The Light At The End Of The Tunnel (Is The Light Of An Oncoming Train)
October 10, 2018 11:31 PM   Subscribe

 
Maybe a little more than 5 minutes - but it is remarkable that the entire mainstream media in the UK appears to lack somebody who can explain the insanity of Brexit as well as Ian Dunt can.
posted by rongorongo at 11:50 PM on October 10 [7 favorites]


Reading this makes me feel as despairing and hopeless as I would imagine I would have felt, had been old enough, reading guides to what to do in the event of nuclear war during the cold war.
posted by eddieddieddie at 11:59 PM on October 10 [4 favorites]


I'm still waiting for the grand exposé that shows how Brexit was orchestrated by the Kreml, that Putin supported Farage, Johnson and other prominent Brexiters with millions of pound, hacking computer systems, subverting political organizations, nefarious online campaigns, etc.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 12:00 AM on October 11 [25 favorites]


Reading this makes me feel as despairing and hopeless as I would imagine I would have felt, had been old enough, reading guides to what to do in the event of nuclear war during the cold war.
This is worse.
Even at the height of the cold war the ruling party weren't actively trying to start one because the thought they were immune to radiation poisoning.
posted by fullerine at 12:40 AM on October 11 [46 favorites]


It reminds me of a car crash I was in, the bit where everything is spinning around and you do what you can but accept it's ultimately out of your hands.

I just hope I don't lose my job. I can cope with being poorer. I'm furious about having my EU citizenship stripped, annoyed that my country is controlled by people I wouldn't open the door to, chagrined when I'm working internationally and someone asks "Brexit: wtf?", disturbed that xenophobia is still a significant political force in $current_year, but mostly I'm scared that I'll lose my job and won't be able to prove a stable income to sponsor my family's residence here (cost of which is, you guessed it, going up).

The Kremlin stuff is a side show: Putin fooled us, but he didn't make us stupid. That's on us.
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 12:55 AM on October 11 [69 favorites]


And what if none of that happens and MPs just reject it?

Then all hell breaks loose. There are six possible outcomes.

Christ.
How does this blog post know precisely what I'm thinking at every moment I'm reading it?
posted by zachlipton at 12:56 AM on October 11 [8 favorites]


He only left out the part where the mandate for a major constitutional change rests on a slim, simple majority of an advisory referendum which the Electoral Commission found to violate campaign law.

It is clear there was Russian interference, but on the whole, the government isn't acting on it - nor is the opposition calling for an investigation either.
posted by vacapinta at 1:02 AM on October 11 [10 favorites]


I know it's only five minutes' worth, but it was too depressing for me to read for more than about 30 seconds at a time. As it says at the end: "Thanks for this. Now please never contact me again."
posted by misteraitch at 1:29 AM on October 11 [3 favorites]


It's infuriating to see 2 world powers (US & UK) working arduously to return to a manual-labor based manufacturing economy determined by the terms of their customers, and also undoing 50 years of improving global trade relations that have brought enormous benefits for just about everybody as well as a supposed forum for dealing with the negatives.
posted by chavenet at 1:45 AM on October 11 [28 favorites]


that have brought enormous benefits for just about everybody

But are not quite as profitable as they could be for the very small percentage of the population actually pushing this through.
posted by jontyjago at 1:54 AM on October 11 [12 favorites]


So it's a bit like a very British lord deciding they don't want to pay for the staff and firing them, and we're just at the bit where he's trying to make bacon and eggs and is about to burn down his ancestral home?

Sorry, my mistake, I forgot that somehow he's managed to get into a situation where the staff he sacked are allowed to boobytrap his ancestral home in retaliation if they like.
posted by Merus at 2:04 AM on October 11 [3 favorites]


More like he's expecting all his ex-staff to have to work for Uber Eats and bring him bacon and eggs.
posted by fullerine at 2:08 AM on October 11 [6 favorites]


and doff their caps when they get there.
posted by biffa at 2:24 AM on October 11 [2 favorites]


And, remarkably, Labour has decided that it will facilitate the Tories' plan to void environmental legislation, strip workers' rights, and foster xenophobia.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:30 AM on October 11 [6 favorites]


will facilitate the Tories' plan to void environmental legislation, strip workers' rights

So is the Labour plan to go along with the stripmining of the UK's resources, shredding our international reputation as we go, and then win an election and unfettered by the restrictive EU, implement some sort of socialist paradise which has better environmental legislation and workers' rights?

Yes? That's OK then - it'll all be worth it!

To quote the original article: Christ.
posted by jontyjago at 2:37 AM on October 11 [11 favorites]


Fuck Labour and fuck that plan. The EU never stood in the way of stronger worker or environmental protections. The workers' paradise stuff is bullshit, there was no need to leave the EU to pursue it, it's just being used as an excuse. Which, frankly, sound inspire a lot of scepticism about whether there actually is any his faith intention there.
posted by Dysk at 2:47 AM on October 11 [13 favorites]


So is the Labour plan to go along with the stripmining of the UK's resources, shredding our international reputation as we go, and then win an election and unfettered by the restrictive EU, implement some sort of socialist paradise which has better environmental legislation and workers' rights?

For a whole chunk of the old guard lefties that Corbyn's rise has emboldened?

Yes.

It's the same group of people who - since the sixties - have always wanted to burn the whole system down because they have a cast-iron belief that socialism (or rather, their interpretation of it) is such a natural state of affairs that it will magically emerge fully-formed in the aftermath. Think of them as reverse libertarians.

Frankly, I think a lot of the bad blood between the younger Momentum types and what they regard as the 'Blairite' wing of the party is actually misplaced, and a result of that old-guard slinking out of the woodwork.

The - genuinely - fresh and keen new members see those of us they've branded as (or been told are) 'on the right' as closet Tories resistant to change. Whereas we see a whole chunk of that movement being guided and led (in some cases literally) by the same gang who almost destroyed the Party in the Militant days.

Case in point - there's a whole argument going on at the moment over Universal Credit where Momentum leadership are heavily implying that a whole bunch of the 'right' of the party are somehow okay with it. That's simply not true (a few weirdos aside). We're as horrified by it as the fresh left members are.

But it's constituency party election time (for branch delegates etc) so creating a fake issue out of this, targeted against specific MPs and constituency party officials, is a wonderful - and traditional - way for that old-guard to motivate that new local membership to come out and vote for their slate.

