New Statesmans:"How the left enabled Fascism"-An expose - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14952292
First of all some background for those non-Britons. The New Statesman is supposedly the number one leftist magazine in the United Kingdom, the so-called "voice of the left". In this article it creates a parallel between the Weimar Republic and modern Britain. It aims to show that just like the Communist Leader enabled the rise of fascism so is Jeremy Corbyn doing today by supposedly aligning with Brexiteers. Of course let's ignore the fact that the Conservatives are Brexiteer Headquarters. Apparently it does not matter at all....That's ok we should all make an effort to understand the poor Tories. :| Thankfully or not, it does not touch the antisemitic allegations but the pun intended is simmering above like a dark cloud.

How the left enabled fascism wrote:The leader of the left, adored for his “authenticity” and destined for cult status, saw himself as a fighter for radical change. His transformed party was the biggest of its kind in Europe, and bursting with youthful vigour.

On the other side of the political spectrum lay the far right and its sinisterly absurd demagogues, thugs and ideological lunacies. Naturally, the leader of the left regarded these people with contempt and viewed his party as the only authentic resistance to them. For strategic reasons, however, he was willing to help them achieve a key part of their dream, which he shared. The dream was to break the loathsome old liberal order. Such a break, reasoned the leader, would create conditions under which the left would sweep to power and transform the country for the better.

Any similarities to Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are far from coincidental. But the leader in question is Ernst Thälmann, chief of the German Communist Party (KPD) in the final years of the Weimar Republic. Thälmann is a tragic and disastrous figure. Dogmatic, passionate, stubborn and stupid, the former Hamburg dockworker divided the left and became one of the right’s first victims. Within weeks of Hitler’s takeover in 1933, he, along with thousands of other communists, was arrested and tortured. Unlike many of them, he survived in prison for 11 years before being murdered on Hitler’s orders in 1944.

After the war, the leaders of Communist East Germany built a personality cult around Thälmann, erecting statues and naming streets, a Berlin park and a metro station after him. The cult depicted him as the bravest and noblest of working-class heroes, Germany’s supreme anti-fascist martyr. That he had also been one of the Nazi regime’s unwitting enablers was erased.

History never repeats itself exactly, and there are obvious and big differences between conditions and politics in Britain now and those of Germany in the run-up to the Nazi dictatorship. But there are a few uncomfortable parallels.

For one thing, even our relatively mild versions of far left and far right seek momentous change – in this case a destructive Brexit – for ideological reasons. For another, the far left’s current mindset is reminiscent of one that had unintended consequences – and is doing so again.

In the 1930s, fear of Bolshevism persuaded many middle-class Germans to support Hitler (and led the Catholic Church to throw in its lot with fascism in Italy, Spain and elsewhere). These days, fear of Corbyn buttresses the worst Tory government in living memory. Worse, although we again face danger from the far right, the far left refuses to work with potential allies in the centre and centre left. Again. Instead, it spends much of its energy attacking them. The obsessive hatred for “Blairites”, “red Tories” and “centrists” is reminiscent of the KPD’s hatred of “social fascists” during the years when Nazism could have been stopped. If the phrase is new to you, you’d be forgiven for thinking it signified some form of fascism. It didn’t. “Social fascism” was the communist term for social democrats – and it helped pave the way to catastrophe.

In the words of Theodore Draper, the American former communist fellow traveller who turned against the party and became a historian, “the so-called theory of social fascism and the practice based on it constituted one of the chief factors contributing to the victory of German fascism in January 1933”.

The theory, developed in the early 1920s, favoured by Stalin and established as Communist orthodoxy by 1928, held that reformist social democracy was the worst enemy of the proletariat – worse than fascism – because it created false consciousness and made revolution, the party’s overriding goal, less likely. This notion derived from the left’s misunderstanding of the dark forces about to overwhelm it.

Thälmann and the KPD regarded fascists and Nazis as products and tools of capitalism. Since social democrats were also capitalists, it followed that social democracy, fascism and Nazism were simply different facets of the same oppression. To further the dream of a Soviet Germany, the party was willing to help the Nazis destroy democracy, thinking it could beat the Nazis easily in the aftermath.

