The BREXIT Discussion Thread.

1568101145

Comments

  • Posts: 4,600
    Thought I would bring this thread back as...well, it's all going so well isn't it?
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Yes those EU guys just want money and
    More money. Still it will be worth it to
    Get our independence back. From the EU
    As it Slowly implodes, since It's obviously
    A spent force.
  • Posts: 12,506
    It is one big political farce!
  • Posts: 4,600
    There is a theory and I think there could be something in this, that the establishment (who wanted to stay in) is deleberately mucking the whole thing up in order to create enough public outcry/concern that there will be a second referendum. If you you think about it, this is the only realistic route for those who want to stay in. It's their last option.

    The gov (lead by someone who wanted to stay in) have shown no real conviction or vision re our leaving. The whole "cliff edge" threat of a "no deal" is a red herring IMHO. Leaving is leaving. A government that really wanted to leave would have set "leave with no deal" as the default outcome and started to plan for that. If the EU wanted to make us an offer duing the 2 years, then we would consider it but, havng planned for a no deal, we would at least not be held to ransom. And there would be total clarity re issues such as the Irish border, for example.



  • Posts: 19,339
    patb wrote: »
    There is a theory and I think there could be something in this, that the establishment (who wanted to stay in) is deleberately mucking the whole thing up in order to create enough public outcry/concern that there will be a second referendum. If you you think about it, this is the only realistic route for those who want to stay in. It's their last option.

    The gov (lead by someone who wanted to stay in) have shown no real conviction or vision re our leaving. The whole "cliff edge" threat of a "no deal" is a red herring IMHO. Leaving is leaving. A government that really wanted to leave would have set "leave with no deal" as the default outcome and started to plan for that. If the EU wanted to make us an offer duing the 2 years, then we would consider it but, havng planned for a no deal, we would at least not be held to ransom. And there would be total clarity re issues such as the Irish border, for example.

    It does seem to all be a little 'extra difficult' , @patb ,so your theory could be right,and wouldn't surprise me.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    The Illuminati will not allow Britain to leave.
  • Posts: 4,600
    David Davis when interviewed by the selcet committee this morning (effectively under oath) has admitted that no impact assessments re leaving the EU have been produced on any economic sectors!! A remarkable admission IMHO

    https://www.ft.com/content/8ca38822-da75-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482
  • Posts: 19,339
    patb wrote: »
    David Davis when interviewed by the selcet committee this morning (effectively under oath) has admitted that no impact assessments re leaving the EU have been produced on any economic sectors!! A remarkable admission IMHO

    https://www.ft.com/content/8ca38822-da75-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482

    Well there we go then.
    Jack shit has been done,just as we thought.

  • Posts: 4,600
    I think there are lessons to learn here re who is actually in charge on a day to day basis and the general level of competence of all politicians.
    Civil servants steer the ship to make small adjustments and politicains operate as the face of gov and tell us how well things are going.
    When it comes to a massive change of course, this is when the competence of our gov is really tested (this happens rarely) and its clear that they just dont have the skills to do the job.
    Imagine if we had voted in: the same set of guys would be in charge and everything would have looked great: because they would not have had to do anything other to turn up at the Brussels meetings on time, smile at the camera etc etc

    Its the same in the corporate World. Many senior managers/directors do little when the company is doing well and are only tested in times of crisis or change and it's only then that you find out if they are any good.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The Illuminati will not allow Britain to leave.
    Here is the head of that operation:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/03/tony-blair-confirms-he-is-working-to-reverse-brexit
  • Posts: 12,506
    My advice? Clear yourselves of as much personal debt as you can, and fix rate all your long term necessities for as long as possible to weather the oncoming storm!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    I think there are lessons to learn here re who is actually in charge on a day to day basis and the general level of competence of all politicians.
    Civil servants steer the ship to make small adjustments and politicains operate as the face of gov and tell us how well things are going.
    When it comes to a massive change of course, this is when the competence of our gov is really tested (this happens rarely) and its clear that they just dont have the skills to do the job.
    Imagine if we had voted in: the same set of guys would be in charge and everything would have looked great: because they would not have had to do anything other to turn up at the Brussels meetings on time, smile at the camera etc etc

    Its the same in the corporate World. Many senior managers/directors do little when the company is doing well and are only tested in times of crisis or change and it's only then that you find out if they are any good.

