European Union Referendum

[TheMinsterman]

It hasn't. What caused a fuss was him calling people racist for pointing out that grown men in their 20s and 30s were patently not 'children'.

Actually he stated "the treatment by some towards these young refugees is hideously racist and utterly heartless". He never said "all people" were racist for rejecting immigration, they decided that all by themselves.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Actually he stated "the treatment by some towards these young refugees is hideously racist and utterly heartless". He never said "all people" were racist for rejecting immigration, they decided that all by themselves.

He said what you quoted him as saying, but he also Tweeted at people directly calling them racist for pointing out to him that many of these 'children' are clearly not children. He also tweeted about a child migrant actually being a government worker that turned out to be bollocks as well.

Well if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

To pass the duck test the comments in question would need to be racist, in reality they could just as easily have been made by an egalitarian. The "racist" accusation is becoming the go-to weaponized word for anyone who's offended by any position even vaguely related to race or ethnicity, and while the calls for him to be fired are obviously ridiculous, I'm glad he got called out on his bullshit.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

He said what you quoted him as saying, but he also Tweeted at people directly calling them racist for pointing out to him that many of these 'children' are clearly not children. He also tweeted about a child migrant actually being a government worker that turned out to be bollocks as well.

To pass the duck test the comments in question would need to be racist, in reality they could just as easily have been made by an egalitarian. The "racist" accusation is becoming the go-to weaponized word for anyone who's offended by any position even vaguely related to race or ethnicity, and while the calls for him to be fired are obviously ridiculous, I'm glad he got called out on his bullshit.

Lol a national newspaper campaign against refugee teenagers for looking older than they are isn't racist, right?

It's not like the childhood of children of colour isn't routinely dismissed by racists - from the cop that shot Tamir Rice claiming the 10-year old was "in his twenties" to the way young African footballers routinely face slurs about them being older than they are - e.g. Joseph Minala.

Like, obviously I support anyone lying about their age (or anything else for that matter) to circumvent the border system. And anyone who is demanding to look at their dental records or anything else is a racist curtain-twitching weirdo who in any halfway civilised society would be confined to some sort of remote island where they can't get upset by basic facets of modern society.

 

[mnb089mnb]

It hasn't. What caused a fuss was him calling people racist for pointing out that grown men in their 20s and 30s were patently not 'children'.

I guess he has deleted those tweets as I can't find any where he does that.

No surprise but it's incredible that the comments of a sports presenter on twitter about approximately one millionth of the tire Syrian refugee population is front page news.

 

[silkyman]

And also pictures of a tiny fraction of the kids actually coming here. They will have taken hundreds, pored over them and found the ones that looked 'oldest' so they can scream their dog whistle bullshit from the front pages.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Slightly better mood this evening.

Surely it only really holds if you imagine that the leading Brexiters represent something other than the political and business establishment? But in the Brexit corner we had prominent members of the political establishment - Nigel Farage (Dulwich College, former City trader), Boris Johnson (Eton, Oxford, Times, Telegraph), Michael Gove (Oxford, Times) and a large section of the Conservative party. We also had various media - the Daily Mail (proprietor Viscount Rothermere, billionaire and non-dom tax dodger), the Telegraph (billionaire tax exiles, the Barclay bros), the Sun (Rupert Murdoch, another billionaire media baron), the Express (Richard "dirty" Desmond, anoth.. um, yeah, you guessed it).

It depends how you choose to define the political establishment. I think it has little to with wealth and privilege, and even less to do with being a recognisable public figure. More important is a person’s political ideas and objectives, and how closely those align with the sort of liberal orthodoxy that dominates thinking in our political institutions.

On this view, Brexit is a thoroughly anti-establishment idea. On this view, it’s patent flapdoodle to describe Nigel Farage as an establishment politician, even if his parents did send him to Dulwich 45+ years ago. Gove and Boris fit the description better, but both fit it awkwardly because Gove is a free thinker with a proven willingness to put political conviction above professional expediency (note: one can recognise this and still hate his guts) and Boris lends himself awkwardly to most political discussion because he’s best understood as some kind of absurd charlatan buffoon, more cartoon character than real person.

As for the press, one might reflect on the fact that the evil antipodean who owns The Sun and The Sunday Times (both Leave) also owns The Times (Remain), or the fact that the tax-dodging gobshite who owns The Daily Mail (Leave) also owns The Mail on Sunday (Remain). This is quite confusing unless you’re open to the idea that editors have more editorial independence than most people imagine. Generally, I think the media was roughly split down the middle, roughly reflecting a split in the country generally.

