Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah. We love Muslims and let them get away with anything. We just want to kill Jews because they smell.

Oh wait.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mohammad-bin-salman-saudi-arabia-protests-downing-street-state-visit-uk-yemen-a8244861.html

Yeah let's cherry pick news articles showing minor protests--still nothing like boycott/divest. Also if you look at the video those aren't Brits, those are all blacks/Muslims and probably have some internecine Islamic animus to the Saudis.

[Tamas]

I'll never understand how liberals seem to be fine with trade and relationships with many of the world's worst autocracies, but chooses to focus so much ire on Israel.

Who are you including in your definition of "liberals"

You fucking know who--just stop.

No, actually I don't.  Right wing Americans use the term "liberal" to describe anybody they disagree with.  I am wondering if you are one such person.

I tend to use it to mean "stupid people on the left", so I'll let you decide.

So, if liberal is a blanket term of political slur for you, that puts you as anti-liberal? Which part of liberalism are you against on a principle basis? Personal freedom? Or equality?

[Valmy]

I tend to use it to mean "stupid people on the left", so I'll let you decide.

So just say 'stupid people on the left'.

And stupid people have stupid opinions. There is your explanation

[OttoVonBismarck]

So, if liberal is a blanket term of political slur for you, that puts you as anti-liberal? Which part of liberalism are you against on a principle basis? Personal freedom? Or equality?

I mean this isn't new ground--for one, I made it clear I'm not using the term that in America we'd call "Classical liberalism" or "libertarianism", but "liberal" in the mainstream American context which is synonymous with leftism broadly, albeit many American far leftists are seeking to differentiate the far left from "mainstream" leftists by using the term "progressive."

Generally I don't like how leftists promote group rights over individual ones, simple as that. The fact that many on the left have delved into anti-semitism, idiot anti-Wall Street rhetoric and etc is just more fuel to the fire.

[crazy canuck]

I'll never understand how liberals seem to be fine with trade and relationships with many of the world's worst autocracies, but chooses to focus so much ire on Israel.

Who are you including in your definition of "liberals"

You fucking know who--just stop.

No, actually I don't.  Right wing Americans use the term "liberal" to describe anybody they disagree with.  I am wondering if you are one such person.

I tend to use it to mean "stupid people on the left", so I'll let you decide.

OK, so you are one of those who uses terms without regard to its real meaning.  Good to know

[Tamas]

So, if liberal is a blanket term of political slur for you, that puts you as anti-liberal? Which part of liberalism are you against on a principle basis? Personal freedom? Or equality?

I mean this isn't new ground--for one, I made it clear I'm not using the term that in America we'd call "Classical liberalism" or "libertarianism", but "liberal" in the mainstream American context which is synonymous with leftism broadly, albeit many American far leftists are seeking to differentiate the far left from "mainstream" leftists by using the term "progressive."

Generally I don't like how leftists promote group rights over individual ones, simple as that. The fact that many on the left have delved into anti-semitism, idiot anti-Wall Street rhetoric and etc is just more fuel to the fire.

Yes but if you oppose the preference of group rights over individual rights (a sentiment which I share) and call that opposing liberals, all you do is help washing any meaning from the word liberal and liberalism.

[crazy canuck]

So, if liberal is a blanket term of political slur for you, that puts you as anti-liberal? Which part of liberalism are you against on a principle basis? Personal freedom? Or equality?

I mean this isn't new ground--for one, I made it clear I'm not using the term that in America we'd call "Classical liberalism" or "libertarianism", but "liberal" in the mainstream American context which is synonymous with leftism broadly, albeit many American far leftists are seeking to differentiate the far left from "mainstream" leftists by using the term "progressive."

Generally I don't like how leftists promote group rights over individual ones, simple as that. The fact that many on the left have delved into anti-semitism, idiot anti-Wall Street rhetoric and etc is just more fuel to the fire.

Yes but if you oppose the preference of group rights over individual rights (a sentiment which I share) and call that opposing liberals, all you do is help washing any meaning from the word liberal and liberalism.

It is an American phenomenon. For right wing Americans, Liberal is a derogatory word devoid of meaning other than someone who is not right wing.

[Valmy]

Generally I don't like how leftists promote group rights over individual ones, simple as that. The fact that many on the left have delved into anti-semitism, idiot anti-Wall Street rhetoric and etc is just more fuel to the fire.

I don't like how nationalists and populists on the right do the same shit. Groups have no, and should have no, rights. Only people have rights.

[Valmy]

Yes but if you oppose the preference of group rights over individual rights (a sentiment which I share) and call that opposing liberals, all you do is help washing any meaning from the word liberal and liberalism.

Especially since there are already plenty of good terms to describe leftists but very few terms to describe those who believe in Liberalism.

[ulmont]

To get back to the thread title, here's Scottish sci-fi writer Charlie Stross:

Airports and the main container freight ports for goods entering the UK will shut down on day 1. There will be panic buying. I expect widespread rioting throughout the UK and sectarian violence in Northern Ireland (contra public received wisdom, NI is never quiet and this summer has been bad.)

A currency crisis means that goods (notably food) entering the UK will spike in price, even without punitive trade tariffs.