    This.

    The total and utter shambles of Brexit has cruelly exposed the emperor's new clothes reality of our elected representatives not being fit for purpose.

    And it makes no odds how you voted unless anyone really believes that Jezza and Diane Abbott or God botherer Tim would be doing any better a job.

    Frankly if there was a military coup it couldn't be much worse than this shower of cretins.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 4,600
    As a nation, we get what we deserve.

    How many voters spend any serious time looking at the experience and qualifications of the candidates who stand in the constituancy? Most vote along party lines, irrespective of the individual. And this results in a rag tag of power hungry, ego trippers with a sprinkling of good, professional people but with an equal sprinkling of weird characters who we know would struggle in the real World. (Frabricant, Rees Mogg,),

    We should also remember that many MPs take their job so seriously that they are happy to have 1, 2 or possibly 3 additional jobs "on the side" and the expenses scandal was a great indication of how they play the system.

    this is then combined with the cabinet system where MPs with zero experience/knowledge are put in charge of massive departments. The most recent example was Gavin Willaimson who is now head of defence with ZERO specialism in this area. Scary stuff

    Any company that ran it's business like this would last a few weeks and yet we expect our country to be run smoothly.

    One more serious point. At least, Brexit does not lead to death and injury. Imagine if this team were in charge of a war situation? I am no fan of Thatcher (the opposite in fact) but in terms of vision, decision making and inspiring a nation when required, she was a genius compared to the children we have now.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    As a nation, we get what we deserve.

    How many voters spend any serious time looking at the experience and qualifications of the candidates who stand in the constituancy?

    How many can even spell 'constituancy'?

    I think we may be seeing the death of democracy. There's only so long you can get away with a system where the ignorant general public get to decide whichever self serving buffoon with zero experience or qualifications takes the reins. It's remarkable it's lasted this long to be honest.
    patb wrote: »
    I am no fan of Thatcher (the opposite in fact) but in terms of vision, decision making and inspiring a nation when required, she was a genius compared to the children we have now.

    The notion of Maggie riding in on a white charger to salvage the whole shambles gives me a veritable semi.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Maggie wouldn't have put up with all this horseshit that's for sure.
    She would push Brexit through asap,as the referendum told her to do.

    No pissing around.
  • Posts: 4,600
    "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

    Winston Churchill
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

    Winston Churchill

    Quite.

    You have to have a licence to own a dog but as long as you can scrawl an X on a piece of paper even plankton is allowed to vote.

    Isn't making everyone sit a test on the technicalities of government and world events to see if they are fit to vote a no brainer?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Lowering the voting age as well is a major major cock-up.
    Middle aged teenagers deciding on a countries future.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm sorry, but what has democracy got to do with the current difficulties with Brexit? If I'm not mistaken, most here were Conservative supporters during this year's election. Are you advocating for Corbyn now?

    Was Maggie all that more experienced than other MPs prior to becoming Conservative leader? Not as far as I am aware.

    What she was however, was a leader. A conviction politician and not a prevaricator. That is what is missing in the UK right now. There is an obvious and clear complete and utter lack of leadership.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but what has democracy got to do with the current difficulties with Brexit? If I'm not mistaken, most here were Conservative supporters during this year's election. Are you advocating for Corbyn now?

    Was Maggie all that more experienced than other MPs prior to becoming Conservative leader? Not as far as I am aware.

    What she was however, was a leader. A conviction politician and not a prevaricator. That is what is missing in the UK right now. There is an obvious and clear complete and utter lack of leadership.

    Unfortunately that's exactly what it is...embarrassing.
    I honestly thought that PM May would have been stronger even though she wants to stay.

    They clearly don't want Brexit to happen,its so obvious.

