Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[sir roger]

Britain is run by a self-serving clique. That’s why it’s in crisis

 

Last week Boris Johnson delivered a speech to a Royal Horticultural Society audience in Wisley, Surrey, before heading to the affluent village of Oxshott to buy some fennel and tarragon sausages and have a cup of tea in the Munch and Wiggles cafe. In a series of interviews later that day, he was unwilling to reveal the provenance of the staged photograph of him and his partner, Carrie Symonds. He was, however, able to insist that Britain would leave the European Union, “do or die”, by the end of October.

 

On the same day, the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission issued a report into elitism in Britain that “paints a picture of a country whose power structures are dominated by a narrow section of the population [where] social mobility is low and not improving”. Those who went to private school comprise 7% of the country’s population but 39% of the elite; those who went to Oxford or Cambridge university comprise less than 1% of the population but 24% of the elite. Senior judges, junior ministers, permanent secretaries and diplomats are among the least representative professions. But the media, and particularly newspaper columnists, are right up there, too.

 

There is a clear and undeniable link between the entrenched and calcifying class stratification in British society and the inept chaos in which we currently find ourselves. The gene puddle from which the elite siphons its ranks has become shallow and fetid. Those who make the laws in government, oversee the civil service that will implement them, adjudicate on them in court or assess them in newspapers, are drawn from such a narrow social layer that they might as well be the same person. Even when they do not form a majority, their critical mass is such that they set the tone, define the culture and shape the parameters for what is institutionally permissible.

 

This was never healthy and always absurd. But recently it has become untenable. The prime minister who got us into this Brexit mess a few years back went to the same school and joined the same supper club at the same university as the person who will most likely be prime minister in a few weeks’ time. Nobody thinks that is an uncanny coincidence. It’s how Britain works. It’s also why it’s not working.

 

“The country’s model of leadership is disintegrating,” wrote the Economist, not known for its Marxist tendencies, in December. “Britain is governed by a self-involved clique that rewards group membership above competence and self-confidence above expertise.” The overwhelming failure of integration in this country has nothing to do with Muslims or race – it’s that those who are running it, governing it and commenting on it have such a limited experience of living in it the way that most do. The consequences of that dislocation are proving devastating.

 

A brief caveat here to confront predictable straw men. Nobody should be blamed for being born rich or the school they go to – they had no say in it. Meanwhile, the handful of working-class people who make it to Oxbridge should be applauded for their achievement. At issue here is not individuals but a system that rewards privilege and privileges the rich – giving more opportunities, wealth and power to those who did not earn them, or have otherwise acquired them, while excluding others of access to resources.

Class privilege is not new. Between 1955 and 1964 all three British prime ministers went to Eton and Oxford. But several things have changed since then that make this persistent dominance of a tiny stratum particularly problematic. First of all, levels of income inequality have grown massively. According to the Equality Trust thinktank, between 1938 and 1979 the share of income going to the top 10% fell by 40%, while that going to the bottom grew a little. After 1979 that trend reversed sharply and has now effectively stalled. Real wages have yet to catch up with pre-crisis levels.

 

So the oligarchic tendencies in our economy are being reinforced and amplified in our polity and broader culture. The people who have everything also run everything. The Tory frontrunner, Johnson, is not just a product of that system but an advocate for it. When we see him call for a massive tax cut for the rich, we see a candidate who has had much and wants more. When we see him guessing the minimum wage “at or around £10” when it is in fact £8.21 we see a candidate who knows nothing about those who have little and has no interest in learning. (Imagine what would have happened to Diane Abbott had she made a mistake like that.)

 

Second, their increasingly desperate efforts to preserve their grip on power are having increasingly extreme consequences. We are in a period of extended crisis and division, largely brought about by financial elites whose reckless behaviour was first enabled and indulged, and then forgiven and written off, by political elites. It is highly unlikely that the imaginative and radical responses we need to turn this around are going to come from those same elites.