And that's really frustrating, particularly for those of us (like me) who got conned by this mob last time round into buying into their soft socialist stuff, as that was the only side they were showing us, only to later find out that in doing so we'd enabled them to start pushing all sorts of more extreme weird shit too, simply because we didn't understand how they were using us to manipulate the bureaucracy of a political party.

Short version: there's a whole chunk of the new party that see us as condescending to them. Whereas we see them as idealists being dangerously misled. The sad thing is that both statements are at least partly true, all thanks to a third group that have been a recurring problem within the Party since at least the sixties.

But then what do I know? Last week I was called an Urban Imperialist by one of those old guard lefties on Facebook. I don't know what that means, but fuck it. Actually I think it sounds kind of cool.
posted by garius at 3:21 AM on October 11 [35 favorites]


"The EU never stood in the way of stronger worker or environmental protections"
No, having been at the EU's mercy on these and pretty much all other issues in Greece, I assure you that as part of the feared troika, it imposed lower worker protections, reduced the minimum wage, demanded large - scale privatizations, abolished collective bargaining, insisted on passing a host of anti - environmental bills etc. Things that had nothing to do with fiscal issues. I understand that the UK is a different case and that the balance of EU influence is quite different given its possible weight in decision-making (which it has hitherto usually used to insist on even harsher anti-worker legislation). But this statement in its generality is empirically false. The fact that the tories have an even worse record on worker and environmental protections does not mean that the EU is some sort of bastion on these matters. It probably means that it is a bad idea to elect them to government whether in or out of the EU. And obviously they are driving this brexit thing to its worse possible outcome for the majority of the UK population.
posted by talos at 3:31 AM on October 11 [8 favorites]


So forgive my ignorance, but of the 3 sub-groups you've identified (fresh & keen, the 'Blairite" wing and the old-guard) are the first two advocating that the party actually tries to stop Brexit before the damage is done but the actual leadership (being old-guard) is going along with it for the (as they see it) potential it offers them in the future?
posted by jontyjago at 3:32 AM on October 11


Labour has lost the plot and ceased to be an opposition. It is as if, in the US, there were no Mueller investigation and the Democrats were like "But Trump represents the will of the people, we must do everything he says." That is, new elections won't save you when you have nobody to vote for.

Parliament is populated by cowards, with the PM leading the pack. She created this mess and seems interested in pleasing the newspapers instead of having the courage to do what is best for the country. She did not have to invoke Article 50 without a plan but she did because the right-wingers were braying. She did not have to call new elections to 'crush the saboteurs' but she did and lost her majority and to salvage herself made an alliance with the Neanderthals in the DUP. She did not have to define Brexit as the hardest most destructive version but she did because she is personally obsessed with immigration - it is her red line.

Why, you may ask, is such an incompetent still in power? Because for everything she does, there are those on one side that believe she is too extremist and on another side those that believe she is not extremist enough and both sides are terrified of the other side getting into power. So she stays, as their compromise, sailing Britain into the seas with herself as captain, the captain of mediocrity, heading into extremely dangerous waters.
posted by vacapinta at 3:33 AM on October 11 [39 favorites]


Looking to the North: comparing Norway and Sweden to look at the effect of EU membership.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:47 AM on October 11 [2 favorites]


I was called an Urban Imperialist by one of those old guard lefties on Facebook.

I'm sure they meant 'urbane'.
posted by biffa at 4:08 AM on October 11 [8 favorites]


comparing Norway and Sweden to look at the effect of EU membership vast oil reserves.

FTFY. Afraid I didn't read the article once I saw the heading, because it looked like a ridiculous propaganda site.
posted by ambrosen at 4:09 AM on October 11 [14 favorites]


It strikes me that we're now firmly in the realm of sunk costs and bruised pride.

We're clearly past the stage where anyone with credibility thinks that what the UK is doing is a great idea, and I'm trying to be generous in my use of the word 'credibility' here. There was a time (earlier this year?) when the narrative slipped to "this is going to hurt, but it's the will of the people, and we're hoping it'll work out OK in the very long term". What the official line is right now, I'm not sure. Something like 'Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!'

At this point I don't know what you're supposed to do as a Tory politician. Do you acknowledge the stupidity of the whole thing and rebel against your own government, and get savaged by the press? Do you hold your nose and pitch in with the Rees-Mogg nutters, even knowing you don't agree with them? Do you just quietly treat the whole issue as a hot potato and change the subject every time someone asks about it? I suspect that all roads eventually lead to a comfy salary on a board, or a lucrative career on the public speaking circuit, or a think-tank or advisory firm somewhere. Maybe a seat in the Lords if you're still in good favour with the right people.

Labour is in a mess that's come at precisely the wrong time. Corbyn's main useful contribution has been in shifting the Overton Window to the left. Unfortunately that Window has also widened, allowing it to shift to the right at the same time. A more centrist, Milliband-style party would probably have been a better opposition once May came into power, and I suspect they would have been more amenable to keeping Remain more firmly on the table. Steering the country in a more social-democratic direction would have been a fine job for a new Labour leader once the daft Brexit thing was written off. But enough of that alternate reality... I hope the 'fresh & keen' members can point Labour in a somewhat leftward direction, come up with a workable plan for tackling inequality, and temper the more radical and exciting ideas with a dose of pragmatism. The People's Front of Judea style of infighting can hopefully be left in the past, along with Corbyn and his aging comrades. I don't dislike him; I just feel he's too steeped in the internal politics of the old left, and not particularly capable of new thinking. He's managed to mobilise all the young people who hadn't heard the old ideas before, but that's not a long-term strategy.
posted by pipeski at 4:09 AM on October 11 [1 favorite]


Labour has lost the plot and ceased to be an opposition. It is as if, in the US, there were no Mueller investigation and the Democrats were like "But Trump represents the will of the people, we must do everything he says." That is, new elections won't save you when you have nobody to vote for.

This is because Labour is led by an individual who is clearly onboard with the idea of Brexit, if unwilling to admit so publicly. It's hard to be the Opposition when you're not opposed to what's happening.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:15 AM on October 11 [22 favorites]


So forgive my ignorance, but of the 3 sub-groups you've identified (fresh & keen, the 'Blairite" wing and the old-guard) are the first two advocating that the party actually tries to stop Brexit before the damage is done but the actual leadership (being old-guard) is going along with it for the (as they see it) potential it offers them in the future?