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed, Leaving the EU should be simple, we just put our coat on and walk out. If
    The EU doesn't want to talk. Then we should be off .
  • Posts: 4,600
    "I'm sorry, but what has democracy got to do with the current difficulties with Brexit? "

    Everything. It's democracy that gained us the team we have at the moment who are stuggling through a combination of not having the right skill set (but elected anyway) and are being supported by the DUP (dont get me started on them) though a consequence of a weak government (via democracy). We also have a PM who actually wants to stay in the EU (via democracy with the Con MPs)

    Democracy is great when everything is ticaty boo but when yoiu need real change, democracy can be a pain. Its not co-incedence that, at times of war, GB tends to dump democracy and just gets on with the job.

    Brexit is obvioulsy a challenge but the government have made it far far worse than it should have been.

    The electorate want a clear vision with clear goals and well defined dates and issues.

    May has chosen to negotiate (badly) and in doing has denied the country of any of these things. It said "out" on the ballot paper and I'm convinced most people think that out is out.

    When you move out of a house, when you are out of the World cup, when you are out of a marriage, when you are out of a job etc etc. Out is out. It's up to the government to resonate with the basic, binary concept and get us out of the EU.

    Yes, that creates issues but at lest we know what those issues are in advance and can plan for them on our own terms within well defined time scales. At the moment, the government (and therefore the population) cant even define or visualise what their version of out is and seem happy for the EU to help us define what out is.

    May seems to not have the guts to admit that "out" carries with it some serious issues but they have to be confronted head on. She seems to want to please everyone and, in the process, is pleasing nobody.

    So, for example, hard border with Ireland? Yes. Because they are a different country.And they are in the EU and we are not. Many , many countries have hard borders and have done for centuries. They just deal with it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Again, the problems with Brexit stem from a failure of leadership and not a failure of democracy. There were two main options on the ballot in the last election and the electorate voted narrowly for one. For a more decisive result, May should have run a better campaign which would have given her more leverage. One can't really blame the electorate for the choices they are given.

    Do people really think she would have won an election without being installed as leader first to replace Cameron post-Brexit? Not in a million years imho. The party wouldn't have selected her under normal circumstances. She's a middling politician and not a 'man' of the people.

    If you want to manage and implement transformative generational change, which is what Brexit for all intents and purposes is, you need strong leadership. Someone who has conviction and who will stand up and take the hits. Otherwise you run into the mess that exists now where the head doesn't know what the heart wants and vice versa. All it does is confuse and embarrass everyone.

    EDIT: I agree that ultimately the top brass don't want Brexit. That much is clear. They are stuck trying to implement something which they don't wholeheartedly support. So in the end they need a face saving way out, and most likely will get it down the road - after much humiliation by the EU (which is what they want if you think about it - Britain in but weaker politically). The only face saving way is to push all out for exit despite the massive risks and consequences.
  • Posts: 4,600
    "One can't really blame the electorate for the choices they are given."

    Yes, when they elect the likes of Johnson, May, Davis etc etc as MPs (and plenty of equally hopeless ones across the floor). When you look at PM question time or see them fail to anser questions or contradict themselves etc, can it really be true that these are the best 650 people in GB to run our country out of the 60 million or so?

    My local MP finds the time to run a dentists practice in Knighsbridge and 2 further consultacy jobs. But, due to him being Con and the area is "true blue" he gets elected by a massive majority at every general election. An ape with a blue rossette and five other jobs would get elected in our area. Once voters go down the party route rather than the individual route, its not surprising we get poor government.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,552
    The problem is not democracy; it's that everyone above a certain age gets to vote.
    One shouldn't been given the right to vote but the license to vote. Driving a car is a "licensed right" too. Still too many people vote for the most charismatic, sympathetic, best looking, funniest, loudest, ... politician, and not enough people actually know what their campaigns are about.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    "One can't really blame the electorate for the choices they are given."

    Yes, when they elect the likes of Johnson, May, Davis etc etc as MPs (and plenty of equally hopeless ones across the floor). When you look at PM question time or see them fail to anser questions or contradict themselves etc, can it really be true that these are the best 650 people in GB to run our country out of the 60 million or so?

