The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[tzijlstra]

You're wrong the general election result was a huge slap in the face for Theresa May's winter fuel payment changes and her social care plan. Theresa May had good intentions, like Margaret Thatcher did with the Poll Tax and suffered for attempting to change something, which she should have left alone, rather than upset the apple cart.

 

Our elected politicians were given instructions by the democratic people to arrange our exit from the EU. If all our politician's minds were honest, then they would not deviate from their instructions. However, I have already acknowledged that the general election result, most likely will mean honest leave voters, will be cheated out of democracy, by dishonest politicians.

 

Yes, agreed, reactive politics are far better than anticipating future developments. /s

[Hairyloon]

the best which has been offered is the lib dem second referendum on the deal, which i would have thought a democratically inclined person like you would be all for.

 

Ooh no. Wouldn't want to risk democracy when the vote is likely to go the wrong way. That would never do.

[Guest sibon]

 

Our elected politicians were given instructions by the democratic people to arrange our exit from the EU. If all our politician's minds were honest, then they would not deviate from their instructions. However, I have already acknowledged that the general election result, most likely will mean honest leave voters, will be cheated out of democracy, by dishonest politicians.

 

Advice. They were given advice, not instruction.

 

Not your only misconception

[Carlinate]

The people to blame for the people who are elected are the electorate: it is time we stopped trying to blame somebody else and took collective responsibility for it.

 

Really?

 

Perhaps you would care to explain to us how exactly we are able to control the type of people who make themselves available to us to vote for?

 

Seldom have I heard such nonsense.

 

It's our fault that the type of people that wish to become politicians tend to be ( in the main ) self serving duplicitous corrupt second rate no marks who's main raison d'etre is to enrich themselves at the public expense is it?

 

52% of politicians had to pay back expenses that they claimed unjustifiably.

 

Which means that over half of the people that we elected to parliament had trouble differentiating between what belonged to them and what belonged to us.

 

I worked in a business where it was considered that important that you knew the difference that if you were caught fiddling your expenses not only did you lose your job, but you never worked in that industry again.

 

And don't come back with the " well you should apply for election " crap, because most people prefer to live their lives working in meaningful jobs where they actually contribute something,and not in a talking shop where bugger all gets done on most occasions.

[Hairyloon]

Really?

 

Yup, but don't take it so personally: I am probably as much to blame as you are.

 

Perhaps you would care to explain to us how exactly we are able to control the type of people who make themselves available to us to vote for?

 

Try nominating somebody.

As long as we remain content to leave these things to the parties that we know full well have the party's interest above the public's, then we are going to keep getting the same kind of politician.

Seldom have I heard such nonsense.

You're new here then?

 

And don't come back with the " well you should apply for election " crap, because most people prefer to live their lives working in meaningful jobs where they actually contribute something,and not in a talking shop where bugger all gets done on most occasions.

 

You mean they put their own interests before the good of the nation?

It's catch 22: as long as we accept there is nothing that we can do about it, there will be nothing we can do about it.

We just keep voting for the lizards.

[SnailyBoy]

You are entitled to criticise the government if you think they are not negotiating well with the EU. But not with the result of the referendum.

 

Can I say the result is a disaster for the country?

[Hairyloon]

Can I say the result is a disaster for the country?

 

Sounds like a criticism.,,

[L00b]

Can I say the result is a disaster for the country?

You can say that again: the FT has now confirmed that the EU and Japan have agreed an FTA.

 

Naturally, as result of Brexit, the UK is automatically exiting the scope of that FTA in April 2019 (same as with all other EU-negotiated FTAs), and will have to start negotiations with Japan from scratch. They took 4 years with the EU.

 

On the assumption that an FTA would eventually be agreed between the UK and Japan <likely> and on similar terms as with the EU <highly doubtful, because respective market sizes>, EU competitors will therefore have had a 4 year advantage and head-start (at least) on UK firms for doing business with Japan under these new terms. To say nothing of existing UK export business grabbed by EU competitors early, due to more favourable long-term prospects.

 

That's just Japan, and I mention it because it's in today's news. Apply the same logic to existing FTAs and those about to be concluded and, well...'disaster' (in trading terms) is beginning to look like a euphemism.

Edited July 6, 2017 by L00b

[BHRemovals]

all green environmental laws are bound for the bonfire

[Carlinate]

Yup, but don't take it so personally: I am probably as much to blame as you are.

 

 

 

Try nominating somebody.

As long as we remain content to leave these things to the parties that we know full well have the party's interest above the public's, then we are going to keep getting the same kind of politician.

 

You're new here then?

 

 

 

You mean they put their own interests before the good of the nation?

It's catch 22: as long as we accept there is nothing that we can do about it, there will be nothing we can do about it.

We just keep voting for the lizards.

 

Neither one of us is to blame, the game is rigged to suit the establishment and has been for centuries.

 

Which is why we weren't given the opportunity to vote for PR which would have made a significant difference to political democracy in the country.

Despite the fact that PR has been in use in part of the UK since 1973. There is no other explanation for it not being offered other than self interest and bad faith from our politicians.

 

As for nominating somebody, most of the people that I know are decent individuals who wouldn't care to get involved in something so obviously corrupt.

 

The system is undemocratic and deliberately so because it suits the incumbents to retain the system that they profited by.

 

What can be done about it?

 

Heard the American expression " Go fight City Hall " as an expression of a hopeless cause?

 

Perhaps a nation wide boycott of voting in a particular election might have some effect but I doubt it, given the turnout figures it's not far off that now and it doesn't bother them.