Very generally: yes. Although obviously there are exceptions.

There's a small group within the Labour Party which believes Brexit is (for a variety of reasons) a door-opener to a better world. Normally that's because they believe the EU is too corporatist, or because they believe that it doesn't allow policies that are socialist enough to be enacted which a Labour government - if it existed tomorrow - would somehow be able to enact.

In my experience, those that hold those beliefs do seem to generally sit within that 'old guard' left group. And they currently have the same kind of disproportionate power within the Labour Party that the Hard Brexiteers have within the Tory Party.

Generally speaking, the centrist wing (which is what those of us who are branded 'Blairite' or 'right' would probably self-identify ourselves as) is fucking horrified by Brexit for the really fucking obvious reasons all over this thread. So are the new members. That's why pretty much every major poll has shown that there is massive, overwhelming support for binning this whole tragic exercise within the Party membership.

The game the current leadership seem to be spinning is saying to that new guard:

"Look, I know we say we're pro-Brexit, but we're only doing that to win an election, then we'll flip! Trust us! Certainly don't listen to the other mob! Remember Blair? Why would you trust them?"

Which, you know, fair point on that last part. There's a trust gap on the centrist side of the party that is self inflicted. The brutal truth is that Labour lost its way towards the end of the Blair / Brown era and we utterly failed to do the one thing the Tories have always been good at - get elected in the centre and then pull the discussion gently to the right.

Labour had a chance to pull a reverse Overton Window, and we didn't. Which - with hindsight - was a fucking disgrace.

But on a local level it's terribly frustrating seeing a lot of genuinely motivated, good people with whom you agree on 90% of issues being worked up into a frenzy against you - as if you're somehow a bigger enemy than the fucking Tories. And worked up by - to use an actual example I'm familiar with - someone you fucking know was suspended from the party for border-line racist shit, and even stood against Labour as a Respect Party candidate. But whatever. There are photos of him and Jeremy on the picket lines together. And right now - because of that trust gap - that has more currency than we do.

Right now, the centre of the Party is fighting, in a lot of places, for its very existence. Every bit of time or energy we would previously have focused outward is being focused inward. Inward on trying to fight a rearguard action and hold on to key posts or roles, so that good people aren't kicked out of rule-making or policy-making roles that would force open a path for the hard left to change the very nature of the Party forever - and change that nature into a form that those new members would be just as horrified by as we would.

I'm only involved on the periphery of that, but it's fucking exhausting, frankly. And the people I know who are now having to throw themselves deep into fighting some very personal and brutal battles as part of that exercise, are absolute heroes right now.
posted by garius at 4:18 AM on October 11 [18 favorites]


Been putting off getting my Irish passport through procrastination. Application forms in the post.... this could all be a right bloody cock-up. At least I can walk to the Irish Border if I have to.
posted by twistedonion at 4:23 AM on October 11 [1 favorite]


"because they believe that it doesn't allow policies that are socialist enough to be enacted which a Labour government"
Generally speaking though the EU currently practically disallows any economic initiative that would have been considered moderate social democratic policy in the 1990s. It enshrines neoliberalism or, at a minimum, the push towards neoliberalization.
The reason for a country not leaving the EU is not some sort of promise it holds, but the fear that after so many years of integration, leaving would cause a disaster. But if you are working class in Europe it's a choice between evils, you're looking at declining prospects either way.
posted by talos at 4:43 AM on October 11 [3 favorites]


I don't get this repeated idea that Corbyn is pro-brexit. He's always said he's against it. He's performed a few tactical votes that have been interpreted as meaning he is pro-brexit, but it's not like he's pushed to leave the EU, opened up a massive social, national or cultural rift that's sending the UK back fifty years, or had a party with a revolving door of MPs who dash out to join their racist brethren in UKIP. His hands are pretty tied, and he campaigned to remain in the EU. This whole stash of effluvium lies squarely at the ideologically-bankrupt tory party and its predatory, mendacious backers. They've already laid out their long-term Brexit rejection in their six articles statement, which Brexit will simply not pass - and this has been clear from the outset,
posted by davemee at 4:44 AM on October 11 [5 favorites]


No, having been at the EU's mercy on these and pretty much all other issues in Greece, I assure you that as part of the feared troika, it imposed lower worker protections, reduced the minimum wage, demanded large - scale privatizations, abolished collective bargaining, insisted on passing a host of anti - environmental bills etc. Things that had nothing to do with fiscal issues. I understand that the UK is a different case and that the balance of EU influence is quite different given its possible weight in decision-making (which it has hitherto usually used to insist on even harsher anti-worker legislation). But this statement in its generality is empirically false.

The context is indeed different. There is no massive EU bail-out of the UK which provides the pretext for it. The EU does not stand in the way of the UK implementing better worker protections, etc.
posted by Dysk at 4:49 AM on October 11 [7 favorites]


Like, what happened in Greece is atrocious, but it is incredibly misleading to pretend that it represents normal operation of the EU.
posted by Dysk at 4:50 AM on October 11 [15 favorites]


I don't get this repeated idea that Corbyn is pro-brexit. He's always said he's against it.

Except in Parliament, when it came to votes. Not only did he vote with the Tories on it on several key votes, he put in a three-line fucking whip to force his MPs to do the same. So yeah, he says he said he was against it, when really pressed and forced into taking a position, before the vote, but has been all "will of the people" since, especially at every juncture where it would really count.
posted by Dysk at 4:52 AM on October 11 [20 favorites]


I don't get this repeated idea that Corbyn is pro-brexit

I don't personally care what Corbyn thinks or dreams about or does in his spare time. He is the head of the Labour Party though and the first five words of their actual manifesto on Brexit are "Labour accepts the referendum result..." and every actual action they have taken in Parliament has been consistent with that.

The rest of the manifesto echoes the delusion of the Tories: Somehow retain all the "benefits" of the Single Market without actually being in it. If thats the basis of their negotiation strategy then they would be in the exact same place as the current government. As a UK voter, my vote would only go to a Remain party and that is not Labour.
posted by vacapinta at 5:08 AM on October 11 [19 favorites]


A lot of the anti-Corbyn sentiment depends on the assumption that Brexit can be plausibly cancelled.,

We've already debated that assumption in every thread, and the Metafilter consensus is that it can, though opinion is divided over the mechanism. (Some say that the economic catastrophe will mean that the UK will willingly accept the Articles 49/50 requirements like joining the single currency, some that these requirements will somehow be relaxed, others don't know exactly how Brexit will be cancelled but are nonetheless certain it can be).