Unlike the modern Labour left, the KPD’s antipathy to their centre-left rivals derived in part from memories of a recent crime against them. In January 1919, after Germany’s defeat in the First World War and the fall of the Kaiser, the new Social Democratic Party (SPD) government led by Friedrich Ebert used the far-right Freikorps militias to help suppress the Spartacist uprising, led by KPD founders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. In the process, Freikorps men tortured and murdered Luxemburg and Liebknecht.


In the first part of his Hitler biography, Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw describes these killings as “the symbolic sealing of the rift within the working-class movement that throughout the Weimar Republic prevented any united front being formed against the growing threat of National Socialism”. By the late 1920s, though, the KPD had largely purged itself of Spartacists and become a Stalinist party. Thälmann took his instructions from Stalin and his hatred of the SPD was essentially ideological.

With hindsight, his relaxed attitude to the threat of Hitler seems astonishingly foolish. For example, as Russel Lemmons shows in his 2013 book about Thälmann, Hitler’s Rival, when the Nazis made their electoral breakthrough in the Reichstag elections of 1930 (winning 18 per cent of the vote to become the second-largest party) Thälmann insisted that if Hitler came to power he was sure to fail and this would drive Nazi voters into the arms of the KPD.

Foreshadowing the 2017 claim that Labour actually won the general election it lost, the KPD newspaper the Red Flag even hailed the KPD’s defeat in that election (up by 2.5 per cent to 13.1 per cent) as a victory on the grounds that communist voters were ardent revolutionaries (“one communist vote has more weight than ten to 20 national socialist votes combined”). The 1930 election left the Social Democrats and KPD with almost 40 per cent of the seats in the Reichstag between them. In November 1931 the SPD suggested the two parties work together but Thälmann rejected the offer and the Red Flag called for an “intensification of the fight against Social Democracy”.

Along the way Thälmann made any number of tactical blunders. In 1925, for example, against the advice of Bolshevik leader Grigory Zinoviev, the KPD leadership refused to stand Thälmann down in the second round of the German presidential election. This split took enough votes away from centre candidate Wilhelm Marx to give the First World War general Paul von Hindenburg a narrow victory. In 1933, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor, then signed the decrees enabling the Nazi terror against the left after the Reichstag fire.

As the Nazi menace intensified in the early 1930s, Thälmann continued to be sanguine. As late as February 1932, he was arguing that “Hitler must come to power first, then the requirements for a revolutionary crisis [will] arrive more quickly”. In November 1932, just three months before Hitler’s takeover, the KPD and Nazis even worked together in the Berlin transport workers’ strike.

Image

****

Is it fair to speak of this in the same breath as Corbyn’s de facto alliance with the right on Brexit? The stakes are less high, and the specifics are so different it’s hard to compare.

Corbyn’s lack of enthusiastic campaigning may have hampered Remain in the referendum. He has made a damaging Brexit more likely by failing to oppose it, and by whipping his MPs to abstain or vote with the government at key moments since 2016. But this isn’t the same as seeking a Soviet Britain, or enabling Hitler. Corbyn isn’t trying to end democracy, or co-operating with Nazis, or taking orders from Stalin. He hasn’t even created a party paramilitary wing.

The Labour left’s assault on the liberal centre is driven by a quite different political agenda to that of the KPD. But it runs a similar risk of hollowing out the political constituency best capable of resisting the radicalism of the right.

History teaches us that it is dangerous and naive to expect only the radical left to benefit politically from the kind of economic chaos and social upheaval a hard or no-deal Brexit would bring.

Thälmann was at least open about his objectives. Corbyn rarely explains his strategy, and even talks blithely about a “jobs-first Brexit” while backing a course liable to wreck the regions, damage the NHS and blight the future of the young.

Thälmann’s approach was also contradictory and ambivalent. On one hand, his Communist militias fought bloody and often lethal turf battles with Nazi stormtroopers and police. On the other, he refused to provide effective political opposition to the Nazis. There were some half-hearted attempts to work with SPD rank and file, but Thälmann never stopped regarding the SPD leadership as anathema and refused to co-operate with them in any significant way until it was far too late.