    My local MP finds the time to run a dentists practice in Knighsbridge and 2 further consultacy jobs. But, due to him being Con and the area is "true blue" he gets elected by a massive majority at every general election. An ape with a blue rossette and five other jobs would get elected in our area. Once voters go down the party route rather than the individual route, its not surprising we get poor government.
    If you want to eliminate that then there has to be more civic involvement/engagement at the grass roots level and more legitimate and intelligent debate. The UK is still light years ahead on that front in comparison to the US, where everything has degenerated into disgraceful unintelligible partisan bickering, with a shameful added layer of identity politics thrown in and exacerbated by a paid for corporate media.

    It's the system that's broken, whether it be media concentration, institutional civil servant control or corporatism.

    I agree that Western democracy works best in a static environment. When subject to significant stresses as is happening everywhere these days on account of global power rebalancing, it's inevitable that one won't get the result one wants somewhere. Then what does one do? Look at the disgraceful Spanish behavior over Catalonia.

    Anyone thinking that Western living standards won't be lower (on a relative basis) in the future in comparison to today (on account of China in particular but also a lot of other countries adopting managed capitalism) doesn't have a clue. Technology also is playing a part, and increasingly so at an exponential rate. Has any Western politician stood up and acknowledged that to the electorate? No. Better to lie to the public.Then they wonder why they get the electoral results they get.

    Using corporate and economic principles, there are two ways for a country to deal with the pressures. One is amalgamation/merger (EU style with a significant loss of individual rights, freedoms and control and more haves/have nots within the system) and the other is to become a niche player playing up specific skills. Both can work, and the choice will depend on individual characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. Not every country can go it alone. I happen to believe that the UK can theorethically survive and thrive on its own because it has geographical, historical and cultural advantages which it can leverage. Think Switzerland. However, for that to work it needs to have the courage of its convictions. Right now it doesn't really know what it wants. Worst place to be.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,697
    patb wrote: »
    How many voters spend any serious time looking at the experience and qualifications of the candidates who stand in the constituancy?

    How many can even spell 'constituancy'?
    Not too many, I'm afraid...since it is spelled "constituency".
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited December 2017 Posts: 9,117
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The problem is not democracy; it's that everyone above a certain age gets to vote.
    One shouldn't been given the right to vote but the license to vote. Driving a car is a "licensed right" too. Still too many people vote for the most charismatic, sympathetic, best looking, funniest, loudest, ... politician, and not enough people actually know what their campaigns are about.

    This.

    You don't need any qualifications, knowledge or experience to stand for office and the people voting don't need any qualifications, knowledge or expertise to vote you in. I'm only surprised its take this long for us to end up with a mentalist off the telly with his finger on the button.
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    How many voters spend any serious time looking at the experience and qualifications of the candidates who stand in the constituancy?

    How many can even spell 'constituancy'?
    Not too many, I'm afraid...since it is spelled "constituency".
    its-fine-to-join-in.jpg
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,697
    SCNR. On the subject itself, I must admit I mostly don't really feel like political discussions on this board, which would probably put me in deep division with a sizable number of otherwise nice guys, and rather stick to the light-hearted fare. But this was admittedly quite tempting.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The problem is not democracy; it's that everyone above a certain age gets to vote.
    One shouldn't been given the right to vote but the license to vote. Driving a car is a "licensed right" too. Still too many people vote for the most charismatic, sympathetic, best looking, funniest, loudest, ... politician, and not enough people actually know what their campaigns are about.

    This.

    You don't need any qualifications, knowledge or experience to stand for office and the people voting don't need any qualifications, knowledge or expertise to vote you in. I'm only surprised its take this long for us to end up with a mentalist of the telly with his finger on the button.
    In my view, it's a question of integrity and respect for the voters/constituents (all of them) who put you into office, and not knowledge or experience. Those who engineered the Brexit vote were plenty experienced and educated. Despite such so called expertise, they took the voters/constitutents for granted and received the shock of their lives. The same thing happened in the recent elections.

    Let's not forget the experienced geniuses on both sides of the aisle who took the US & UK into the Iraq debacle (at least the public in the UK for the most part were against it) which caused countless lives, limbs, and resulted in the Middle East mess we have now.

    Once you lose respect for your constituents and start to look down on them or assume they're not worthy of your trust or honesty, you deserve every kick in the face that you get. Take the electorate for fools and they'll eventually find a way to show you who is the biggest fool of all.
This discussion has been closed.