union because the EU is just the latest incarnation of the ‘ever increasing union’ that the European Project was created to produce, and that is the thing that many don’t understand or have been told.

To sign up to the European Project a country was by the declaration of the original charter (often repeated) was joining up to ‘ever closer union’, basically to Winston Churchill’s idea of a United States of Europe.

*

Britain after WWII could not stand economically alone - although many, especially in the establishment thought it could by caring on with the Empire (even when it morphed into the Commonwealth) but that was a really a fantasy. The reality was that the US had forced Britain to open the old Empire to foreign trade and the world preferred to buy American (and later German and Japanese) not British.

The British government had spurned the emerging European project because of the fantasy it could stand alone, but as reality imposed itself and that fantasy crumbled many in government began to realise that to survive economically it needed to join the Project.

But De Gaulle didn’t think the English (especially in the establishment) were actually committed to the European Project and vetoed our entry and he was basically right, the impetus for many for joining the Project was not commitment to the ideals of that Project, they were purely economic.

The UK government kept trying and eventually we gained entry and it worked we got the economic boost that the UK needed we even pushed the project to increase economic integration beyond a customs union and into a single market (Thatcher’s dream)

But the outlook between many in Britain (especially the English establishment) and other states within the union especially in France and Germany was very different. In many ways the English establishment was basically carrying on with the fantasy that Britain was ‘carrying on alone’ we might push for economic integration for purely selfish reasons we were not champions of ‘ever closer union’, and instead constantly trying to opt out all other types of integration for example opting out of the Schengen agreement, opting out of the Euro zone and opting out of payment to things we didn’t want to pay for while at the same time putting up resistant to many environmental and social regulations.

I remember talking to a friend about this many years before Brexit after I had lived in both France and Greece what you got from British politicians that was to so pronounced in other European countries was how much they would go on about ‘global Britain’ and Britain’s position in the world, without any acknowledgement that a lot of that economic and political clout was down to our membership of the European Project.

The British (or at least the English) were constantly been taught that all the benefits that EU membership gave the UK were Britain’s alone while supposed problems (real or imaginary) were totally the fault of that membership.

A large group of the English establishment were perpetuating the same fantasy that had deluded them before we joined the project, the same fantasy that had collapsed in the face of reality and brought about our entry into the project.

The lack of any real push back against the fantasy (until far too late) meant many where conned into believing it and hence Brexit - the thing that had pushed back against the fantasy in the 1950’s had been reality and that reality has not gone away so once again the fantasy is going to come up against reality, hence the likelihood of us one day re-joining.

*

But next time we have to actually sign up to the European Project we can’t just be asking for membership because economic expediency has forces us to, because in that case I’m not even sure we’d be allowed to re-join, no next time we have to join as Europeans.

I think many Scots and at least some Northern Irish consider themselves Europeans as do a higher proportion of the young – to me the ones that really have to be convinced are the English.

 

WOW the rotting corpse of a unicorn. You might be making children cry.
On the other hand is it too late to start a BBQ? "Love and Peace, Love and Peace"