Only in February 1933, by which time the battle was already lost, did Thälmann finally grasp the situation and propose a united front with the SPD and the free and Christian trade unions – under his own leadership, of course – to prepare for a general strike to bring down the new regime.

When the Nazis started rounding up leftists, Thälmann escaped but his hiding place on the Kaiserallee (now Bundesallee) in Berlin was revealed by a tortured comrade and Thälmann was arrested on 3 March and taken to prison. In 1939, Stalin could easily have had Thälmann released as a condition of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, but he didn’t say a word. In August 1944 Hitler ordered Thälmann “liquidated”. SS officers drove him to Buchenwald, shot him in the courtyard of the camp crematorium and burned his body immediately.

Lemmons argues that Thälmann “went to his grave believing that the SPD represented the forces of ‘social fascism’ and was no better than Hitler’s party”. That, and his subservience to Stalin, meant Thälmann “failed his people in its greatest hour of need”. The KPD did “nothing to stop the Nazi seizure of power – indeed they had welcomed it as what they considered to be the dying breath of German imperialism”.

Even if the worst Brexit predictions come true Jeremy Corbyn is unlikely to suffer so terrible a fate. But if a disastrous Brexit does occur, the verdict of history is unlikely to be much kinder.


The entire argument relies on the obviously false premise that Corbyn and his supposedly "far-left" fans are the ones doing the assault and preventing the cooperation between him and the "centre-left, social democrats and or liberal centre". Corbyn ever since he was elected leader has been on the back-foot and not on the assault, if it was anyone else on his place he would have pressed charges against members of his own party for defamation and malicious insults. The author of the article should take his or her own advice and try to work with Corbyn instead of trying to accuse him yet again. It is the "liberal centre" as imagined by the author that refuses to deal with Corbyn and considers him as the single greatest threat of liberal politics. Corbyn however is the liberal centre for most European countries, while the UK's Blairite centre is more economically right-wing than right-wing Greek conservatives. All in all, both the author and the editor are not just confused but quite behind the times that are unravelling before them. The parallel remains true however and a lot of ink should be spent between the radicalisation of Germany in the 30's and the radicalisation of countries worst-affected by the post-Lehman brother's economic crisis. Political-party brews and alliances are just a side show, a footnote. The real brews take place in the household, the hearts and minds of the people run through their stomachs not through NS editorials, BBC extracts or wooden speeches by May and Corbyn. As long as people see their disposable income falling, their social services deteriorating and their confidence lacking they will be seeking other solutions just like they did in Germany in the 1930's.
#14952303
What is the left's obsession with nazis? They literally see them everywhere. Plausibly Corbyn is some kind of reprise of Thälmann but somehow I just don't see Theresa May or Nigel Farage as nu-Hitlers. That's just crazy.

Corbyn is not suitable for PM so it is possible his election could provoke Her Maj to sack him and dissolve parliament for a bit but that would be nothing to do with brexit or even Corbyn's iffy economics but just down to Corbyn's intention to ruin the UK's security establishment.
#14952305
I actually want to see Decky respond to this article and @noemon since he has gone on and on about how Brexit is a leftist position and movement and not a conservative one (which I understand theoretically; though in reality it seems the opposite).

I don't think user mention works in a thread he has not commented on, but I will try it anyway and a mock quote to get him here. :lol:

@Decky

Decky wrote:.......
#14952309
Brexit is a fringe position, the fringe operates both on the left and the right. Both the Tories and Labour are clearly trying not to upset anyone by walking on a very tight rope. The main issue of the article is that the foremost leftist magazine is yet again attacking the foremost leftist person in the country, the leader of the opposition and next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That should show how deep the red tory faction runs in this country. And what is worse is that Corbyn has not expressed any "far-left" view during his tenure as leader, he is extremely centrist and pale. His most extreme view is free-education and free health-care, already a given in all modern European countries even the ones ruled by decades of conservatives. Just imagine how unwanted Corbyn is by the establishment.
#14952313
noemon wrote:Brexit is a fringe position, the fringe operates both on the left and the right. Both the Tories and Labour are clearly trying not to upset anyone by walking on a very tight rope. The main issue of the article is that the foremost leftist magazine is yet again attacking the foremost leftist person in the country, the leader of the opposition and next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That should show how deep the red tory faction runs in this country. And what is worse is that Corbyn has not expressed any "far-left" view during his tenure as leader, he is extremely centrist and pale. His most extreme view is free-education and free health-care, already a given in all modern European countries even the ones ruled by decades of conservatives. Just imagine how unwanted Corbyn is by the establishment.

A "fringe postion" that half the country voted for. :lol:

Nobody has quite forgotten the 70s I guess or what happened after to counter it, Thatcherism. The blairite rightward lean was necessary to get Labour electable again and all the elections they won on the back of that rightward lean prove it. The New Statesman crew are fabians, stealth socialists, they think they can ensnare the country and the world for their diabolical masters by sneaking up on people inch by inch whereas other lefties just want to storm in smash everything up and call it a win. Corbyn looks little too much like a stormer rather than a creeper for the fabians, they fear the stormers will clumsily throw the game through trying to upset things too much too fast (which is plausible).

It's a difference on tactics really: creeping vs storming.
#14952315
Yeah I was wondering about that too, I had thought Brexit was based on a popular referendum, not a fringe takeover.....but I'm an American, you guys have the inside scoop and a finger to the pulse in a way that I do not.
#14952316
SolarCross wrote:A "fringe postion" that half the country voted for. :lol:


Brexit isn't an ideological or a class problem though. It seems to be age related. And that will cross parties. But Corbyn does seem to be in conflict with the party members that voted him in. His supporters do not share his desire for any form of Brexit.

@Victoribus Spolia, you don't need to summon up Decky to know what his opinion to this thread will be. He will just say the same thing as he always says. Left Wing means closed borders and only the Right want open borders.
#14952317
B0ycey wrote:Left Wing means closed borders and only the Right want open borders.


That just sounds so crazy to me, but then again, as an Ancap I do have more sympathies with that claim now then I did 10 months ago; however, as a general principle that seems silly. What parties in Europe have been moving their countries to their own exit from the EU, right or left wing parties? Why is this really even a question? Hungary, Poland, Italy, Le Pen's national front, afd, etc, etc,. are all euroskeptics and are on the right.

B0ycey wrote:Brexit isn't an ideological or a class problem though. It seems to be age related. And that will cross parties. But Corbyn does seem to be in conflict with the party members that voted him in. His supporters do not share his desire for any form of Brexit.


So you think that will remain constant, or will the younger generation get more conservative over time? Thats how it seems to work in the States. Every generation here seem to start pretty radical around their college years and after having to work and start families begin to tilt to the right more-and-more.....Does this occur similarly in Britain?

Just asking.
#14952318
SolarCross wrote:A "fringe postion" that half the country voted for.


Yes, the fringes every where usually form a significant bulk and that is why the establishment tries to keep them at loggerheads. People voted for Brexit for different reasons, reasons communicated through the fringes mainly Farage's anti-immigrant rhetoric and the non-existent hard left anti-capitalistic reflexes. The Greek economic crisis, the succesfull anti-immigrant campaigning and the abstention of centrists for thinking it was in the bag were all catalytical for its success but that does not make Brexit any less fringe than it was before the result. And that is why of course Brexiteers refuse to support a second referendum on the final deal.

It's a difference on tactics really: creeping vs storming.


That's just your cheap excuse for supporting the establishment and the author, would that make you a creeper? Creepy!
#14952320
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That just sounds so crazy to me, but then again, as an Ancap I do have more sympathies with that claim now then I did 10 months ago; however, as a general principle that seems silly. What parties in Europe have been moving their countries to their own exit from the EU, right or left wing parties? Why is this really even a question? Hungary, Poland, Italy, Le Pen's national front, afd, etc, etc,. are all euroskeptics and are on the right.