We can continue these lines of argument if you wish, but frankly I think they’re irrelevant to the point I was making. My original point was twofold: (1) conservatives are typically warier than progressives when it comes to disrupting the existing socio-political and economic order; and (2) while this can be seen clearly in most political debates, the EU referendum wasn’t one of them.

I think some people have misconstrued this as a dig – a cheap shot at progressives. It wasn’t. On this occasion, I was merely drawing attention to something I consider interesting, namely conservatives and progressives arguing their positions in rather uncharacteristic ways, often borrowing each other’s language, logic and pre-suppositions. It was not an argument about who or what constitutes the establishment.

Not sure either about the "parroting the concerns of big business" stuff as I hardly feel that you need to be a FTSE 100 chair to identify that leaving the EU might carry economic risks (this much is blindingly obvious).

It does carry a degree of risk and, as I’ve conceded before, there’s nowt wrong with drawing attention to that. It’s perfectly rational to worry about economic instability.

It’s interesting, though, when self-identifying left-liberals use that as their trump card, especially in a debate about our continued involvement in a project that raises myriad concerns about identity, democracy and unaccountable power.

It’s the lack of context that grates – the way the “economic risk” card is played over and over in such a single-minded and unthinking way, as though the unquestionable first duty of government is maintaining the existing economic order, as though anything that carries a degree of economic risk is self-evidently a terrible idea.

This is not how lefty progressive types usually think or argue. The narrow-minded short-termism. The pessimism. The obsession with stability. The crudulity of believing something is shit 'cos the CBI and Richard Branson say so. This is all a lot more characteristic of conservatves.

One could quite reasonably argue that the withdrawal of EU funding will have a disproportionate impact on more deprived regions or that any economic downturn will have the most marked effect on those on low and middle incomes.

The first concern is reasonable but smuggles in an assumption that regional redevelopment requires the EU to serve as some kind of overpriced middleman. I don’t think it does.

The second concern has a general sort of validity insofar that (1) any substantial change to the existing economic order will have transient adverse economic effects, and (2) the worst off people in society will usually suffer the most. If one starts from the view that such things are beyond the pale, one severely limits oneself when it comes to political and economic reform.

Consider it this way: If Corbyn and McDonnell won power and set about dismantling the neoliberal consensus, there would be a period of economic decline. The inevitable chorus of doom mongering would damage confidence (as it has post-Brexit) and change and uncertainty are anathema to investors generally. But I don’t imagine the typical Corbyn supporter would be dissuaded. I think they’d argue that the long-term benefits of a creating a more just economic order was worth whatever problems were experienced during the transition period.

So there is a kind of inconsistency here, or at least there is when lefty types play the “economic risk” card and nothing else. I don’t think the economy is their main concern. They care about it as everyone must do to some extent (I take Ian’s well observed point regarding that), but I think their antipathy to Brexit is based on something else, something they either can’t articulate or lack the confidence to argue. Instead, they “mindlessly parrot” the concerns of big business – people who think any disruption to the existing order is axiomatically a bad thing because it temporarily disrupts their efforts to make money, people the left are usually intuitively distrustful of. And that’s interesting.

Might giant conglomerates be strange bedfellows for those of us of a lefty/liberal persuasion? Quite possibly, but I'm quite sure no one wants to see the economy go totally tits up, especially if it does so as a result of a change that you don't imagine will deliver any discernible benefit.

If you gave persuasive reasons for thinking the post-Brexit economy would go “totally tits up” (as opposed to merely suffering a temporary period of instability and decline) and explained why there is no discernible benefit to leaving the EU, I could respect that. I’d disagree of course, but it would be a respectful sort of disagreement.

I don’t think you’ve done so. Not yet anyway. And, more generally speaking, I think the Remain side demonstrably failed to make that case during the campaign.

I think a lot of Brexit's appeal actually lay in a deep-rooted resistance to change - the notion of lost identity due to rising levels of immigration or the desire to restore Britain to greatness, which can only be achieved by regaining sovereignty. This was a movement that seemed fundamentally conservative in nature.