Brexit is simply the clearest manifestation of these crises. The race for Tory leader is the clearest illustration of how ill-equipped we are to deal with them. This party has won an outright majority just once in the last six elections and is about to elect its third leader in three years. The runaway favourite is an unrepentant race-baiter, liar, philanderer and opportunist, liked least by those who know him best. His opponent is just hopeless. The question of how long either will last in the top job is debatable.

 

Throughout this time media elites, drawn from the same class as their financial and political counterparts, have mostly been obsessed by the crisis in leadership in an ostensibly “unelectable” Labour party, which has had the same leader for four years – and gained seats and vote share in the last general election. Those media elites have called pretty much every major political event, from Brexit to the last two elections, incorrectly.

 

The point here is not about Jeremy Corbyn or partisanship – though it could be – but perspective and proportionality. One of the reasons why British politics is so difficult to understand at present is that most of those critiquing it are so deeply embedded and implicated in the world they are critiquing, they just can’t see straight. Which leads to the final point. Since the war Britain has come to think of itself as far more meritocratic. The current situation gives the lie to that illusion. If you think Johnson is the best person for the top job then you either know nothing about the job or you know nothing about him.

 

At Eton, notes James Wood in the London Review of Books, they were taught to impose themselves on the world with “effortless superiority”. But these people fall short too often. The trouble is they keep failing upwards – constantly given the benefit of the doubt, leaving them with the benefits and the rest of us with the doubts.

 

• Gary Younge is a Guardian columnist

 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2019/07/as-bad-as-it-gets-grocery-giants-warn-on-brexit-no-deal/?fbclid=IwAR1NdssSzDu5G3AFbupX-sP75gKFR17saFS7wT6NZ3ChaBHOUrwMKyUbSsw

“As bad as it gets” – Grocery giants warn on Brexit no-deal

// UK’s 3 biggest grocers warn that an October no-deal Brexit would be “as bad as it gets” as it could disrupt Christmas trading

// Sainsbury’s CEO Mike Coupe says toys & electrical goods could be affected by disruption at UK ports

// Asda CEO Roger Burnley highlighted the risk of “fresh food sitting in ports rotting”

// Tesco CEO Dave Lewis says it’d be more difficult to stockpile as warehouses would already be full for Christmas anyway

---

The UK’s three biggest grocers have issued a warning to the next Prime Minister that a no-deal Brexit would be “as bad as it gets” and could disrupt people’s Christmases.

The bosses at Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Asda – which account for more than half of all food sales in the country – said the timing of the delayed October 31 deadline is problematic because that is the same time they start increasing deliveries of extra festive products.

The grocery giants had already commenced stockpiling in preparation of Brexit when its original deadline was set for March, but because supermarkets usually build up stock ahead of Christmas anyway, they may be short of much-needed extra warehouse space if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

Sainsbury’s chief executive Mike Coupe said toys and electrical goods could be affected by disruption at UK ports, and that the October deadline is “about as bad as it gets”.

“A no-deal scenario would be very disruptive to us, and I think the timing of it means it would be potentially disruptive to people’s Christmases,” he said.

Asda chief executive Roger Burnley highlighted the risk of “fresh food sitting in ports rotting” in the event of border checks.

“Whatever the outcome, we need a friction-free border to get our food in quickly and our fresh food can get through to our customers as quickly as it does today,” he told PA.

“If you’re choosing a time for a dramatic change [to the rules], you wouldn’t be choosing October, for sure.

“We’re all heavily into stock building at that time. Nonetheless we’ll do our best for customers to make it as seamless as possible whatever the outcome at that time.”

Meanwhile, Tesco chief executive Dave Lewis said it would be more difficult to stockpile ahead of a no-deal in October as warehouses would already be full for Christmas anyway.

“In March, for long life things we did take some stock so that, depending on what the outcome was, we could help our customers through that time of turbulence,” he told the BBC.

“It will be more difficult to do that in October, that’s for sure, because all the network will be full of things getting ready for Christmas so there will be less capacity.”

The warnings come as Tory leadership candidates Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt keep open the possibility of a no-deal Brexit scenario, although both say they would prefer to leave with a deal.

Johnson has said the UK will leave the EU by October 31, regardless of whether a deal has been signed, while Hunt said he would make a decision in September.

The BRC has also weighed in, saying on Wednesday that an October 31 deadline would come at the “worst possible time for retail”.

Chief executive Helen Dickinson said the new deadline coincides with the “height of preparations for Christmas and Black Friday, which are peak trading periods, threatening to cause disruption for consumers and businesses, and making further stockpiling of goods almost impossible”.

“It is vital that the next Prime Minister reaches a deal with the EU and avoids the cliff edge,” she said.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

[Jairzinho]

They're some of the biggest cunts on the planet. 

 

Racist, destroying every single public service, putting children in poverty, sending nurses to food banks, and systematically killing people through their policies. 

 

Never has it been clearer that there really are only two reasons to vote Tory. You're a well off sociopath, or you're an absolute cretin.

[Duff Man]

They don't even try to hide it anymore, either. Probably because they've realised they don't actually have to. Ministers can openly admit welfare policies have contributed to the homelessness crisis, or that universal credit led to an increase in food bank use, and half the country doesn't even bat an eyelid. It's utterly depressing.

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

20 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

They're some of the biggest cunts on the planet. 

 

Racist, destroying every single public service, putting children in poverty, sending nurses to food banks, and systematically killing people through their policies. 

 

Never has it been clearer that there really are only two reasons to vote Tory. You're a well off sociopath, or you're an absolute cretin.

Disagree. Some are both. 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

They don't even try to hide it anymore, either. Probably because they've realised they don't actually have to. Ministers can openly admit their policies have contributed to the homelessness crisis, or that universal credit led to an increase in food bank use, and half the country doesn't even bat an eyelid. It's utterly depressing.

 

That knobber Hunt has been coming out with some classics over the last few weeks, the utter Tory cunt. 

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

Disagree. Some are both. 

Well, yes. But at least there is an excuse for the former if you're also the latter.

[Duff Man]

1 minute ago, Pistonbroke said:

That knobber Hunt has been coming out with some classics over the last few weeks, the utter Tory cunt. 

To be fair to him, he did say that pushing through one of the most disastrous bits of policy imaginable would be done with a heavy heart. So, at least those poor folks losing their jobs will be able to console themselves with that.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Just now, Duff Man said:

To be fair to him, he did say that pushing through one of the most disastrous bits of policy imaginable would be done with a heavy heart. So, at least those poor folks losing their jobs will be able to console themselves with that.

In his eyes, they should be grateful for small mercies. It's quite obvious to anybody with a brain that pushing on with Brexit regardless, means that there is more in it for the rich than the rest of you. They'll be sorted either way, they are only pushing on with things (or so they say) because they are thinking of their party and not the general public. That goes for most of them as well, not just the Tory cunts. 

[Duff Man]

1 minute ago, Pistonbroke said:

In his eyes, they should be grateful for small mercies. It's quite obvious to anybody with a brain that pushing on with Brexit regardless, means that there is more in it for the rich than the rest of you. They'll be sorted either way, they are only pushing on with things (or so they say) because they are thinking of their party and not the general public. That goes for most of them as well, not just the Tory cunts. 

That's the crux of it. They're literally a cancer.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

[Red Phoenix]

The referendum result is now over 3 years old, we should probably have another one because the last one is clearly out of date at this point.

 

That's unless the idea is still supposed to be that this is a "once in a generation thing", if so that's complete bullshit to me anyway and what I think is one of the main causes of the problem in the first place.

 

It was a once in a generation thing from those that wanted to stay in the EU too, until the result was wrong of course. So both sides are at it if leavers are saying that too now.

 

It'd take so much work that it'd seem insane for a good while, but for the sake of the voters and countries across Europe that are infinitely more important than the EU ever will be, it'd be good if at some stage in the future more regular referendums could be held. So that the EU is more of a dynamic and democratic organisation instead of being such a rigid and heavily corporate influenced mess like it is now, just like so many governments.

 

You could apply this to other areas too, like countries and even smaller areas within countries voting on being part of the UK regularly, states voting on being part of USA regularly and many other related situations, but that's way too anarchistic and we can't be having that.

 

In fact that's almost a fucking thought crime that is. How can the elites concentrate power when plebs are coming and going all the time?

[Pureblood]

I don't think that would be a good idea.  Look at the carnage a single advisory referendum has caused.  It would result in a constant state of flux with nothing being achieved, like what we have now but turned up to eleventy.  

 

Referendums are bad.  Direct democracy is bad.  You can't ask the public to decide something important,  you'll end up with the ghost of Jade Goody being in charge of major policy decisions.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

They need to just fuck it off. People will soon find something else to whine about. They'll be the first to whine about things not going well anyway, should a no deal scenario happen. The future of the country is more important than so called pride or stubbornness for want of a better word. 

[Red Phoenix]

56 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Referendums are bad.  Direct democracy is bad.  You can't ask the public to decide something important,  you'll end up with the ghost of Jade Goody being in charge of major policy decisions.

 

Totally disagree but I can see what you're getting at. I think the answer to that is for the general level of awareness and understanding of the population to be a lot better than it currently is, then referendums and direct democracy would work better, along with almost everything else.

 

To sort that out two main things for a start would be fixing the broken education system and the amount of propaganda that's being spewed out by the mainstream media. And of course then there's the actual people we're having referendums and votes centered on, and sorting out the problem of corporate influence/lobbying in a big way could help with that too to get things started.

 

If the population mostly can't be trusted to vote democratically on so many things, then surely that has to be changed. Again though, this doesn't serve the aims of the ultra rich so we're not supposed to be interested in it. Better for them that we slave away and don't have too much influence while those tax havens get stocked up with more cash, bombs carry on being dropped in foreign countries and the environment goes to shit.

[Pureblood]

4 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Totally disagree but I can see what you're getting at. I think the answer to that is for the general level of awareness and understanding of the population to be a lot better than it currently is, then referendums and direct democracy would work better, along with almost everything else.

 

To sort that out two main things for a start would be fixing the broken education system and the amount of propaganda that's being spewed out by the mainstream media. And of course then there's the actual people we're having referendums and votes centered on, and sorting out the problem of corporate influence/lobbying in a big way could help with that too to get things started.

 

If the population mostly can't be trusted to vote democratically on so many things, then surely that has to be changed. Again though, this doesn't serve the aims of the ultra rich so we're not supposed to be interested in it. Better for them that we slave away and don't have too much influence while those tax havens get stocked up with more cash, bombs carry on being dropped in foreign countries and the environment goes to shit.

The reason we elect politicians and have a big civil service backing them up is because the general population don't have the expertise and time/resources to do these things themselves or act in their own best interests.  Exhibit A: Brexit, a needlessly self-destructive clusterfuck resulting from a referendum, the purest form of direct democracy. 

 

If you are diagnosed with a disease you don't ask the electorate what the best course of treatment will be, you place your trust in trained professionals and let them decide what the best treatment should be.

 

I appreciate the diametric view, though.  That's what a discussion forum is all about. 

[Red Phoenix]

31 minutes ago, TK421 said:

If you are diagnosed with a disease you don't ask the electorate what the best course of treatment will be, you place your trust in trained professionals and let them decide what the best treatment should be.

 

Of course, but that's something affecting one person. When things are affecting the vast majority of the population I think it's best to have more direct democracy. Anyway both of our ideas can work in the right situation, but when politicians are so corrupt like they are now, direct democracy at least helps the population have some direct say in what's going on and can lessen that negative influence. It doesn't mean that all decisions would go well, but that's part of the point of doing it regularly, so that another vote later on has a chance of changing things again.

 

Looking at only the EU referendum as the reason why it fails isn't fair either, there's no other recent referendums on other subjects to compare it to where the population could've shown that they can make a wise choice. Say if we had a referendum on fracking, tax havens, renationalising rail or several other subjects where it's clear we want change but politicians are holding us back, then maybe referendums wouldn't be painted as such a negative thing.

[Pureblood]

12 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Of course, but that's something affecting one person. When things are affecting the vast majority of the population I think it's best to have more direct democracy. Anyway both of our ideas can work in the right situation, but when politicians are so corrupt like they are now, direct democracy at least helps the population have some direct say in what's going on and can lessen that negative influence. It doesn't mean that all decisions would go well, but that's part of the point of doing it regularly, so that another vote later on has a chance of changing things again.

 

Looking at only the EU referendum as the reason why it fails isn't fair either, there's no other recent referendums on other subjects to compare it to where the population could've shown that they can make a wise choice. Say if we had a referendum on fracking, tax havens, renationalising rail or several other subjects where it's clear we want change but politicians are holding us back, then maybe referendums wouldn't be painted as such a negative thing.

It's the same principle.  The electorate places its trust in those who have the expertise and resources to make decisions in their best interests.  I think regular referendums on complex issues would be disastrous.

 

The public were asked to name a polar research ship and ended up calling it Boaty McBoatface, you simply can't trust them.  Look at the shite that reaches the top of the music/film charts, the newspapers they buy, the fast food.  The general public haven't got a fucking clue, don't get them involved. 

[Red Phoenix]

10 minutes ago, TK421 said:

The public were asked to name a polar research ship and ended up calling it Boaty McBoatface, you simply can't trust them.  Look at the shite that reaches the top of the music/film charts, the newspapers they buy, the fast food.  The general public haven't got a fucking clue, don't get them involved. 

 

Nothing wrong with Boaty McBoatface.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, TK421 said:

 The general public haven't got a fucking clue, don't get them involved. 

Not a fan of dictatorships, myself.

 

The ideal is an informed electorate. The problem isn't that the people have too much power - far, far from it - the problem is that we are so badly misinformed on so many subjects that we often make unwise choices when exercising the little power we do have.

[Boss]

It's amazing what so called democrats will do to overturn the result of a democratic vote. Give them more democracy they say. Well democracy only works if you're willing to enact the result of the vote. If one side wins and then you give them another vote, and another, because you don't like the answer, then that's not a democracy, that's a dictatorship. 

[skend04]

1 hour ago, Boss said:

It's amazing what so called democrats will do to overturn the result of a democratic vote. Give them more democracy they say. Well democracy only works if you're willing to enact the result of the vote. If one side wins and then you give them another vote, and another, because you don't like the answer, then that's not a democracy, that's a dictatorship. 

Art.50 has been invoked so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

Shifting goalposts after the vote isn't democratic. Gone are the claims we'll be better off and there'll be more money and less immigrants to we'll survive. We're likely in a self-inflicted recession now too.

 

The leave vote is a massive failure, anyone who still stands by the non-binding advisory poll when the result is the polar opposite of what was promised is a complete dickhead at best. 

 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

4 hours ago, Boss said:

It's amazing what so called democrats will do to overturn the result of a democratic vote. Give them more democracy they say. Well democracy only works if you're willing to enact the result of the vote. If one side wins and then you give them another vote, and another, because you don't like the answer, then that's not a democracy, that's a dictatorship. 

It's quite clear that the initial referendum was run on lies and a severe lack of information. Since then all you here from those who wish to leave the EU is the drum of democracy being beaten to death. Despite the lack of positive news they just bury their heads in the sand and claim false news, although they are quick to jump on any statement which suits the choice they made, despite the information being based mainly on opinions and spewing from those who only wish to make a killing out of Brexit, regardless of what is best for the public in General. Be honest, the a lot of those who voted for Brexit have been sold a false dream from the masters who treat them like puppets. 

[Rico1304]

BREAKING: John McDonnell says Labour’s compromise position on Brexit “has not worked” and “we need to express a view which is clearly...remain”.