You're confusing what everyone else regards what left and right wing means and what Decky believes what left and right wing means. If it isn't the Soviet Union it isn't left wing. But sure, it is the right wing parties who want to break up the EU because the EU is the ultimate project in Liberalism and Socialism.

So you think that will remain constant, or will the younger generation get more conservative over time? Thats how it seems to work in the States. Every generation here seem to start pretty radical around their college years and after having to work and start families begin to tilt to the right more-and-more.....Does this occur similarly in Britain?

Just asking.


Younger people are more liberal here because they have been brought up in multiculturalism. And I doubt theIr attitudes are going to change. In fact, a Brexit vote tomorrow would result in a landslide victory in Remain, because the truth of what is on offer when the UK leave the EU is becoming clearer every day.
#14952324
noemon wrote:Yes, the fringes every where usually form a significant bulk and that is why the establishment tries to keep them at loggerheads. People voted for Brexit for different reasons, reasons communicated through the fringes mainly Farage's anti-immigrant rhetoric and the non-existent hard left anti-capitalistic reflexes. The Greek economic crisis, the succesfull anti-immigrant campaigning and the abstention of centrists for thinking it was in the bag were all catalytical for its success but that does not make Brexit any less fringe than it was before the result. And that is why of course Brexiteers refuse to support a second referendum on the final deal.

But then being a remainer is a fringe position too because that too has people from different wings of the political spectrum supporting it. If the remainers had won the referendum they wouldn't want a second referndum either for the same reasons.

noemon wrote:That's just your cheap excuse for supporting the establishment and the author, would that make you a creeper? Creepy!

Meh, I actually like the stormers better than the creepers but I would put them all up against a wall the same as they would do for me if I had the chance. :p

-------

Victoribus Spolia wrote:That just sounds so crazy to me, but then again, as an Ancap I do have more sympathies with that claim now then I did 10 months ago; however, as a general principle that seems silly. What parties in Europe have been moving their countries to their own exit from the EU, right or left wing parties? Why is this really even a question? Hungary, Poland, Italy, Le Pen's national front, afd, etc, etc,. are all euroskeptics and are on the right.

The confusion comes down to both freemarketeers and nationalists being both considered "right wing" even though on most issues they have basically opposite agendas and concerns.

Freemarketeers have a blithely civilian mindset, they don't think about security at all, all that matters is economic choices, consequently they like open borders because they want to have the maximum choices in buying and selling. For example for an American freemarketeer closed borders means only having the choice of American produced cars to drive while open borders (at least to goods) means he can choose between American, French, German, Japanese etc autos... That's clearly superiour from a civilian perspective.

The nationalist considers security paramount even above economics. Closed borders means being able to keep out enemies and their nefarious products. Open borders means letting potential enemies defeat domestic industries which in times of war could be used for armament production. A factory that manufactures cars in peace-time could with a little re-tooling be turning out tanks in war-time...

When it comes to open or closed borders for people much the same goes. The freemarketeer wants to be able to travel about and allow others to travel about with the minimum of friction because he doesn't care about security and does care about having a wealth of economic choices for him.

The nationalist knows the threat that people pose, and would like to keep rivals and enemies outside the walls as much as possible even if that means not being able to eat at Chinese restuarants and go on holidays abroad.

The compromise solution between nationalist and freemarketeer is of course gated borders. Borders which are not shut nor wide open but monitored and selectively barred. Freemarketeers look to make those gates a little looser for his convenience and the nationalist look to make those gates a little stiffer for his peace of mind.

---

The left however are on another planet entirely when it comes to borders. Where the leftists are free to wage their war of terror on human beings they want the borders closed to prevent people escaping and where they are not in control they like open borders to facilitate the movement of terrorists and to otherwise disrupt national unity through demographic upheaval.
Last edited by SolarCross on 09 Oct 2018 19:16, edited 1 time in total.
#14952326
Victoribus Spolia wrote:@Decky

Maybe you try to summon him because his posts are like when someone exposes his penis.