I’ll happily concede that. Mythologising the past is part of the conservative temperament. But the usual conservative response to a change that has already occurred (or is well underway) is to bellyache about the country going to hell in a handbasket while grudgingly accepting the change. And IMO that’s largely because they realise that undoing the change will cause a load of disruption, uncertainty and conflict – all things the conservative temperament is intuitively averse to. Given this, the boldness of Brexit is unusual and interesting.

 

[silkyman]

Meanwhile, the banks are fucking off.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews#link_time=1477167602

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Lol a national newspaper campaign against refugee teenagers for looking older than they are isn't racist, right?

I can only assume that you haven't looked at the images in question. They'd be comical if the situation weren't so serious, because some of them barely look young enough to be in their 20s or 30s never mind their teens. It's not like this is some sort of imagined issue, it's been a problem across Western Europe for months on end. Sweden in particular has had massive problems with adult men pretending to be teenage kids, from abuses committed against actual children in their shared accommodation to an aid worker losing her life. No doubt they had No Borders fuckwits compassionate souls telling them how to circumvent the rules though...

 

[Aber gas]

I'm not sure why racists just don't declare they are racists. It's really weird. Behave like racists, hold racist views, agree with racist policies... But when it comes to it they waffle away about "swamping" or serious "concerns" about immigration. Just get out of the closet. You don't like foreigners and you're proud.
It'll be easier, honest

 

[TheMinsterman]

He said what you quoted him as saying, but he also Tweeted at people directly calling them racist for pointing out to him that many of these 'children' are clearly not children. He also tweeted about a child migrant actually being a government worker that turned out to be bollocks as well.

Can you provide any of these tweets, and in context too? If they do exist (or did, I am sure somebody will have archives of what he said if he's really just deleted everything) I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

So there is a kind of inconsistency here, or at least there is when lefty types play the “economic risk” card and nothing else. I don’t think the economy is their main concern. They care about it as everyone must do to some extent (I take Ian’s well observed point regarding that), but I think their antipathy to Brexit is based on something else, something they either can’t articulate or lack the confidence to argue. Instead, they “mindlessly parrot” the concerns of big business – people who think any disruption to the existing order is axiomatically a bad thing because it temporarily disrupts their efforts to make money, people the left are usually intuitively distrustful of. And that’s interesting.

*very adam curtis voice*
In the mid-2000's, a visionary Portuguese football manager had a philosophy for winning football games. Jose Mourinho believed that football matches could be reduced to a matter of making fewer mistakes than the opposition. Football teams, he argued, should not try to be superior to their opponents. Instead they should provoke mistakes. To do this they should surrender possession, and allow the opposition the opportunity to make mistakes. Using this philosophy, Mourinho-managed teams dominated the European football for nearly a decade.

A few years later, after the 2009 economic crash, British politicians hit upon a similar philosophy. Amid the economic chaos of the crash, voters, they decided, valued stability above all else. Ideology threatened that stability. Elections could be won, therefore, by surrendering any claim to a political philosophy and instead attacking your opponent as a threat to stability.

Instead of making promises to voters, they offered dire warnings.

But in 2015, Mourinho's success began to desert him...

continues for another three hour long episodes.

 

[.V.]

Banks poised to relocate out of UK over Brexit, BBA warns
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37743700

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Can understand you don't have the energy to justify post-brexit Tory policy e.g. why sabotaging HE is actually good - but I find it hard to come up with rational explanations for it except through the lens of revanchism.

Please forgive the petulant response. I was tired and irritable at the end of a very dissatisfying day, and your posts irritated me for the reasons they usually do.

The problem is basically this: On one hand, I respect your intellect because you’re articulate, know things and possess the independent-mindedness required to think stuff through from first principles. In that sense, you’re the sort of person I like to converse with. On the other hand, you arrive at ideas so completely at odds with my own that… I dunno. I'm baffled. A feeling that debating you is a complete waste of time overwhelms me.

Take, for example, this revanchist stuff. Revanchists are motivated by a desire to recover lost territory and avenge a perceived injustice or defeat. The term dates back to France’s obsession with Alsace-Lorraine after losing the Franco-Prussian war. Modern day examples include Argentina’s designs on the Falklands and Putin’s efforts to ‘take back’ territories (e.g. the Crimea) he believes rightly belong to Russia. A modern British equivalent, if one existed, would be some kind of neocolonial desire to rebuild the empire. This, apparently, is the primary motivation of Brexiters? This, moreover, is the only conceptual lens through which the government’s HE policies make any sense?