But if you don't share that assumption, then Corbyn's policy of steering gradually towards a soft Brexit while trying not to alienate Leavers doesn't actually seem that evil.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:09 AM on October 11 [2 favorites]


Police still not investigating Leave campaigns, citing ‘political sensitivities’
The Metropolitan Police has stalled the launch of any criminal investigation into three pro-Brexit campaigns – citing “political sensitivities”, openDemocracy can reveal today. Despite being handed their first dossier of evidence of potential crimes committed by pro-Leave groups over five months ago, the police force has made no progress nor logged a formal case into the activities of either Vote Leave, fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, or Leave.EU, the pro-Brexit campaign bankrolled by Arron Banks.
posted by PenDevil at 5:11 AM on October 11 [7 favorites]


I don't get this repeated idea that Corbyn is pro-brexit. He's always said he's against it. He's performed a few tactical votes that have been interpreted as meaning he is pro-brexit, but it's not like he's pushed to leave the EU

It's important to separate out two things here - being pro-Brexit, and being pro-EU. They are two different things. Corbyn is, and always has been, deeply suspicious of the EU (in all it's forms).

That's not just opinion - it's just a simple reading of his voting record before he became leader and all this shit kicked off. He voted against membership originally, spoke in Parliament and voted against Maastricht and ever since he has consistently voted against greater EU power or centralisation.

Basically, he is - and has always been - very much in the camp that the EU is better than a kick in the teeth, but that it should be abandoned in a second if the opportunity for something more left-wing exists.

That was all ultimately epitomised in his (in)famous answer to the "how would you rate the EU out of 10" question during the referendum. He replied "7/10".

Basically, Corbyn's view of the EU encompases a lot of the concerns and points raised by Talos upthread. Which is cool yo, it's a nuanced and valid opinion.

And this is where the difference between being Pro-Brexit and Pro-EU matters. Because Corbyn is definitely not the latter, and that makes him lukewarm on the former.

Corbyn isn't stupid. Hell I voted for him first time round and did, and would in a General Election again. But is approach and views on Brexit are entirely defined by whether, at any given point, he thinks the downsides of an EU exit would outweigh the potential upsides.

The problem is that we don't really know what he's considering to be "potential upsides" right now. Because if it's genuinely a soft-brexit, Norway option then okay. Best of a bad bunch.

But there is an awful lot of reason to suspect that for him - or at least to a lot of the people he's listening to - those potential upsides equate to creating a sufficiently large and exploitable crisis that would put Labour into power in a way that would allow it to implement a harder left agenda than it would otherwise be able to in normal circumstances.

And well, I mean okay if it works then brilliant. But is it really acceptable to gamble the whole future of the country on that?
posted by garius at 5:17 AM on October 11 [11 favorites]


The Article 50 notice can be withdrawn until 29th March 2019. Every single senior EU politician who has said anything about it has been extremely clear about this.
posted by ambrosen at 5:17 AM on October 11 [6 favorites]


...others don't know exactly how Brexit will be cancelled but are nonetheless certain it can be)

Simple, really. Revoke Article 50. There is political will from the EU to do so and it likely can be done unilaterally
posted by vacapinta at 5:19 AM on October 11 [10 favorites]


But if you don't share that assumption, then Corbyn's policy of steering gradually towards a soft Brexit while trying not to alienate Leavers doesn't actually seem that evil.

A three line whip to give the tories exactly what they want is not steering us toward a soft brexit. Pure obstructionism of any tory attempt to give themselves power to act unilaterally would perhaps be that. Or refusing consent until actual, in writing, meaningful guarantees of a soft brexit would be that. Corbyn has been gradually steering the country toward whatever the tories work out. Handing them rope doesn't seem like that good idea when you're on the gibbet yourself, (hi, I'm an EU citizen living in the UK) even if they might hang themselves as well.
posted by Dysk at 5:20 AM on October 11 [13 favorites]


But if you don't share that assumption, then Corbyn's policy of steering gradually towards a soft Brexit while trying not to alienate Leavers doesn't actually seem that evil.

It's not evil. The problem is that - certainly for a lot of us within the party - it doesn't pass a basic 'sense check'.

Because (ignoring the 'can brexit be cancelled?' debate) it's normally combined with a "we can't go against the referendum or we'll lose votes" argument. But the people who voted for Brexit mostly weren't voting for a nuanced soft brexit - they wanted the fake-promises they were given and which they can never get. And the rest of us aren't really happy with the idea of a Brexit at all.

And if you think walking that line is easy, Theresa May's Chequers plan would like a word.

Plus, as others have pointed out better than I can, nothing that Corbyn has had the Party do officially has looked like anything other than trying to give the Tories enough rope to hang themselves with (which takes me back to the point I made above about engineering a crisis) and see how things shake out.

I mean, Jesus... As a Military Historian the amount of times I see Corbynite MPs or senior backers on Twitter now posting things like "Don't get in the way of the enemy when they're making a mistake" is fucking infuriating.

I know it's a great soundbite, but every fucking decent general or admiral in history will tell you that you 100% get in the fucking way if what they're doing is about to cause critical damage to your own force too.
posted by garius at 5:27 AM on October 11 [26 favorites]


Yeah, a soft brexit leaves nobody satisfied. How that's supposed to be the best thing for your party's long term future I don't know. Nail your colours to the mast of either full on disaster brexit, or fuck brexit, and you've got half the country with you. Go for some vague, non-committal middling thing like they've done, and you have essentially nobody on side - except the trot disaster peddlers, as it turns out. That is not a viable political strategy.
posted by Dysk at 5:34 AM on October 11 [4 favorites]


vacapinta: Simple, really. Revoke Article 50. There is political will from the EU to do so and it likely can be done unilaterally

The article you linked says:
Article 50 is silent on whether the member state that has triggered it unilaterally can also cancel it unilaterally. UK ministers and the European commission have indicated they believe that withdrawing an article 50 application requires the consent of the 27 other EU member states.
Both the UK and the EU Commission say it can't be done unilaterally, it needs the unanimous consent of 27 member states. That creates the same collective action problem that has kept Macedonia and Albania in limbo for over a decade: each member state has an incentive to withhold consent unless it gets something it wants.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:37 AM on October 11


That creates the same collective action problem that has kept Macedonia and Albania in limbo for over a decade

It potentially creates that problem. Brexit means fairly major disruption for many of the EU27. There's a lot more incentive to give consent here than there is with Macedonia or Albania.
posted by Dysk at 5:41 AM on October 11 [7 favorites]


Both the UK and the EU Commission say it can't be done unilaterally,

Correct. Thats why there is a case moving up the courts to attempt to show that it can.
posted by vacapinta at 5:42 AM on October 11 [1 favorite]


But this red herring of whether we can revoke Article 50 is just that: a red herring. We clearly can, and we should build the consensus to do so, because the UK is undergoing serious, irrevocable harm.