German = Nazi, which makes the EU Nazi too, Brexit is a working class movement (it's as much working class as Nazism was), so the Brexit dream is a working class dream, and the Dark Ages were the best. :excited:

On the last one you two may agree. :lol:
#14952331
SolarCross wrote:But then being a remainer is a fringe position too because that too has people from different wings of the political spectrum supporting it.


That is just non-sense mate, remain is the official position of the large majority of the elected representatives of the United Kingdom.

If the remainers had won the referendum they wouldn't want a second referndum either for the same reasons.


No, not for the same reasons, being in the EU is quite clear, you know your rights, obligations and rules, there is no doubt over what you have voted for. Brexit is utterly unclear, have you voted to be like Switzerland? or like Norway? or like Turkey? or like Israel? or like Bangladesh? All these countries are not EU members but have different levels of access or none at all. Voting for something clear like "we will be like Norway or like Turkey or like Bangladesh" leaves no doubt over what you have chosen. At the moment you have not chosen anything. The Conservative PM is saying the UK should be further away the EU than Turkey(who is in the EU customs union)! The leftist magazine considers Corbyn a greater threat to normality than the PM throwing the UK below Turkey in the European ranks. :lol: Did you vote for this? This basic logic should not be difficult even for the most-die hard Brexiteers. Who will decide what is the new relationship going to be? The people through a bi-polar referendum? through elections? Who is communicating what? At the moment you are sailing through a storm without sails, without a captain, without a compass, without a map and without any agreement on what the destination is going to be. How can you be satisfied with this state of affairs?

Meh, I actually like the stormers better than the creepers but I would put them all up against a wall the same as they would do for me if I had the chance. :p


The author is not a creeper and cute Corbyn is not a stormer. The author is simply part of the establishment while Corbyn isn't. Corbyn is the principled and honest old man that looks you in the eye and you know he's for real. He has been accused of everything, being a spy, being an anti-semite, being a traitor, being hard on the centrists, being Darth Vader when in fact he is Obi-Wan.
Image
#14952333
noemon wrote:That is just non-sense mate, remain is the official position of the large majority of the elected representatives of the United Kingdom.

Until the referendum made it clear that there were a lot of votes to be had courting brexit. Do keep up.

noemon wrote:No, not for the same reasons, being in the EU is quite clear, you know your rights, obligations and rules, there is no doubt over what you have voted for. Brexit is utterly unclear, have you voted to be like Switzerland? or like Norway? or like Turkey? or like Israel? or like Bangladesh? All these countries are not EU members but have different levels of access or none at all. Voting for something clear like "we will be like Norway or like Turkey or like Bangladesh" leaves no doubt over what you have chosen. At the moment you have not chosen anything. This basic logic should not be difficult even for the most-die hard Brexiteers. Who will decide what is the new relationship going to be? The people through a bi-polar referendum? through elections? Who is communicating what? At the moment you are sailing through a storm without sails, without a captain, without a compass, without a map and without any agreement on what the destination is going to be. How can you be satisfied with this state of affairs?

The UK can't do a political union with the EU, it is a constitutional impossiblity. If the EU was going to remain only a common market then we could stay indefinitely but the EU central planners have now made it clear that political union is the eventual goal, consequently sooner or later we would have to leave before that happens. Now is as good as any time. It is all to the good that we have a popular referendum backing brexit too but brexit would have to happen anyway even if the remainers had won...

noemon wrote:The author is not a creeper and cute Corbyn is not a stormer. The author is simply part of the establishment while Corbyn isn't. Corbyn is the principled and honest old man that looks you in the eye and you know he's for real. He has been accused of everything, being a spy, being an anti-semite, being a traitor, being hard on the centrists, being Darth Vader when in fact he is Obi-Wan.

Oh dear you've been drinking deeply on the corbyn kool-aid. Obi-wan?! Leave Nato! Cut the UK defence budget even more! Scrap Trident! He is Grima Wormtongue more like.

Image
#14952334
SolarCross wrote:Until the referendum made it clear that there were a lot of votes to be had courting brexit. Do keep up.