I don’t just lack the energy to debate stuff like that; I actually don't know where to begin. I read remarks like “the country is a racist shithole and even implying that refugees and migrant are human is pretty much taboo,” and I begin to wonder if we actually inhabit the same plain of reality. I’m stuck by the idea that either you’re completely out of your tree, or I am. Either way, trying to debate properly, unpicking every argument I disagree with, seems a mammoth and ultimately futile task. Easier to just tell you what you already think, shut down the laptop and watch Black Mirror with my wife.

My problem, not yours.

FWIW, I enjoyed your Jose Mourinho analogy.

 

[Krazy8]

Not sure why saying refugees should be treated with respect has caused such a vitriolic response from shitty newspapers, but it might have something to do with a Sun reporter being sent to prison the other day.

Wow, nothing like tweaking a story to fit your agenda

 

[.V.]

I don't want to agree with Clegg, but if leaving Europol makes us less safe, that would be madness.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/22/anti-eu-dogma-nick-clegg-europol

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Take, for example, this revanchist stuff. Revanchists are motivated by a desire to recover lost territory and avenge a perceived injustice or defeat. The term dates back France’s obsession with Alsace-Lorraine after losing the Franco-Prussian war. Modern day examples include Argentina’s designs on the Falklands and Putin’s efforts to ‘take back’ territories (e.g. the Crimea) he believes rightly belong to Russia. A modern British equivalent, if one existed, would be some kind of neocolonial desire to rebuild the empire. This, apparently, is the primary motivation of Brexiters? This, moreover, is the only conceptual lens through which the government’s HE policies make any sense?

This is probably me not being clear in what I meant.

Revanchism doesn't have to be just about reversing territorial loss - but can be about reversing social changes etc. The revanchists were as keen on rolling back the liberalism of the Second Republic and the socialism of the Communards as they were about restoring the lost territories of Alsace and Lorraine.

That's what I was trying to get at with Tory revanchism - a section of the Tory Party - that most closely allied with the traditional ruling class - has got more power than they've had in generations and are seeking to roll back a great deal of the changes that happened after the second world war. University expansion, comprehensive schooling, massively scaling back migration. It's a radical, reforming agenda that seems focused on a recreating a Britain that never existed and it terrifies me.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Jeez Louise…

Pick 100 people at random and ask them to list examples of revanchism. 98% or so will probably shrug and say they’ve never heard the word before. Those who have heard it – sadsacks who have actually read some history and political theory – will state things like Alsace-Lorraine, the Treaty of Versailles, Anschluss (or other Nazi annexations), Tibet, the Falklands, Putin’s policy towards Ukraine.

For those who know it, then, the term is synonymous with ethno-nationalism, revenge for perceived injustices, military aggression, imperial fantasies, starting wars… And you think it’s okay to co-opt the term to describe conservatives who want Britain to leave the EU because, err, they’re seeking to undo postwar social changes?

It’s not the offensive connotations I object to. I’m pretty thick-skinned when it comes to stuff like that. The problem is, the word has no concrete meaning if we’re permitted to use it so loosely. And if it has no concrete meaning, it’s rhetorically useless and inimical to good debate.

Earlier, you sought to differentiate “Brexit Tories" (revanchists) from Tories of the "Thatcherite monetarist mould". But using your definition, in what way was Margaret Thatcher not a revanchist? Has any politician in the last 50 years done more to undo the postwar consensus? Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell champion a kind of neo-Keynesianism and talk about undoing the neoliberal consensus. Are they revanchists? Come to think of it, what politician doesn’t want to effect social change? To undo past reforms they dislike or disagree with?

It’s this sort of thing that makes you such a chore. Corin (Pineapple) made a very similar point to yours, but because he used “regressive” instead of misemploying an arcane term like “revanchist” I didn’t have to waste an hour of my Sunday trying to decipher what he meant.

Anyway…

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I'm not sure why racists just don't declare they are racists. It's really weird. Behave like racists, hold racist views, agree with racist policies... But when it comes to it they waffle away about "swamping" or serious "concerns" about immigration. Just get out of the closet. You don't like foreigners and you're proud.
It'll be easier, honest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Jeez Louise…

Pick 100 people at random and ask them to list examples of revanchism. 98% or so will probably shrug and say they’ve never heard the word before. Those who have heard it – sadsacks who have actually read some history and political theory – will state things like Alsace-Lorraine, the Treaty of Versailles, Anschluss (or other Nazi annexations), Tibet, the Falklands, Putin’s policy towards Ukraine.

For those who know it, then, the term is synonymous with ethno-nationalism, revenge for perceived injustices, military aggression, imperial fantasies, starting wars… And you think it’s okay to co-opt the term to describe conservatives who want Britain to leave the EU because, err, they’re seeking to undo postwar social changes?

It’s not the offensive connotations I object to. I’m pretty thick-skinned when it comes to stuff like that. The problem is, the word has no concrete meaning if we’re permitted to use it so loosely. And if it has no concrete meaning, it’s rhetorically useless and inimical to good debate.

Earlier, you sought to differentiate “Brexit Tories" (revanchists) from Tories of the "Thatcherite monetarist mould". But using your definition, in what way was Margaret Thatcher not a revanchist? Has any politician in the last 50 years done more to undo the postwar consensus? Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell champion a kind of neo-Keynesianism and talk about undoing the neoliberal consensus. Are they revanchists? Come to think of it, what politician doesn’t want to effect social change? To undo past reforms they dislike or disagree with?

It’s this sort of thing that makes you such a chore. Corin (Pineapple) made a very similar point to yours, but because he used “regressive” instead of misemploying an arcane term like “revanchist” I didn’t have to waste an hour of my Sunday trying to decipher what he meant.

Anyway…

Yeah, thinking on it, it's the wrong term to use. Sorry.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ Not in the slightest bit necessary, but appreciated nonetheless. FWIW, apologies for not expressing my objection more courteously.

(You are a fucking chore, though).

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I'm not sure why racists just don't declare they are racists. It's really weird. Behave like racists, hold racist views, agree with racist policies... But when it comes to it they waffle away about "swamping" or serious "concerns" about immigration. Just get out of the closet. You don't like foreigners and you're proud.
It'll be easier, honest

Maybe they are racist but in denial. Maybe they are racist but too cowardly to admit it. Or maybe, just maybe, to add an ounce of complexity to the discussion, their conception of "racism" differs from yours and, justifiably or not, they consider the charge erroneous.

Your post completely glosses over this third possibility – quite the omission given that "racist" has become such a contentious term, and not least because some habitually throw it around with such frequency, laziness and cynical opportunism that only a certifiable moron wouldn't be sceptical about it.

Your post would be fine within a discussion about something that was blatantly and unambiguously racist – e.g. if Theresa May was calling black people nignogs and proposing the involuntary repatriation of all non-white immigrants. It would indeed be bloody weird if people were supporting that yet balking at the suggestion of racial prejudice.

But contemporary discussion about racism isn't that simple. It's not focused on blatant examples. Nowadays one is more likely to be called racist for writing uncomplimentary things about the EU, or questioning the merits of state multiculturalism, or wondering whether 300,000+ per annum net migration is sustainable, or pointing out that certain 'child refugees' look about 40, or (to give an example from a wonderfully acrimonious dinner party I attended last week) suggesting that 'desperate asylum seekers' might be a misnomer when applied to people who have passed through numerous safe countries but haven’t claimed asylum in any of them.

"Racism" seems a pretty broad church nowadays, at least if one uncritically accepts that every charge of racism has validity. So perhaps we need to be more precise. When you refer to "racists", who do you have in mind?

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Watched a pretty interesting mini debate on BBC news yesterday morning, a section that mostly focuses on economics/business but in this instance ended up talking in more fluffy general terms about the future of the EU as whole. There was a German banker, a Dutch socialist MEP, and a British business leader.

The conclusion they ended up coming to and kind of agreeing on, was that long term (20 years) the EU will eventually morph into a two tier setup. The logic being that because the EU is currently in some limbo, it either has to integrate more, or row back to less. In fact it'll end up doing both for different nations, ensuring the long term viability and success of the EU because it will massively reduce the tug of war between 'integrationalsits' and 'nationalists' (to speak in massive generalisations)

A core handful of nations who want almost complete economic and political integration (for argument sake Germany, France, Holland Belgium, maybe Spain), and an outside circle of more nations who work with that core but at arms length without such economic and political integration.

They predicted the label of being in or out of the EU won't mean as much as it does now. There will be core partners and affiliated partners if you like.

They all hoped the UK would adopt a soft Brexit and remain within the EU sphere of influence, that might set some sort of amicable example for nations who do not want further integration, which will allow for those who want to integrate to go for it, making the reforms they want without constant compromise and pandering to nationalists.

The one major sticking point in their future speculation would be what happens to the current Euro Zone nations without the economic power and widespread EU support of the supposed core nations. I guess that's the likes of Italy & Greece.

It was an interesting 20 minute bandying around of very fluffy ideas at the very least.

 

[Aber gas]

Maybe they are racist but in denial. Maybe they are racist but too cowardly to admit it. Or maybe, just maybe, to add an ounce of complexity to the discussion, their conception of "racism" differs from yours and, justifiably or not, they consider the charge erroneous.

Your post completely glosses over this third possibility – quite the omission given that "racist" has become such a contentious term, and not least because some habitually throw it around with such frequency, laziness and cynical opportunism that only a certifiable moron wouldn't be sceptical about it.

Your post would be fine within a discussion about something that was blatantly and unambiguously racist – e.g. if Theresa May was calling black people nignogs and proposing the involuntary repatriation of all non-white immigrants. It would indeed be bloody weird if people were supporting that yet balking at the suggestion of racial prejudice.

But contemporary discussion about racism isn't that simple. It's not focused on blatant examples. Nowadays one is more likely to be called racist for writing uncomplimentary things about the EU, or questioning the merits of state multiculturalism, or wondering whether 300,000+ per annum net migration is sustainable, or pointing out that certain 'child refugees' look about 40, or (to give an example from a wonderfully acrimonious dinner party I attended last week) suggesting that 'desperate asylum seekers' might be a misnomer when applied to people who have passed through numerous safe countries but haven’t claimed asylum in any of them.

"Racism" seems a pretty broad church nowadays, at least if one uncritically accepts that every charge of racism has validity. So perhaps we need to be more precise. When you refer to "racists", who do you have in mind?

I'm at work today and I think a response to your post needs more time than a cigarette and coffee break allows. I'll respond later if that's ok with you.

 

[johnnytodd]

Meanwhile, the banks are fucking off.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...tofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews#link_time=1477167602

thats good news, a country that relies on its financial institutions is no country at all

 

[johnnytodd]

Watched a pretty interesting mini debate on BBC news yesterday morning, a section that mostly focuses on economics/business but in this instance ended up talking in more fluffy general terms about the future of the EU as whole. There was a German banker, a Dutch socialist MEP, and a British business leader.

The conclusion they ended up coming to and kind of agreeing on, was that long term (20 years) the EU will eventually morph into a two tier setup. The logic being that because the EU is currently in some limbo, it either has to integrate more, or row back to less. In fact it'll end up doing both for different nations, ensuring the long term viability and success of the EU because it will massively reduce the tug of war between 'integrationalsits' and 'nationalists' (to speak in massive generalisations)

A core handful of nations who want almost complete economic and political integration (for argument sake Germany, France, Holland Belgium, maybe Spain), and an outside circle of more nations who work with that core but at arms length without such economic and political integration.

They predicted the label of being in or out of the EU won't mean as much as it does now. There will be core partners and affiliated partners if you like.

They all hoped the UK would adopt a soft Brexit and remain within the EU sphere of influence, that might set some sort of amicable example for nations who do not want further integration, which will allow for those who want to integrate to go for it, making the reforms they want without constant compromise and pandering to nationalists.

The one major sticking point in their future speculation would be what happens to the current Euro Zone nations without the economic power and widespread EU support of the supposed core nations. I guess that's the likes of Italy & Greece.

It was an interesting 20 minute bandying around of very fluffy ideas at the very least.

sounds boring as fuck tbh

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I'm at work today and I think a response to your post needs more time than a cigarette and coffee break allows. I'll respond later if that's ok with you.

Of course. I often take a week to respond. Take as long as you want.

 

[Bilo]

Maybe they are racist but in denial. Maybe they are racist but too cowardly to admit it. Or maybe, just maybe, to add an ounce of complexity to the discussion, their conception of "racism" differs from yours and, justifiably or not, they consider the charge erroneous.

Your post completely glosses over this third possibility – quite the omission given that "racist" has become such a contentious term, and not least because some habitually throw it around with such frequency, laziness and cynical opportunism that only a certifiable moron wouldn't be sceptical about it.

Your post would be fine within a discussion about something that was blatantly and unambiguously racist – e.g. if Theresa May was calling black people nignogs and proposing the involuntary repatriation of all non-white immigrants. It would indeed be bloody weird if people were supporting that yet balking at the suggestion of racial prejudice.

But contemporary discussion about racism isn't that simple. It's not focused on blatant examples. Nowadays one is more likely to be called racist for writing uncomplimentary things about the EU, or questioning the merits of state multiculturalism, or wondering whether 300,000+ per annum net migration is sustainable, or pointing out that certain 'child refugees' look about 40, or (to give an example from a wonderfully acrimonious dinner party I attended last week) suggesting that 'desperate asylum seekers' might be a misnomer when applied to people who have passed through numerous safe countries but haven’t claimed asylum in any of them.

"Racism" seems a pretty broad church nowadays, at least if one uncritically accepts that every charge of racism has validity. So perhaps we need to be more precise. When you refer to "racists", who do you have in mind?

I thought this was quite an interesting post to be fair, but for me racism is a question of generalization coupled with complete disregard for correlation and causation.

Regarding the contemporary discussion about racism, no, it's not that simple. Nobody wants to be a racist, so instead of looking at the race you go for whichever suits, nationality or islam (because it's always islam). It's great because now you can generalize foreigners without being a racist, right? Except the difference is irrelevant. Because whether you hate blacks, poles or muslims the point is the same -- kicking downwards through broad generalizations implying causation through vague correlation. I'll throw in an example from Sweden:

Immigrants are slightly overrepresented in our crime statistics. It takes about thirty seconds to explain why in social-economic terms, but a lot of people don't want to spend 30 seconds on forming a reasonable opinion. So, they're against immigration because they think it means a surge in crime. But for me, the second they assume an immigrant is more likely to commit a crime than a swedish person, they're racist even if they haven't mentioned race and even though they're technically correct. Because they are generalizing through one denominator which is irrelevant (or rather, not proven to be relevant). Whether this denominator is skin color, religion or country of origin, who gives a fuck? It's blaming minorities through generalization to absolve yourself of blame. That's why racism was invented and now it's just like changing one irrelevant part of the mixture that is crystal meth: all of a sudden it's legal, but it's still crystal meth.

 

[markwwfc1992]

Maybe they are racist but in denial. Maybe they are racist but too cowardly to admit it. Or maybe, just maybe, to add an ounce of complexity to the discussion, their conception of "racism" differs from yours and, justifiably or not, they consider the charge erroneous.

Your post completely glosses over this third possibility – quite the omission given that "racist" has become such a contentious term, and not least because some habitually throw it around with such frequency, laziness and cynical opportunism that only a certifiable moron wouldn't be sceptical about it.

Your post would be fine within a discussion about something that was blatantly and unambiguously racist – e.g. if Theresa May was calling black people nignogs and proposing the involuntary repatriation of all non-white immigrants. It would indeed be bloody weird if people were supporting that yet balking at the suggestion of racial prejudice.

But contemporary discussion about racism isn't that simple. It's not focused on blatant examples. Nowadays one is more likely to be called racist for writing uncomplimentary things about the EU, or questioning the merits of state multiculturalism, or wondering whether 300,000+ per annum net migration is sustainable, or pointing out that certain 'child refugees' look about 40, or (to give an example from a wonderfully acrimonious dinner party I attended last week) suggesting that 'desperate asylum seekers' might be a misnomer when applied to people who have passed through numerous safe countries but haven’t claimed asylum in any of them.

"Racism" seems a pretty broad church nowadays, at least if one uncritically accepts that every charge of racism has validity. So perhaps we need to be more precise. When you refer to "racists", who do you have in mind?

Hear Hear!

Tired of how blandly the word 'racist' is thrown around in today's society.

Your 4th paragraph sums it up perfectly for me. Our left wing liberal media love to throw around such words that dare go along with the anti brexit trend.

Questioning the age of 'child migrants' who look old enough to be grandparents? Racist.

Vote to leave the EU? Oh, must be racist, no other explanation.

People seem to be so caught up on this so called anti brexit witch hunt that slanderous insults are thrown around without much thought.

 

[silkyman]

'left wing liberal media'

 

[nousername]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37749236

Walloons block 'ambitious' EU free trade deal with Canada.