There will be mass lay-offs at manufacturing plants that have cross border supply chains, which means most of them.
...
After week 1 I expect the UK to revert its state during the worst of the 1970s. I just about remember the Three Day Week, rolling power blackouts, and more clearly, the mass redundancies of 1979, when unemployment tripled in roughly 6 months. Yes, it's going to get that bad. But then the situation will continue to deteriorate. With roughly 20% of the retail sector shut down (Amazon) and probably another 50% of the retail sector suffering severe supply chain difficulties (shop buyers having difficulty sourcing imported products that are held up in the queues) food availability will rapidly become patchy. Local crops, with no prospect of reaching EU markets, will be left to rot in the fields as the agricultural sector collapses (see concluding remarks, section 5.6).
...
I expect the government will collapse within 1-4 weeks. There will be a state of emergency, managed under the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) (which replaced earlier civil defense emergency legislation). Emergency airlifts of medicines, food, and fuel may take place—but it's hard to see the current US administration lending a hand.

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/07/that-sinking-feeling.html

If you prefer something slightly less pessimistic:

Brexiters pretend post-Brexit Britain will forge its own standards in trade, but that is false. We're a medium-sized country surrounded on both sides by massive trading entities. The reality is we'll either snuggle into the EU ecosystem or the US ecosystem - it's as simple as that. On food, this is basically about which set of sanitary and phytosanitary standards we adopt.

If Brexiters can force a situation - especially in the chaotic furnace of no-deal - where the UK starts de-facto accepting US standards by having to bring in lots of their food, it makes it harder for us to align with the EU again in the future. It's a fait accompli, except that Fox would consider that phrase unforgivably continental. Maybe he'd prefer Mission Accomplished.

As the days and weeks wore on after a no-deal Brexit, British agriculture would be pulverised.

Tariffs are exorbitantly high for food products. Under a deal, they'd be kept at zero, but without one they'll average 22%. This would devastate UK agricultural exports, whose main market is Europe.

Britain could decide to unilaterally bring these tariffs down to zero. But you can't discriminate between countries under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, so it would then have to do this for the rest of the world as well. That would bring in a flood of cheaper agricultural products from countries with lower standards and protections.

http://politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/27/this-is-what-no-deal-brexit-actually-looks-like

Or, if you want even more pessimism:

First off, it's really not clear there's going to be anything in place able to do the negotiating; a collapse of legitimacy is not inevitable, but sure seems likely.  (Food shortages are an inherent collapse of legitimacy.)  Having the monarchy step up isn't impossible, but the EU's response to a direct overture from a crowned head nigh-certainly involves insisting on a legitimate -- that is, democratically elected -- government.

Secondly, and much more importantly, getting rid of governance is the point to the exercise.  Sane people who are willing to acknowledge the idea of facts and that there are actual facts which are a constraint on what is possible are able to recognize that money is a social institution, not a material thing.  It's only real if we all agree that it's real.  The folks pushing Brexit aren't in that category of sane people.  ("Government is bad" started for racist reasons, but then Randite economic delusions got into it.  Brexit is just another manifestation.)  They truly believe that money is as natural and as pervasive as gravity, and if they could only get rid of the government entirely they would have more money because all those regulations would go away.  (Regulations are mostly there to keep your commercial practices from being either fraud or lethal.  Might want to keep that in mind the next time you hear someone complaining about regulation.)

This is absolutely barking mad in several ways, but, well, if you model post-1990s politics as the Mob taking over it's surprisingly plausible.  No rule of law would be something they wanted.

(If you are in the UK, you might want to think about water purification.  Your modern gravity filter system is surprisingly cheap and compact.)

https://dubiousprospects.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-campbell-had-orders-king-william.html

[Valmy]

If you are not 100% certain Brexit will lead to 10,000 unicorns for every fairy princess you are fear mongering.

[Tamas]

If you are not 100% certain Brexit will lead to 10,000 unicorns for every fairy princess you are fear mongering.

And the Treason Act might be extended to you.

[garbon]

To get back to the thread title

Hey, this has become the general thread on British politics.

[Josquius]

If you are not 100% certain Brexit will lead to 10,000 unicorns for every fairy princess you are fear mongering.

I'm pretty sure it will lead to that

[Josquius]

If you are not 100% certain Brexit will lead to 10,000 unicorns for every fairy princess you are fear mongering.

I'm pretty sure it will lead to that

Yeah. We love Muslims and let them get away with anything. We just want to kill Jews because they smell.

Oh wait.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mohammad-bin-salman-saudi-arabia-protests-downing-street-state-visit-uk-yemen-a8244861.html

Yeah let's cherry pick news articles showing minor protests--still nothing like boycott/divest. Also if you look at the video those aren't Brits, those are all blacks/Muslims and probably have some internecine Islamic animus to the Saudis.

No cherry picking. I googled Saudi protest and its the first thing that came up. I was actually expecting something on the more recent protests against the Qatari emir.

The right now, they're oddly quiet on business with the Saudis.
That's probably why Israel attracts so much attention- you've a clear for and against side against each other.
With the Saudis the right know they're in the wrong...so they follow tactics of trying to keep it hush hush.