All that's irrelevant to the fact that a lot of people don't like the EU. It's tough luck for them now. Theresa May screwed up their chance to leave sensibly, or rather they screwed it up themselves by not having a plan.

As the saying goes:
"Even Baldrick had a fucking plan."
posted by ambrosen at 5:43 AM on October 11 [14 favorites]


Baldrick, actually, thinks Brexit is a stupid plan.
posted by vacapinta at 6:05 AM on October 11 [13 favorites]


Even as an ignorant American I can’t understand the Tory delusion about the Irish border, no matter how many confusing Brexit explainers I read, unless they are more deluded than I thought possible, or they knowingly and actively are working towards the most destructive situation as a goal.
posted by cricketcello at 6:06 AM on October 11 [3 favorites]


Just one remark to Talos' comments, for the benefit of those non-EU citizens who might be reading this. The EU does whatever it's voters say it should do. And right now, the majority both in the EU states and in the parliament are conservative and very much pro-business. The EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, is doing good anti-trust stuff, fighting Apple and Google and Microsoft. And she is liberal. But she is not at all a socialist.
If there was a socialist majority, the policies would be more socialist. It's not like there is some secret office in Bruxelles where they make secret alliances with the Davos people. Vote for socialists and get socialism. It's that simple. This year is election year in EU, and I bet a ton of people who complain about EU won't be voting.

Also, the situation in Greece is just not at all comparable to that in the UK.
posted by mumimor at 6:12 AM on October 11 [15 favorites]


or they knowingly and actively are working towards the most destructive situation as a goal.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

At least a subset of the tory party are being deliberately obstructionist with that very goal in mind. Make all the solutions impossible, and you get to ensure failure.
posted by Dysk at 6:18 AM on October 11 [5 favorites]


Actually the troika case illuminates I think the core logic of eu economic policy. It isn't just Greece, the whole south and well beyond was burdened with similar austeritarian constraints. And the fiscal compact, the ECB rules, the ECJ decisions etc, illustrate this. In fact every treaty since Maastricht.
Now Britain shackled itself to self-imposed austerity without the help of Herr Schauble and was indeed ever since Thatcher trying to go under the meager labor protection floor that the EU provided, so I can understand why people in Britain might have a more magnanimous view of labor rights in the EU. But it is most definitely not the case that any social democratic government in the EU has an easy way to implement labor market regulation, selective nationalisation, increased environmental protection, or even an improved social welfare policy.
posted by talos at 6:35 AM on October 11


Having said all that, I should note that Yanis Varoufakis campaigned for Remain and Kostas Lapavitsas, a staunch grexiteer teaching at SOAS is also against brexit
posted by talos at 6:40 AM on October 11 [2 favorites]


Herr Schauble

Don't do that, please.

And I'm very sorry for Greece, but no, it's entirely different. Austerity was very clearly a Tory project, because they're evil and cruel.

And the problem for the UK is that even if the EU's bad, Brexit as it's been project managed so far is far, far worse.
posted by ambrosen at 6:41 AM on October 11 [3 favorites]


But it is most definitely not the case that any social democratic government in the EU has an easy way to implement labor market regulation, selective nationalisation, increased environmental protection, or even an improved social welfare policy.

And yet Denmark, Sweden, and Finland are in the EU, and aren't being required to remove any of those rights or protections.
posted by Dysk at 6:43 AM on October 11 [14 favorites]


Austerity was very clearly a [insert right wing party] project, because they're evil and cruel. No argument here. You are right on the Herr thing, but austerity everywhere has been the calling card of the German establishment CDU and increasingly the SPD as well.
No argument on the dissimilarity between Greece and Britain either, or the total ineptitude and evilness of the tory party. I specifically agreed to both from the start.
On preview, Dysk: yes but they are slowly eroded even there for a while now
posted by talos at 6:49 AM on October 11


The Brits suspect that all this hand-on-heart Ode to Joy stuff about the four freedoms is a bit overdone and that what the EU really cares about...

There seems to be a common delusion in the UK press that the EU's commitment to the indivisibility of the four freedoms is insincere, ideological, or a negotiating ploy. No, it's vital to the survival of the EU. If Britain can pick and choose what aspects of the common market it accepts, so can any other EU country, and then there literally is no common market anymore.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 6:52 AM on October 11 [18 favorites]


it is remarkable that the entire mainstream media in the UK appears to lack somebody who can explain the insanity of Brexit as well as Ian Dunt can.

James O'Brien tries, but the leavers aren't having any.

One of his callers raises the dollar auction game as an illustrative demonstration of the effects of sunk costs.
posted by flabdablet at 6:58 AM on October 11 [4 favorites]


There seems to be a common delusion in the UK press that the EU's commitment to the indivisibility of the four freedoms is insincere, ideological, or a negotiating ploy

I always think it's best to apply Trump's Mirror to UK (right-wing) press' and politicians' comments about the EU.

If they accuse the EU of acting in bad faith, then it normally means they're trying to.
posted by garius at 6:58 AM on October 11 [9 favorites]


Even as an ignorant American I can’t understand the Tory delusion about the Irish border, no matter how many confusing Brexit explainers I read, unless they are more deluded than I thought possible, or they knowingly and actively are working towards the most destructive situation as a goal.

