rigorousintuition.ca

FourthBase » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:42 am wrote:

JackRiddler » 21 Jun 2016 08:06 wrote:This is rough! I wouldn't want this choice. (Who would?) Of course it's binary nonsense. Distorted democracy at work, as usual. As a Greek, what's not to like about a blow against the EU that might facilitate Greece's escape from its stranglehold down the line? But the main force in the leave coalition is obviously not "left" but resides with the worst people politically, who will be empowered to go hog-wild and treat it as a big win for racism and anti-immigration. UK will lose the EU limits on hypercapitalism (which it has, alongside the neoliberal management) and no doubt go straight into TTIP and worse. I can see the argument that Cameron would want it, if only it didn't spell the end of Cameron's tenure. And Boris? I'll defer to the smart people here from the UK who are arguing against Brexit. Also, while personal impressions shouldn't over-figure, Corbyn's a lot easier for me trust than... Sanders!

Interesting window into your decision-making process, which turns out to be so devoid of principle that it's also just as interesting a window into your conniving commie soul.

82_28 » 21 Jun 2016 09:57 wrote:Huh?

FourthBase » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:11 am wrote:

82_28 » 21 Jun 2016 09:57 wrote:Huh?

His choice was based on nothing but ideological loyalty and political gamesmanship. He's even willing to throw his hometown under the bus, after a reluctant shrug.

Yeah but you called Jack a "conniving commie soul". Why? There are three words contained in that snippet which have "loaded" shall we say, meanings. It reeks of contempt and not constructiveness (I don't know whether there is anything to construct though). Jack can be a dick fo shizz but he brings something to the fabled table that we gather around and break bread.

FourthBase » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:23 am wrote:

Yeah but you called Jack a "conniving commie soul". Why? There are three words contained in that snippet which have "loaded" shall we say, meanings. It reeks of contempt and not constructiveness (I don't know whether there is anything to construct though). Jack can be a dick fo shizz but he brings something to the fabled table that we gather around and break bread.

Which of those three words is inapplicable? At least I'm conceding him a soul. Not a trivial concession, some have none. A propagandist's soul rather than a truthseeker's, but still.

You're right, I do feel contempt for Jack, deep contempt. Used to feel deep respect. Not so much of that anymore. Case in point, above. The gist as I perceive it: "Brexit could be a miracle of popular dissent that eventually leads to freedom from EU tyranny for my beloved, beleaguered, hopeless homeland, but I'd rather not see any right wing assholes ever feel confident and I'd rather not see a single state reject the economic control of a centralized international government and I'd rather follow the lead of the leader with the purest ideological bona fides." Am I wrong, lol?

82_28 » 21 Jun 2016 11:34 wrote:

FourthBase » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:23 am wrote:

Yeah but you called Jack a "conniving commie soul". Why? There are three words contained in that snippet which have "loaded" shall we say, meanings. It reeks of contempt and not constructiveness (I don't know whether there is anything to construct though). Jack can be a dick fo shizz but he brings something to the fabled table that we gather around and break bread.

Which of those three words is inapplicable? At least I'm conceding him a soul. Not a trivial concession, some have none. A propagandist's soul rather than a truthseeker's, but still.

You're right, I do feel contempt for Jack, deep contempt. Used to feel deep respect. Not so much of that anymore. Case in point, above. The gist as I perceive it: "Brexit could be a miracle of popular dissent that eventually leads to freedom from EU tyranny for my beloved, beleaguered, hopeless homeland, but I'd rather not see any right wing assholes ever feel confident and I'd rather not see a single state reject the economic control of a centralized international government and I'd rather follow the lead of the leader with the purest ideological bona fides." Am I wrong, lol?

Why? Why incite shit? Everyone knows "commie" is an insult that holds no credence to just about everything there is under the sun. It shows a lack of knowledge of history.

FourthBase » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:11 pm wrote: He's not a tankie, of course, that kind of communist is so boring and tacky, but 50 years ago his positions on pretty much everything probably would have just so happened to align with those of the Soviet Union.

This is shockingly ignorant. Even for FourthBase.

American Dream wrote:This is shockingly ignorant. Even for FourthBase.

Whatever the result of the Brexit referendum on Thursday, of one thing we can be sure: Britain will neither be invaded by marauding Turks, as anti-EU campaigners suggest might happen if the country votes ‘Yes’, nor will Western civilization collapse, as EU president Donald Tusk fears after a ‘No’ vote. There will undoubtedly be economic and political turbulence, but Britain will not be staring into the abyss, however it votes.

But, if the world will not end for Britain, neither will the key issues at the heart of the Brexit debate have been resolved – or even properly addressed. Hostility to the EU, not just in Britain, but throughout Europe, has been driven by frustrations about democracy and resentment about immigration. The Remain (pro-EU) campaign, recognizing that it has few answers, has largely avoided both issues, focusing almost entirely on economic arguments. Leave (anti-EU) campaigners have been equally opportunistic in the way they have addressed questions of democracy and immigration.

Many EU supporters dismiss the charge that the EU is undemocratic, pointing to the existence of the European parliament whose members are elected by all EU citizens. This is not only to overstate the influence of MEPs on policy making, it is also to miss the point about popular resentment. The reason that people see the EU as undemocratic is not because they don’t think they can vote in EU elections. It is because that they feel that despite their vote, they have little say in the major decisions that shape their lives.

Any Parliament has to represent a particular demos. There is, though, no European demos. The EU is an attempt to create a demos from top down, where none exists from bottom up. That is why people feel little sense of the European Parliament as representative, and resent the bureaucratic process through which policy is made.

Other EU supporters argue that without such an elitist project it would be impossible to respond effectively to major crises such as climate change or global recession. This at least has the merit being honest in accepting that the value of the EU lies in its ability to bypass democratic process in the name of the greater good.

The trouble is, whenever the EU has faced a major crisis, it has not only failed to respond in a coherent fashion, but its eventual incoherent response has rarely enhanced the common good. During the Eurozone crisis, the EU prevaricated for months, before undercutting democracy in Greece through the imposition of the ‘troika’, comprising the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the IMF, which effectively took control of economic and social policy, and enforced an eye-watering austerity programme, including slashing pensions, cutting wages, raising taxes, laying off workers and privatising swathes of the economy, the aim of which was to bail out not Greece but the European banks that had lent to Greece.

Or consider the migration crisis. After months of political paralysis, the EU eventually responded – by absolving itself of responsibility. It stitched together a series of deals with non-EU countries such as Turkey, Sudan, Jordan and Niger, promising them huge sums of money for detaining potential migrants to the EU. Sickened by the immorality of these deals, the charity Médecins Sans Frontières last week refused all EU funding, observing that it could not take money ‘from institutions and governments whose policies do so much harm’

The EU’s consistent failure in the face of such crises is not because it is shackled by the democratic process, as some suggest, but because it lacks a democratic mandate for its decisions, and so is often politically paralyzed.