The UK can't do a political union with the EU, it is a constitutional impossiblity. If the EU was going to remain only a common market then we could stay indefinitely but the EU central planners have now made it clear that political union is the eventual goal, consequently sooner or later we would have to leave before that happens. Now is as good as any time. It is all to the good that we have a popular referendum backing brexit too but brexit would have to happen anyway even if the remainers had won...

Oh dear you've been drinking deeply on the corbyn kool-aid. Obi-wan?! Leave Nato! Cut the UK defence budget even more! Scrap Trident! He is Grima Wormtongue more like.


The one regurgitating establishment propaganda is yourself mate. How does it feel being the mainstream establishment fighting the good guy out of it with lies and propaganda that never stood up to scrutiny? I am not sure what the point is here. You have not even defined what kind of Brexit you want. Do you want to be less than Turkey and Israel in Europe like the Conservative PM Theresa May has suggested and worked to achieve? It should not be very difficult to answer.
#14952338
noemon wrote:The one regurgitating establishment propaganda is yourself mate. How does it feel being the mainstream establishment fighting the good guy out of it with lies and propaganda that never stood up to scrutiny? I am not sure what the point is here. You have not even defined what kind of Brexit you want. Do you want to be less than Turkey and Israel in Europe like the Conservative PM Theresa May has suggested and worked to achieve? It should not be very difficult to answer.


I am happy to leave the details to the respective authorities, the civil service or whoever. If we must have a larger political union it should be with the other commonwealth realms: Canada, Australia and New Zealand (even political integration with Jamaica and Barbados makes more sense than a political union with the EU). Brexit isn't optional because if the EU wants political union then Brexit is mandatory.
#14952340
SolarCross wrote:I am happy to leave the details to the respective authorities, the civil service or whoever. If we must have a larger political union it should be with the other commonwealth realms: Canada, Austalia and New Zealand (even political integration with Jamaica and Barbados makes more sense than a political union with the EU). Brexit isn't optional because if the EU wants political union then Brexit is mandatory.


Farage supported the Norway option, he in fact mentioned Norway and her example several times in his speeches. Remainers also support the Norway option as does Jeremy Corbyn. Theresa May has gone further than Farage in supporting being less of a European associate than Turkey. You still have not expressed your own view at least not that I have seen. :roll: Are you saying Norway, Switzerland and Turkey are in a political union with Europe that you are trying to avoid?
#14952342
noemon wrote:Farage supported the Norway option, he in fact mentioned Norway and her example several times in his speeches. Remainers also support the Norway option as does Jeremy Corbyn. Theresa May has gone further than Farage in supporting being less of a European associate than Turkey. You still have not expressed your own view at least not that I have seen. :roll:

I am not caring very much to be honest. If they want us to keep buying BMWs they are not going to be too retarded about trade barriers and even if they do get retarded about it then Japanese cars are just as good. :)

---

On a personal note I have been a long time customer of VW's very nice cars (I have also had a few French cars but they were all shit) but from now on I am looking at Japanese makers.
#14952346
I love that Faragian notion that German car makers and French wine exporters dictate the terms to the German and the French governments, so thus the EU. Like selling cars or wine is the most lucrative business in the world and car manufacturers and wine producers would have the greatest leverage on any government anywhere, Germany and France included. I wonder whether what Continental financiers lobby for in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels.

'A real blow': The City of London is furious with the government's Brexit plan for finance

"It's the City, stupid!"
#14952347
Beren wrote:I love that Faragian notion that German car makers and French wine exporters dictate the terms to the German and the French governments, so thus the EU. Like selling cars or wine is the most lucrative business in the world and car manufacturers and wine producers would have the greatest leverage on any government anywhere, Germany and France included. I wonder whether what Continental financiers lobby for in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels.

The companies don't dictate terms but the governments feed off of their earnings and so in turn the EU feeds off of the governments. They must care somewhat that those companies, which ultimately pay for everything, continue to prosper.

My posts are cool and good so sure why not. I kno[…]

EU-BREXIT

So the Commons meaningful vote is on 14th January […]

You are wrong because: 1. You know you are and yo[…]

China is providing free education to its wayward […]