"Alarmingly, many in the Tory party don’t care much about peace on the Irish border either. YouGov in June found 83% of leavers thought “the unravelling of the peace process in Northern Ireland would be worth it to take back control”. That matches Boris Johnson’s contemptuous approach to all Ireland, indignant that what he rudely dismissed as “the Irish tail” should wag the Brexit dog. Not a lot has changed in age-old rightwing Tory scorn and condescension towards the island of Ireland."
posted by dng at 7:01 AM on October 11 [7 favorites]


On preview, Dysk: yes but they are slowly eroded even there for a while now

Nothing to do with the EU, everything to do with our own right-wing parties. Much as I'd love to blame DF and Venstre on someone else, it just isn't the case.
posted by Dysk at 7:03 AM on October 11 [4 favorites]


So she stays, as their compromise, sailing Britain into the seas with herself as captain, the captain of mediocrity, heading into extremely dangerous waters.
posted by vacapinta at 6:33 AM on October 11 [15 favorites +] [!]


All I can picture is the office building setting sail in the Crimson Permanent Assurance sequence in The Meaning of Life.
posted by runcibleshaw at 7:08 AM on October 11 [12 favorites]


I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I haven't felt this rock-stupid in a long time. I've read the article twice, and I'm still at a complete loss as to what any of it means. I feel like I'm trying to read a foreign language with a bunch of misleading cognates.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 7:10 AM on October 11 [4 favorites]


RationalWiki has a good (if snarky) overview of the whole Brexit thing, which makes it a little easier to understand.
posted by JohnFromGR at 7:17 AM on October 11 [2 favorites]


I know I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I haven't felt this rock-stupid in a long time. I've read the article twice, and I'm still at a complete loss as to what any of it means. I feel like I'm trying to read a foreign language with a bunch of misleading cognates.

The first thing you need to know is that it doesn't make any sense at all.
posted by mumimor at 7:37 AM on October 11 [10 favorites]


And, remarkably, Labour has decided that it will facilitate the Tories' plan to void environmental legislation, strip workers' rights, and foster xenophobia.

Good Lord. I’m pulling for you guys, but Jesus, Corbyn seems an insurrmountable obstacle, and reading about it makes me envision where the US would be if our accelerationist idiots controlled the opposition, and it is truly horrifying.

Corbyn may be a lot of things, but if he’s deliberately allowing catastrophic damage to his country and its people on the theory that he can then gain control and build something different, as though all those destroyed lives will simply be “worth it,” then he is a fucking monster and should be remembered as nothing else.
posted by schadenfrau at 7:41 AM on October 11 [12 favorites]


The term "tankie" was pretty much created for folks like Corbyn.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:46 AM on October 11 [11 favorites]


Corbyn may be a lot of things, but if he’s deliberately allowing catastrophic damage

To be fair to Corbyn, I think if he genuinely thought it would be catastrophic to anyone other than the Tory Party, then he wouldn't.

And therein lies the problem. There's a lot of us who do think that, but he doesn't seem to be one of them (at the moment, at least).

That's what I mean about the dangers inherent in his 'lukewarm' state.
posted by garius at 7:55 AM on October 11 [1 favorite]


From Twitter:

The Electoral Commission found the main Leave campaigns broke the law, and referred them to the Met.

So why has the police not opened an investigation, 5 months later? Latest from me & Jim Cusick.


Tom Watson's amongst the people quoted there, wanting a proper investigation right now, but yep, nothing from anyone with any more power than deputy leader of the opposition. (ob MeFi's own)
posted by ambrosen at 8:38 AM on October 11 [2 favorites]


The Brexit catastrophe is like climate change but sped up to 100mph. Instead of, "We're doomed but we've got 40 years to figure out the details of our doom" it's "We're doomed and we have 6 months."
posted by Glibpaxman at 8:40 AM on October 11 [1 favorite]


Brexit is The Event.
posted by Paul Slade at 8:46 AM on October 11 [7 favorites]


I guess what worries me in left support for Brexit is the extreme difficulty of making large changes to society in a short time.

As an American I don't have the deep background that you'd get from school and media about the establishment of the British welfare state after WWII, but it's always been a big interest of mine and I've read some proper scholarship - David Kynaston and so on. It interests me because it was a peaceful social transformation that really did make tremendous improvements in average people's lives very quickly and because it was a fairly total transformation taking place in a small country.

On the one hand, I can see what Corbyn, etc are getting at in the sense that it took WWII to weaken capital and empower working people enough to achieve Labor's goals. There's a pretty good case to be made, globally, that big disasters are the only times when there are openings for real social change. And certainly if you consider how the Tories ruined everything starting in the late seventies you can see that a clean sweep looks pretty necessary or the right will just fuck everything up again.

What worries me is that Labor's post-war plan was the product of a very log slog through the twenties, thirties and forties, and the product of a lot of work by a lot of very brilliant organizers and politicians. (It's also a bit worrying that even then it was partial - that the housing and pension plans were not nearly as complete and socialist as most of the originators wanted them to be.) And even then it was tough and there were a lot of problems and delays. And most of the rest of the world was in the same boat, and there was the USSR to frighten the right. Much of the world is going various shades of fascist right now and there's no "give us meaningful reforms or the workers will rise up and institute soviets".

What worries me is a Labor victory followed by a Labor disaster because the conditions and people needed to rapidly transform the UK don't exist.

I would love to be talked out of this, because I would really like it if the story went, "the UK crashes out of the EU; ten years later, the UK is a socialist paradise after the success of Labor's sweeping reforms". I am just worried because right now it seems like much of the world is in the grip of the politics of fantasy - large, terrifying problems loom on the horizon and we are all proposing things that cannot be and will not work because the problems are so difficult and terrifying.
posted by Frowner at 8:53 AM on October 11 [19 favorites]


mumimor: "The first thing you need to know is that it doesn't make any sense at all."

Any Brexit explainer at its most lucid reads like an unfunny Monty Python sketch.
posted by chavenet at 9:17 AM on October 11 [8 favorites]


This whole thing is really terrible and I hope that the UK can find a path that...

Yeah but they watch ice hockey which, let's face it, is rubbish

Nevermind. Let it all burn.
posted by lumpenprole at 9:20 AM on October 11 [6 favorites]


Yeah, quite a lot of people pulled him up on the ice hockey joke. (SLTwitterSearch)
posted by ambrosen at 9:24 AM on October 11


So Corbyn's an accelerationist?

When has that ever worked?
posted by leotrotsky at 9:52 AM on October 11 [1 favorite]


I think all of the talk of Cobyn letting Brexit happen to orchestrate a hard left consesus is at best, baseless speculation. 56% of labour MPs represent a leave voting constituency, (compared to 36% remain), which makes it difficult for the party to commit to a remain agenda.
posted by Ned G at 10:19 AM on October 11 [4 favorites]


As an American I don't have the deep background that you'd get from school and media about the establishment of the British welfare state after WWII, but it's always been a big interest of mine and I've read some proper scholarship - David Kynaston and so on. It interests me because it was a peaceful social transformation that really did make tremendous improvements in average people's lives very quickly and because it was a fairly total transformation taking place in a small country.

One condition that contributed to European social democracy after WWII that it's generally not considered polite to talk about is that rather a lot of European right-wingers were dead or in jail.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:30 AM on October 11 [54 favorites]


Most of the analysis I've heard so far suggests that although a number of Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted Leave, it's not an issue that would make enough of their voters switch to the Tories to make a difference - they would still vote Labour even though they disagreed on Brexit (in the same way that a lot of Remainer voters stick with Labour in the same circumstances).

At the moment we're in a state of Schroedinger's Corbyn, where deliberate Lexiteering can still look like strategy. The question is whether he's prepared to switch sides when the inevitable chaos descends on the country (which would be the time to do it, rather than before. I'm not sure that playing chicken with complete social meltdown is an admirable thing to do, though).

On the other hand I suspect the Brexit side (or at least the non-swivel-eyed ones, who believe the stories about there being a real world out there somewhere, beyond the Magic Kingdom of Brexit) are relying on the fact that when push comes to shove people will do their damnedest to make things work, a fact they've exploited through nearly ten years of pointless austerity. However, those people are already exhausted and Brexit will come at a point when the other ways they've been corroding the country - Austerity and its nasty chum Universal Credit - will be inducing massive crises of their own.
posted by Grangousier at 11:23 AM on October 11 [6 favorites]


Second Kent motorway is possible post-Brexit lorry park

We volunteered for this, remember.
posted by Grangousier at 11:28 AM on October 11


Never underestimate Chris Grayling's ability to take any of Theresa May's weeks and accidentally make it even shitter.

Honestly, as a transport journalist, he is just the gift that keeps on giving.
posted by garius at 11:37 AM on October 11 [3 favorites]


56% of labour MPs represent a leave voting constituency, (compared to 36% remain), which makes it difficult for the party to commit to a remain agenda.

Doesn't make it hard to let MPs vote their conscience rather than whipping them to vote with the government.
posted by Dysk at 11:57 AM on October 11


Were it not for the fact that I don't they could pull it off, I'd be convinced that Grayling was a deep-cover mole planted by the Labour party in the early 90s.
posted by Grangousier at 11:57 AM on October 11


So Corbyn's an accelerationist?

When has that ever worked?
posted by leotrotsky


I mean
posted by schadenfrau at 12:03 PM on October 11 [25 favorites]


Second Kent motorway is possible post-Brexit lorry park

It did not occur to me until just now that all the truck drivers are going to have to sit there, presumably foot on the brake, since they'll be inching forward every few minutes, for the whole time they're in the queue. It will be like being in a traffic jam for a double shift. That....does not seem as sustainable as everyone seems to be suggesting, all else aside.
posted by Frowner at 12:04 PM on October 11 [1 favorite]


Were it not for the fact that I don't they could pull it off, I'd be convinced that Grayling was a deep-cover mole planted by the Labour party in the early 90s.

A transport savvy Labour MP who I won't name once told me that debating Grayling in Parliament feels like punching a Tickle-Me-Elmo:

"You can see it reacts, and it makes noises, but it clearly has no conscious idea what's going on"
posted by garius at 12:10 PM on October 11 [15 favorites]


56% of labour MPs represent a leave voting constituency, (compared to 36% remain), which makes it difficult for the party to commit to a remain agenda.

This can be a bit misleading. The split in such a constituency might have been Labour: 48%, Tory: 44% and UKIP: 8% leading to a 48% / 52% Brexit victory. However just because the constituency voted Leave doesn't mean that a Remain supporting MP could lose the seat in a General Election where there are more than 2 choices.

Corbyn is using Tory and UKIP votes as cover for Labour to support some sort of Brexit policy despite the fact that the vast majority of the Labour members in that constituency might have opposed Brexit completely.
posted by PenDevil at 12:23 PM on October 11 [8 favorites]


no-one here has mentioned the fact that all of us involved with emergency services in Kent have modelled loads out outcomes, all of which suggest greater patients impacts i.e. NEGATIVE PT OUTCOMES, (whopps I said deaths in a murmur but no-one here would tell, right? )


FUCK THIS!!!
posted by Wilder at 1:01 PM on October 11 [9 favorites]


The split in such a constituency might have been Labour: 48%, Tory: 44% and UKIP: 8% leading to a 48% / 52% Brexit victory.

It might have been, but it likely wasn't. It's pretty clear voting Brexit didn't go along party lines. Plenty of Labour voters supported it, plenty of Tory voters thought it was economic suicide.
posted by biffa at 1:13 PM on October 11 [2 favorites]


I'm convinced the nativist thing in England is all built around wanting to bring back the really dire smelling sad old man pubs filled with rheumy dour day drinkers.
posted by srboisvert at 2:35 PM on October 11 [3 favorites]


Brexit is actually all about somehow bringing Woolworth's back.
posted by dng at 2:40 PM on October 11


I think the markets have reacted to Brexit as if the whole thing will just go away. When the reality of what leaving the EU truly hits home, it’s going to be a bloodbath. Hell, my company has already moved our European HQ from London to Berlin...at great expense.

I get in arguments about this all the time, but some things are just too complex to be left up to a popular (populist) vote. Especially when said voters are acting on incorrect or outright false information.
posted by pleem at 2:41 PM on October 11 [8 favorites]


One condition that contributed to European social democracy after WWII that it's generally not considered polite to talk about is that rather a lot of European right-wingers were dead or in jail.

Also post WWII in many ways England was worse off than countries that actually lost the war. England had to pay for its victory right up until somewhere around 2007 or so.

Going bananas is an expression because they had almost no bananas so getting a banana was a big deal.

Post WWII there was food rationing for a long time. A lot of weird British foods are because they had to make do with eating industrial vat sludge (hello marmite) to get some nutrients.

A lot of cute British 'quirks' like allotments drama are actually because of a fairly recent history of serious hardship, pressures and deprivations that a lot of other modern European countries avoided (perversely because they were either destroyed or resoundingly defeated rather than merely beaten to within an inch of death).
posted by srboisvert at 2:47 PM on October 11 [13 favorites]


I'm convinced the nativist thing in England is all built around wanting to bring back the really dire smelling sad old man pubs filled with rheumy dour day drinkers.

But... they haven't gone away. There's loads of them still.
posted by Dysk at 3:15 PM on October 11 [4 favorites]


Second Kent motorway is possible post-Brexit lorry park

I am a clueless American who has seen Yes Minister too many times. So reading this, phrases like "the area's very short of parking space for container lorries," said in a menacing tone, immediately come to mind, which I previously thought were satire and not just literal government policy to be carried out 34 years later.
posted by zachlipton at 3:27 PM on October 11 [5 favorites]


Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende
past lorries stalled without an ende
posted by pyramid termite at 5:21 PM on October 11 [23 favorites]


In this week's edition from the Leopards-Eating-Faces Dept.

MP's fury over 'no-deal' Brexit plan to turn M26 into 'parking lot'
Rising to ask a question to Transport Secretary Chris Grayling in the Commons, Mr Tugendhat said: "It's come to a pretty pass when a member finds out that works have begun on a motorway to turn that motorway into a parking lot without consultation either with the local community or with surrounding members.
"The M26 works started last night. I wrote to [Mr Grayling] in April asking whether or not this would happen.
"I was assured the works were not planned and only yesterday was it confirmed to me that Highways England had said that is exactly what was planned, despite having told me the reverse a week earlier."

posted by PenDevil at 12:56 AM on October 12 [5 favorites]


Hammond thinks brexit will be good for the economy, even in the short term.

These are the people in charge of this country. Maybe we should do the world a favour and just sink this sense-forsaken island.
posted by Dysk at 1:50 AM on October 12 [1 favorite]


The reason for a country not leaving the EU is not some sort of promise it holds, but the fear that after so many years of integration, leaving would cause a disaster.

Well, there's also the quite reasonable fear that the default state of a Europe without an EU is a Europe at war. The problem being, there seem to be people looking at the former Yugoslavia and saying "If that happened, we would doubtlessly come out on top." Part of the problem with that mentality is that when the inevitable general war does happen, those same people will be saying "Just this once going nuclear is acceptable. "

Britains fundamental problem is it still thinks it's still in 1810 or at the most, 1942. They somehow think that the Channel will protect them from cruise missiles.
posted by happyroach at 2:46 AM on October 12 [3 favorites]


MPs 'informing' on immigration hotline: "An immigration enforcement hotline was called 68 times by MPs or their staff last year, it has been revealed. Charities have now written to Commons Speaker John Bercow asking MPs to pledge not to inform on constituents, arguing people should not have to fear being reported on by their MPs."
posted by zachlipton at 2:46 AM on October 12 [2 favorites]


Hammond thinks brexit will be good for the economy

Not quite. This is an amazing quote:
"The OBR's forecast [..] is based on pretty much a mid-way point between no deal at all and an EEA solution. [...] The deal that we're trying to negotiate with the EU now represents an improvement from the point of view of the British economy over that mid-point and therefore should deliver us an upside."

He's saying the deal will be slightly less bad than anticipated but still worse than the EEA option. And of course nothing like as good as where we'd be if we'd never gone down this bollocks path in the first place.
posted by grahamparks at 3:10 AM on October 12 [2 favorites]


Yeah, he hedges it occasionally, but also:

“I believe there will be a dividend, a deal dividend for us," he told me.

That is him very very much trying to sell it as "it'll be good!" not merely "it won't be that bad".
posted by Dysk at 3:16 AM on October 12


The OBR's forecast [..] is based on pretty much a mid-way point between no deal at all and an EEA solution.

That looks to me like a half-way point between doing nothing with your hand and sticking it into a blender.
posted by Grangousier at 4:18 AM on October 12 [5 favorites]


“I believe there will be a dividend, a deal dividend for us," he told me.

One wonders how the dividend will be distributed and who exactly "us" is.
posted by srboisvert at 5:18 AM on October 12 [2 favorites]


That looks to me like a half-way point between doing nothing with your hand and sticking it into a blender.

So, just the tip ?
posted by Pendragon at 5:23 AM on October 12


The Washington based "Brookings Instritute" have published a report "Divided Kingdom: How Brexit is Remaking the UK's Constitutional Order". Detailed - but recommended for those who want to get an overview of how Brexit will be likely to affect the union of the UK itself.
posted by rongorongo at 1:54 AM on October 14 [2 favorites]


To say there’s a smell surrounding the EU referendum is an understatement; it’s not just the bad smell coming from Tufton St, there’s an overpowering stench emanating from the very heart of Number 10.
The news, over the last six months, that multiple independent inquiries have exposed the extralegal activities of those who delivered the 2016 referendum result, has been met by a sound of silence that would put Simon & Garfunkel to shame.
posted by adamvasco at 3:18 AM on October 15 [3 favorites]




That referendum link gets a bit weaselly when it says "For the avoidance of doubt, the Remain campaign has not been found guilty of this type of serious breach of the law". The Remain campaigns have also been fined for breaching the complicated electoral law multiple times, though naturally they've decided their "type" of breaching the law is pretty much fine.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:06 PM on October 16


There is at least one order of magnitude in the difference between the fine total levied against the Remain campaign, and what's been levied against the Leave campaign, and that's despite an awful lot of the irregularities of the Leave campaign being ignored for "political sensitivities".
posted by Dysk at 3:37 AM on October 17 [2 favorites]


But yeah, neither side acted legally in that referendum. All the more reason to scrap it and its result altogether. The whole thing was an illegal mess.
posted by Dysk at 3:38 AM on October 17 [3 favorites]


Suggestions are cordially invited for a suitably pithy quote to go on the sign I'm going to carry on tomorrows stop Brexit march.
posted by pharm at 11:56 AM on October 19




Daydream Belizers: Brexit, big sugar and the bad boys from Belize. From last December but since ignored.
Andy Wigmore was a serving diplomat for a foreign country.
David Davis worked for Tate and Lyle for 17 years owned since 2012 by American Sugar Refining since 2012.
As George Monbiot lucidly pointed out This government will sell us to the highest bidder.
posted by adamvasco at 5:35 AM on November 4 [3 favorites]


« Older The Life Of Saint Death   |   This is how the test will go: Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments