The Great Mistake?

[The Byre]

Last week David Cameron claimed that he had to hold a vote on Britain’s EU membership because the issue “had been poisoning British politics for years”. This was, of course, a complete lie. The reality was, that it was poisoning his front bench, but hardly anybody else was bothered.

But it would appear that, post Brexit, we now wish we hadn't -

12,525 interviews were conducted between June 24th – July 8th 2016 among adults aged 18-64 in the US and Canada, and adults aged 16-64 in all other countries. The survey was conducted in 16 countries around the world via the Ipsos Online Panel system. Data are weighted to match the profile of the population.

Full results here -

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/research.../Reactions-to-Brexit-across-16-countries.aspx

Until the referendum was called, fewer than 10% of the UK population who had the vote thought that EU membership was "one of the important issues facing the country".

A low-rent, bilious referendum has begotten low-rent, bilious politics. Campaigners traded base insults to the electorate’s intelligence. Remainers foresaw immediate economic Armageddon outside the EU, while Leavers claimed that millions of scary Muslims would move to Britain if the country stayed in the club. Opponents’ motives and character were besmirched and false and misleading statistics were shoved through letterboxes and plastered on the sides of busses.

On the big day turnout was mediocre for such an epoch-making decision: the 52% who backed Brexit constituted just 37% of eligible voters and 26% of the population.

MPs are paid to be representatives, not delegates and supposed to obey their own judgement over the ebb-and-flow of the opinions of their constituents. Were it otherwise, we would still have had the death penalty and flogging until very recently.

But the force of the referendum, a McCarthyite mood in the Brexiteer press and a prime minister whose original support for Remain seems more baffling by the week, combined to neuter parliament. MPs filed, dead-eyed, through the lobbies granting Theresa May the untrammelled power to conduct and conclude exit talks most of them and us believe will do Britain harm.

In more normal times, the opposition might be relied on to stand up to this sort of thing. But these are not normal times and Jeremy Corbyn is no normal opposition leader. He convened an “emergency” rally outside Parliament to protest against the triggering of Article 50 and then failed to turn up, while simultaneously whipping his own MPs to support it.

The Economist put it "If Mr Corbyn causes the prime minister any worry it is that she might forget his name in an interview."

“ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE”, bellowed the right-wing Daily Mail, when the Supreme Court insisted on the supremacy of parliament, as that paper moved even further to the right and inadvertently reminded us of its unsavoury history -

To follow some of the press coverage of British politics you would think that the Scots, now heading for a second independence referendum, all hated the English and adored the EU; that the old cared nothing about the prospects of the young and were prepared to throw their futures to the dogs; that the young were all vacuous, politically correct, virtue-signallers; that Remainers were exclusively snobby metropolitans who can state their bank balances only to the nearest thousand pounds and that Leavers were knuckle-dragging racist troglodytes.

Surely Britain deserves better.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Surely Britain deserves better.

I begin to wonder.

Michael Howard makes us a laughing stock. Should we cancel the aircraft carriers and build gunboats instead?

(How was your trip to France? Which part did you visit? How did you find the mood there? )

 

[Avango Courier]

Have IPSOS have managed to create 101% (Brexit consequences poll figures claim 49+29+23=101)?

It's 8.30 on a Monday night and I should have switched this computer off hours ago so I might be adding up wrong.

 

[lynxus]

Have IPSOS have managed to create 101% (Brexit consequences poll figures claim 49+29+23=101)?

It's 8.30 on a Monday night and I should have switched this computer off hours ago so I might be adding up wrong.

Nope, Your maths checks out!

 

[The Byre]

How was your trip to France? Which part did you visit? How did you find the mood there?

Brittany and the South. I would imagine they are jubilant, well, a big sigh of relief - now that LePen has been all-but totally vanquished. So no Frexit for them! But I left before the election and have been in Holland and Germany.

I have just arrived in Munich and so far, when it comes to Brexit, nobody gives a damn. "OK, off you go!" seems to be the order of the day and general attitude! I have yet to see any front page or TV station give any space to Brexit.

I have all sorts of meetings tomorrow, to see if Brexit will offer us any kind of opportunities.

As I have just driven from Trier to Munich in one go, I am loading up on beers to recover.

It's a surreal life really - we think we are important, windswept and groovy, but here I am, sitting alone in my hotel room, quaffing the brewskis ('tinnies' for the Scotsmen amongst you!) and thanking the heavens above for the invention of satnav, to get me from meeting to meeting, without the inconvenience of being arrested for killing a Turkish taxi driver.

Despite being able to speak and write German as well as I do English, that does not make the TV any better! Well, at least Radio 4 is on the Interweb.

Tip for those travelling - get a better class of hotel, as they give you wooden coat-hangers and not those wire or plastic ones. This is important, as you can use wooden coat-hangers as beer bottle openers!

The place I had in Amsterdam was dreadful and I had to get cans of beer, instead of bottles - and the bathroom was not en-suite, but down the corridor and around the corner.

I also did a few visits in the GB.

Seriously folks - the place sucks! It's just hopelessly overcrowded. I got stuck in a traffic jam in the little village of Witney in Oxfordshire! Quarter of an hour, just to move 100 yards in rural England!

And you can't talk business to people in Oxfordshire, as all they bang on about is house prices and how the 'worker's cottage' next door sold for £2.4m (thatched, of course!) and the cost of educating their ugly, fat, misbegotten and mentally deficient children has 'escalated out of control'.

"It's ghastly, absolutely ghastly! And it's not as if Jonquil and Hermione's results are getting any better! Of course, I blame the government. But what can you do? I mean, they've got you by the proverbial short and curlies Darling!"

Another few days of madness and I am back home, in time to meet up with some people from the Czech Republic. They then go on to Ireland and I become comatose.

And talking of comatose, that was my fifth beer. Damn these coat-hangers!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Sadly this whole referendum showed how out of touch some politicians can be.

The main reason Cameron called this referendum was because he thought the chances of the UK voting to leave were implausibly low. It was seen as a low risk way to put the eurosceptic sentiment in his own party to bed once and for all.

How wrong he was.

In fact, the whole idea was a disaster from day one. As the first poll shows, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, this was always going to skyrocket attention towards the EU when most people really weren't that bothered previously.

The 2015 general election attests to that. Around 10% of Britons felt as though the EU was a very important issue at the time, and UKIP came in with 12.7% of the general election vote.

But the leavers of the referendum campaign worked their magic, and in no time at all, the EU was seen as the cause of all the UK's problems.

Now that scapegoat has been used, and the public soon finds that immigration barely budges and that living standards most probably get worse, I wonder who or what we'll blame next.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Brittany and the South. I would imagine they are jubilant, well, a big sigh of relief - now that LePen has been all-but totally vanquished. So no Frexit for them! But I left before the election and have been in Holland and Germany.

I too was in Brittany. We could have met for a beer or loan of a bottle opener.

Our breton friends are very worried about le Pen and all she stands for. As we have seen in the UK when anti-immigrant policies get votes all the other parties move to the right.

As for UK older expats living in France many are selling up and coming back to the UK. Just wait until that starts affecting the NHS. What surprised me was the number of younger sole trader businesses moving to France. Estate agents are having a boom time. Some very quiet and cheap villages in central Brittany have surprisingly good broadband.

 

[The Byre]

Now that scapegoat has been used, and the public soon finds that immigration barely budges and that living standards most probably get worse, I wonder who or what we'll blame next.

We've just had the minor statement by Merkel that there will be no special accommodation for the UK (a part of her speech that was not even reported upon in Germany BTW) and the more rabid elements in the Brexit movement still are dreaming that she takes the whole thing seriously and that is her all-important opening gambit.

"She is unlikely to be able to maintain that position." said one BBC journalist on the all-electric, speaking-type-wireless yesterday - blissfully unaware of the fact that another 26 heads of state don't really care what Britain does either. Both she and they have far more important things to worry about!

It's a three-way choice - (1) stay in; (2) Norway-style accept all four freedoms; (3) leave and live with WTO rules.

Anyway, back home at last, after driving non-stop from Munich.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

We've just had the minor statement by Merkel that there will be no special accommodation for the UK (a part of her speech that was not even reported upon in Germany BTW) and the more rabid elements in the Brexit movement still are dreaming that she takes the whole thing seriously and that is her all-important opening gambit.

"She is unlikely to be able to maintain that position." said one BBC journalist on the all-electric, speaking-type-wireless yesterday - blissfully unaware of the fact that another 26 heads of state don't really care what Britain does either. Both she and they have far more important things to worry about!

It's a three-way choice - (1) stay in; (2) Norway-style accept all four freedoms; (3) leave and live with WTO rules.

Anyway, back home at last, after driving non-stop from Munich.

I'm still amazed that so many Brits are peddling the "they have more to lose than we do" line.

Even business leaders, from Germany to France, understand that preserving unity in the EU is very important. Problems with Brexit would be a drop in the ocean compared to the entire EU starting to unravel.

We seem to be relying on the expectation that politicians want one thing, but then business leaders will lobby to force the EU's hand into sweetening the deal for us. It's not going to happen.

I've said this since day one. Preserving the integrity of the EU is going to come first for them, regardless of the outcome. They can't afford to do anything else.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I also find it quite interesting that Brexit negotiations seem to have been put on the back-burner while we go through this general election.

It's been a month now since Article 50 was triggered, starting the two year countdown. Since then, not a lot has happened. In fact, the EU-27 are due to meet in Brussels tomorrow to hash out negotiating positions.

By the time talks properly begin, we could have already burned through 3-4 months of the 24 we've got.

No one, on either side, seems to be in any rush...

 

[Clinton]

These things are best not rushed.

It would be a mistake to assume that because the news is filled with election trivia nothing is happening on the Brexit front. The news will always be dominated by the sensational stuff, not the boring bits. So now it's election. Each time someone with a knife is apprehended outside Westminster that'll dominate the news. It doesn't mean that all parties have suspended election campaigning.

As the first poll shows, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, this was always going to skyrocket attention towards the EU when most people really weren't that bothered previously.

That people aren't "bothered" about something doesn't mean it's not important. People seem to be bothered by the fact that Kim Kardashian's airbrushed her cellulite. I'd rather talk about pros and cons about EU membership - and how the future should look - rather than just muddle along and leave the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels to create this Federal Europe they've been after for so long.

And there are many cons to membership worth discussing. The problem is that Remain and Leave both dumbed the debate down so the Kim Kardashian followers could understand it. Hence we had the £350 million NHS bus and scare stories about the economy crashing on the day after the referendum.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

It's been a month now since Article 50 was triggered, starting the two year countdown. Since then, not a lot has happened. In fact, the EU-27 are due to meet in Brussels tomorrow to hash out negotiating positions.

Dear Scott

From a mailing I got yesterday from my local tory candidate it is pretty obvious that he was prepared long before May's walk in the hills. I wouldn't be surprised if May has been working on election stuff for the past month.

 

[KM-Tiger]

It's been a month now since Article 50 was triggered, starting the two year countdown. Since then, not a lot has happened. In fact, the EU-27 are due to meet in Brussels tomorrow to hash out negotiating positions.

As I understand it that was always the timetable and negotiations proper will begin in June.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

That people aren't "bothered" about something doesn't mean it's not important. People seem to be bothered by the fact that Kim Kardashian's airbrushed her cellulite. I'd rather talk about pros and cons about EU membership - and how the future should look - rather than just muddle along and leave the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels to create this Federal Europe they've been after for so long.

And there are many cons to membership worth discussing. The problem is that Remain and Leave both dumbed the debate down so the Kim Kardashian followers could understand it. Hence we had the £350 million NHS bus and scare stories about the economy crashing on the day after the referendum.

But the problem is that it focuses way too much attention on something which isn't anywhere near as important as it's made out to be.

Of course, it does need attention. However, it's went way to far in the other direction now where the EU is seen as the cause of all the UK's problems by a lot of people.

When we leave the EU:

- Will immigration plummet? Not a chance. I'd be amazed if it declines by even 20%.
- Will the economy improve? Unlikely, and definitely not in the next decade.
- Will quality of life improve for ordinary people? Unlikely, and if it does, it won't be any time soon.
- Will the UK be free to make its own decisions? Sure, but it's sided with the EU on 98% of decisions over the past 20 years anyway.

When we take away all the hype, is the EU one of the most important issues facing the UK? Not really.

But the risk is that this draws attention away from the really important issues. This up-coming general election is less about who's right to handle domestic affairs and more about who the country wants to lead the negotiations.

During the referendum campaign, both sides ramped up the apparent importance of the EU to win votes. Remainers called it essential to the UK's future prosperity. Leavers claimed that it was the last bottleneck remaining before the UK could finally reach nirvana.

As a result, expectations are way, way too high.

 

[Newchodge]

My interest in this election has virtually nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with life in the UK.

I want the NHS properly funded and not set up to provide profits to private companies.

I want education properly funded and not set up to provide profits to private companies.

I want sufficient affordable housing to be available so that no-one is homeless, unless they choose to be (and to be fair, some do)

I want elderly care properly funded and not set up to provide profits to private companies.

I want our social security system to provide adequate support to anyone who needs it.

I want Britain fit to be a place for people to live.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Don't worry Cindy. When Theresa makes the UK prosperous by opening up arms trade with every dodgy country on the planet we'll be able to afford all those things and reduce tax. ;-)

 

[Newchodge]

Don't worry Cindy. When Theresa makes the UK prosperous by opening up arms trade with every dodgy country on the planet we'll be able to afford all those things and reduce tax. ;-)

We can afford all those things now, but our current government prefers to give tax breaks to the wealthy. While making dodgy deals with Saudi Arabia and ignoring the electoral fraud carried out by at least 20 Conservative MP's.

 

[The Byre]

I want the NHS properly funded

That means dumping the NHS and introducing indexed social health insurance and having health care provided by charitable companies only - and get rid of under-qualified GPs and their privileged right to use the title 'Doctor' when they have not written a Doctorate or specialised in anything.

I want education properly funded

That means increasing spending to 5% of GDP and dumping all those pudding degrees and introducing proper apprenticeships.

I want sufficient affordable housing to be available

That means introducing rent controls and penalties for second homes.

I want elderly care properly funded

That means introducing indexed mandatory age and disability insurance.

I want our social security system to provide adequate support to anyone who needs it.

Tax increases are involved!

I want Britain fit to be a place for people to live.

• It's a great place to live - well, apart from the roads, that seem to have been built for a 1958 Austin Cambridge.
• Oh yes, and then the hospitals, that are dirty, old fashioned and understaffed.
• And then there are the thousands of tax loop-holes, that nonsense should be stopped.
• And the poor state of the rented housing - if it ain't fully insulated and has CH, you should not be able to collect rent for the damn thing!
• And then there is what passes in the UK for democracy - get PR now!
• And then there's the NIMBY crowd - the moment anybody wants to improve or build something better, a whole host of disgruntled, middle-class twits protest against it, regardless of what it is!
• And the trains - just don't bother: scrap the bloody lot and replace them with proper trains running on proper gauge rails, so that they can run at a normal speed that makes sense and not that Mickey Mouse gauge.

But apart from all that, it's a great place to live - assuming of course, you have money!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

• And the poor state of the rented housing - if it ain't fully insulated and has CH, you should not be able to collect rent for the damn thing!

We're making progress on that front at least:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/05/landlords-draughty-homes-ban

 

[Gecko001]

I think this general election is like "deja vu all over again" . The trend in leadership theory seems to be that when you get a bit worried about a problem ahead, then you solve it by going to the people - the electorate will not mind after all they are always banging on about not having a say.

Edit. But were they problems in the first place?

 

[Newchodge]

Of course there were problems in the first place. The CPS is about to announce whether they will proceed with criminal charges against 20 odd conservative MP's, for electoral fraud. That could have lost May her majority. She was desperate. In fact, if you listened to her on Andrew Marr this morning, she still is desperate.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I think this general election is like "deja vu all over again" . The trend in leadership theory seems to be that when you get a bit worried about a problem ahead, then you solve it by going to the people - the electorate will not mind after all they are always banging on about not having a say.

Edit. But were they problems in the first place?

Populism is really taking hold across the globe these days.

The supposed blueprint for electoral success seems to be focusing on "ordinary" folk and roping them into the political process as much as possible.

It's a populist trick. Politicians get instant kudos when they dish out referendums. It makes the public feel important and valued.

But in reality, it's a deceitful way of shirking responsibility for decisions.

What we must realise though is that, although we all think of ourselves as being rather clever, a decision backed by "the will of the people" is not necessarily the right decision.

This is why we have our current political system where we elect representatives to make decisions for us. And for all its apparent flaws, this system has served us rather well considering the relative wealth and success of this small country. Things could be an order of magnitude worse.

We need to stick to the political system we use, and prevent politicians from cherry picking direct democracy when it suits. Some say the Swiss model works well, but that's a far cry from British politicians making the decisions they want to make, and then fobbing off the decisions they don't on the British public. It's frankly not fair on us.

 

[ffox]

What we must realise though is that, although we all think of ourselves as being rather clever, a decision backed by "the will of the people" is not necessarily the right decision.

This is why we have our current political system where we elect representatives to make decisions for us. And for all its apparent flaws, this system has served us rather well considering the relative wealth and success of this small country. Things could be an order of magnitude worse.

Wow. So that's what they mean by democracy then???

 

[Gecko001]

I think this general election is like "deja vu all over again" . The trend in leadership theory seems to be that when you get a bit worried about a problem ahead, then you solve it by going to the people - the electorate will not mind after all they are always banging on about not having a say.

Edit. But were they problems in the first place?

I forgot to mention that I think that the electorate does mind. By going to the people, even for the reasons that the leaders have given, is treating the electorate with disrespect in my view. The Government before a referendum was called had a mandate to stay in the EU and also had a mandate to govern before the General Election was called.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Wow. So that's what they mean by democracy then???

Yes. It's served us rather well all things considered, don't you think?

We have a system where our responsibility is to select the right people to make decisions for us. They then have access to the experience, advisers, data and civil service machines to help them make informed decisions.

They don't always get it right, of course, but no individual or system is perfect.

However, when we mix representative democracy with direct democracy, we find that conflicts arise.

All MPs are duty-bound to make decisions on behalf of the people based on their best judgement. When the EU referendum result came along though, it caused a conflict of interest. Many MPs didn't believe that Brexit was the right thing to do for the country, so they either had to stick with what they're duty-bound to do (vote with their best judgement), or vote in line with the preference of the people (which seems more democratic but technically isn't a part of our representative democracy).

And as much as people are fearful of upsetting the public, we must accept that we're not best placed to make such important decisions either. The free press can be very politically skewed, and it's far too easy for major influencers to lie and get away with it.

Emotions are also too heavily involved. I'm not specifically referring to the EU referendum here, but it's a good example. We all know that one of the driving forces behind the successful leave vote was patriotism. People voted to "take back control from the unelected bureaucrats", with Boris' booming speeches in front of a Union Jack causing cheers in the crowd.

A valid point? In the eyes of some, perhaps. But there's no denying that emotion played an overbearing role.

We must also accept that, sometimes, the best decisions for the country are not necessarily the decisions we like. Just imagine if we were allowed to set our own tax rates...

 

[ffox]

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners")

Sorry @Scott-Copywriter but the age of the 'political aristocracy', people who take election as peoples representatives only to consider that they have been granted the power to do just what they want, is ending. The internet and social media empowers commoners, the resignation of Andrew Turner MP is a case in point.
Take a look at the political scene in France. The world Is evolving.

 

[The Byre]

And the peasants are revolting!

 

[ffox]

And the peasants are revolting!

That's true . The fact is that most individuals often feel revolted at the actions performed by others, singly and in groups. And groups, when given enough power, often revolt (hopefully in a non violent fashion) against the perceived mainstream. This will happen more and more as the power of 21st century communications gains ground. In the sixties and seventies this 'freedom' was expressed in the arts with the use of protest songs, radical plays and literature.

What @Scott-Copywriter describes though is not a democracy, it's an aristocracy. Even he doubts the validity of the aristocrats he would like making the decisions -

Sadly this whole referendum showed how out of touch some politicians can be.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratía literally "rule of the commoners")

Sorry Scott-Copywriter but the age of the 'political aristocracy', people who take election as peoples representatives only to consider that they have been granted the power to do just what they want, is ending. The internet and social media empowers commoners, the resignation of Andrew Turner MP is a case in point.
Take a look at the political scene in France. The world Is evolving.

It won't end. At least not anytime soon.

It does work, if we take a step back and realise what the world has accomplished over the last century or two. It's not perfect, but no system is.

Ultimately, even in a representative democracy, the power lies with the people. We vote MPs in to lead the country and make decisions for us (and use our best judgement to do that), but they can be voted out of power if the people want a change in direction.

This system also provides checks and balances for those in power. Politicians rarely do whatever they want because there are always electoral repercussions somewhere down the line. Even Donald Trump needs to be careful if he has any hope of winning a second term.

The same even applies to the EU. If the people voted in anti-EU MEPs and anti-EU heads of state, the European Union would collapse within a month. That just hasn't happened because the majority of the public don't want to do it. The path is there though, if we choose to take it.

Regarding France, what's happening there is a good thing. Politics is indeed evolving, where politicians no longer have to be in a mainstream party to gain success. However, it's still a representative democracy.

What Scott-Copywriter describes though is not a democracy, it's an aristocracy. Even he doubts the validity of the aristocrats he would like making the decisions -

It's a democracy. The people still have the power. They just choose to elect representatives to make decisions on behalf of the people.

What solution would you put forward to make it a "genuine" democracy? Surely we'd have to elect someone as a leader? If not, is the public supposed to vote directly on thousands of decisions every year?

Unless you want the British public to directly make every decision for the country, no matter how large or small, then representative democracy is essential.

Here are all the current bills before Parliament: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/. Are we supposed to have a public referendum for each one?

And of course I do question the validity of many politicians. That's normal. That's no stain on the system, however. After all, we did choose them (or elected the people who did).

 

[Clinton]

Funny how many people simply know, by gut instinct or perhaps their superior intelligence,

That Brexit is a big mistake
That we'll lose in the negotiation (I mean, c'mon, it's 27 against 1, right?)
That we'll be less successful outside of the EU than we'll be in it
That policians are the ones who should be deciding the big issues and we can't trust group intelligence

Some even know ...

That Labour are the best party to lead Britain in these negotiations

That the Tories will privatise the NHS (yeah, right, here's what a pro-Labour publication has to say about how Labour sold our NHS out to the private sector. Sold out. Big time. Labour.)

That the Tories are ideologically opposed to state involvement and will sell off national assets (here's what that muppet Gordon Brown did with our national gold reserves - he sold them off at the bottom of the market. Like he sold so many other national treasures)

That the Tories are ruining education with their Academising (actually, Labour started the whole academy trend and, believe it or not, they were selling our schools to the private sector at a tag price of £2m. When the private sector stopped buying at that price Labour started giving our schools away to the private sector for £0 and some vague promises on "improvements"! I kid you not. So much for "education, education, education". I'm very familiar with the Gove brand academy programme - it's a million times better for poorer and disadvantaged children. )

It's like Labour and the Conservatives have somehow swapped roles over the last few years. With Labour taking care of rich people and the Tories taking care of the rest of us!

Thank goodness for Corbyn and his move to the left. Honourable chap who, it seems, sticks to his principles. I don't agree with his policies but I respect someone who can stand by his beliefs, even the unpopular ones. That's unlike the slippery New Labour crowd who'll say anything if it'll get them votes... and are not ashamed to admit it.

I bet half the people who are now moaning about The Great Mistake would be smug with righteous satisfaction if the vote turned out to be 48-52 instead of 52-48. Because they know, better than anybody else, what the right course for the UK is.

... but our current government prefers to give tax breaks to the wealthy. While making dodgy deals with Saudi Arabia and ignoring the electoral fraud carried out by at least 20 Conservative MP's.

The tripe you come out with sometimes!

Taxing the rich properly is very, very tricky. That's because capital can move across borders with enormous ease. Osborne did more on this in the last two years he was Chancellor than Labour did with 13 years in power. Do some research on where the OECD is now and the pressure that's been put on tax havens by the Coalition (ok, thanks, Lib Dems). But also post Coalition. An effective tax on the rich can't be done unilaterally - there has to be a coordinated international response to this problem. Just raising UK taxes on the rich is counter-productive, they'll simply move domicile. You need to be smarter than that. Labour aren't.

In the MPs' expenses scandal, I remember Labour being as well represented as the Tories. But, let's remember, Labour invented dodgy deals - from Mandelson's mortgage (forgotten that then?) to Labour accepting a £1m bribe from Formula 1 to allow tobacco advertising. Then there was Tessa Jowellgate, cash for influence (that saw peers being suspended from the House of Lords for the first time in four centuries). I'm sure there are many others but, remember, New Labour was very good at "burying bad news" so we may never know about those.

 

[ffox]

This system also provides checks and balances for those in power. Politicians rarely do whatever they want because there are always electoral repercussions somewhere down the line.

Do you remember when Margaret Thatcher was popular? When she vanquished union power, when she took us to war over the Falklands? Do you remember when she started to believe that hers was the only way to govern? Do you remember how she carried the defeat of union power to extremes and started to become unpopular? Do you remember how the public were unable to stop her destroying her own credibility and that of her party? Do you remember how her party was all but destroyed in the power struggle that followed? Do you remember when police and miners fought pitched battles on the streets of Britain?
The public lost faith in her long before she was ousted by her own people, but were powerless to prevent the damage she did in her last struggle.

Leaving Saint Tony to sweep to power over Major. Do you remember the Blair rhetoric? Do you remember the popularity of his leadership? Do you remember when he started to believe in his own leadership, walking away and handing off to Brown as his patsy only when all was lost?
The public lost faith in this man long before he lost faith in himself (he still believes in himself), but had no power to unseat him.

I agree that the political aristocracy, you choose to call democracy, has served to an extent. At least we haven't had armed insurrection in the UK, but it has been close.

Unless you want the British public to directly make every decision for the country, no matter how large or small, then representative democracy is essential.

Modern communication means that this becomes a possibility for the future, but I admit that it is not imminent. What is imminent is that modern communications allows the commoner to be better informed, it also allows that a ground swell of opinion can be started over particular issues. What is happening in France is that there are two horses in the race now. Both are outsiders ( not from the established parties), one is anti EU and the other wishes to reform the EU (or the interplay between France and the EU).

This is the same EU of unelected power brokers that you would wish to remain aligned with.

There has been no 'Great Mistake'. The EU is beginning to feel the weight of the will of the commoner.

 

[The Byre]

Back in the UK and fully recovered now!

I'm still amazed that so many Brits are peddling the "they have more to lose than we do" line. Even business leaders, from Germany to France, understand that preserving unity in the EU is very important. Problems with Brexit would be a drop in the ocean compared to the entire EU starting to unravel.

We seem to be relying on the expectation that politicians want one thing, but then business leaders will lobby to force the EU's hand into sweetening the deal for us. It's not going to happen. I've said this since day one. Preserving the integrity of the EU is going to come first for them, regardless of the outcome. They can't afford to do anything else.

There is no alternative for the rest-27, other than to give the UK the choice of one of three options - stay, Norway or WTO.

That Brexit is a big mistake

62% of the population now do think exactly that!

That we'll lose in the negotiation (I mean, c'mon, it's 27 against 1, right?)

See above.

That we'll be less successful outside of the EU than we'll be in it.

Almost every country on Planet Earth is in some kind of trading block or group. That kind of arrangement for every other country rich or poor (with the notable exception of North Korea) really does speak for itself!

That politicians are the ones who should be deciding the big issues and we can't trust group intelligence.

26% of the population / 37% of the electorate is hardly 'group intelligence'!

Going by that strange logic, we would still have the death penalty and flogging.
________________________

There has been much debate here about democracy - well, let me know when it is introduced to Westminster elections. That would really make a change.

The demographic deficit of the first-past-the-post system, is what gave us the untrammelled lunacy and swivel-eyed dogma of Thatcher, Blair and May and the undiluted incompetence of Heath, Callahan, Wilson and Call-Me-Dave.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Do you remember when Margaret Thatcher was popular? When she vanquished union power, when she took us to war over the Falklands? Do you remember when she started to believe that hers was the only way to govern? Do you remember how she carried the defeat of union power to extremes and started to become unpopular? Do you remember how the public were unable to stop her destroying her own credibility and that of her party? Do you remember how her party was all but destroyed in the power struggle that followed? Do you remember when police and miners fought pitched battles on the streets of Britain?
The public lost faith in her long before she was ousted by her own people, but were powerless to prevent the damage she did in her last struggle.

Of course, but as I've said before, no system is perfect.

Unfortunately, having set terms is an imperfect necessity. We must give politicians a reasonable amount of time to act out their plans, good or bad. Without that, rash decisions may be made which ultimately make politics a mess.

Furthermore, politicians must be shielded to some degree so they can make decisions the public may not like. What's good for the country may be something we simply don't like, so we can't just boot them out on a whim. Some decisions may also be bad now, but bear fruit later, so anything else would create a horribly short-sighted government.

Yet still, in this representative democracy, checks and balances are in place. MPs can hold motions of no confidence in the PM, and if they can't win a vote of confidence within 14 days, a general election is held.

We elect the PM, we elect the Government, and we elect the MPs who can force the Government out if things get too bad. We hold the power, but don't make these decisions directly. Instead, it's up to us to use our best judgement to decide who does make these decisions.

Leaving Saint Tony to sweep to power over Major. Do you remember the Blair rhetoric? Do you remember the popularity of his leadership? Do you remember when he started to believe in his own leadership, walking away and handing off to Brown as his patsy only when all was lost?
The public lost faith in this man long before he lost faith in himself (he still believes in himself), but had no power to unseat him.

I agree that the political aristocracy, you choose to call democracy, has served to an extent. At least we haven't had armed insurrection in the UK, but it has been close.

But MPs did have the power to call an election to unseat him, and we elected those MPs to make that decision if they wished to do so.

Here's the thing. We speak of the negatives of Thatcher and Blair, but who voted them in? We did. Who voted in the MPs to back their ideas with bills? We did.

If we can't be trusted to avoid voting in leaders who cause a mess, how can we be trusted to make direct decisions? The onus is on us to look through the smokescreens and elect the right people for the jobs. Frequently, we fail to do that (or at least a big chunk of the electorate does).

Modern communication means that this becomes a possibility for the future, but I admit that it is not imminent. What is imminent is that modern communications allows the commoner to be better informed, it also allows that a ground swell of opinion can be started over particular issues. What is happening in France is that there are two horses in the race now. Both are outsiders ( not from the established parties), one is anti EU and the other wishes to reform the EU (or the interplay between France and the EU).

Modern communication has its perks, but it's also very dangerous. With the rise of "fake news", many voters are now closing themselves off in their little social media bubble where they only hear what they want to.

I was watching a video about a die-hard Trump supporter a few days ago. She dismissed major news networks as fake, but stated that her main source of information was Infowars (the American conspiracy theorist website).

Too many people blindly believe what they want to believe and then shut everything else out. They hop on Facebook, surround themselves with people who believe the same thing, and unfriend anyone who doesn't.

Modern communication is simultaneously making us more informed, and more disinformed, than ever before. It's a very unusual mix.

 

[Gecko001]

I heard on the radio 4 lunchtime news that apparently when Mrs May met Claude Juncker recently she suggested that the negotiated Opt Out that Teresa May negotiated when she was Home secretary could be a template for negotiating the leaving. To me that explains a lot.

The problem is that we are in an entirely situation to past negotiations. We had leverage then. We had voting and veto powers then. Now we have very little leverage. We could refuse to pay the exit bill, but it would appear that the EU have been busy making up the bill that we owe when leaving. We could always just do a runner and hope the 27 remaining nations do not find out where we live!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Taxing the rich properly is very, very tricky. That's because capital can move across borders with enormous ease. Osborne did more on this in the last two years he was Chancellor than Labour did with 13 years in power. Do some research on where the OECD is now and the pressure that's been put on tax havens by the Coalition (ok, thanks, Lib Dems). But also post Coalition. An effective tax on the rich can't be done unilaterally - there has to be a coordinated international response to this problem. Just raising UK taxes on the rich is counter-productive, they'll simply move domicile. You need to be smarter than that. Labour aren't.

I agree with this, and it's one of the things which worries me a lot about direct democracy.

The working class want to squeeze as much money as possible out of the rich, but many don't seem to realise the possible repercussions.

It's not rich people doing favours for other rich people. It's incentivising wealth, investment and jobs to come to the country.

And we have to do this because all the wealthy people and big corporations basically have a free choice in this globalised world. If they don't want to pay UK rates, they'll go somewhere else. It's as simple as that. Instead of getting a part of something, we'll get nothing at all.

It must be a globalised effort, otherwise any country's tax hike is seen as another country's opportunity to lower taxes and attract the wealth. It's constant competition.

I'm just not sure what people expect, really. If we push wealth taxation too far, companies, individuals and jobs will leave, and there will be no shortage of other countries trying to lure them away with financial incentives.

 

[Clinton]

We had voting and veto powers then. Now we have very little leverage. We could refuse to pay the exit bill, but it would appear that the EU have been busy making up the bill that we owe when leaving. We could always just do a runner and hope the 27 remaining nations do not find out where we live!

We have a lot, lot more leverage than you think. If the UK left without a deal and choose to go rogue the Euro would collapse and the entire EU project would unravel. The EU have to keep us sweet. Ignore all the stagemanaged talk of unity. The unity of 27 will collapse in due course (especially when they realise what's at stake if the UK becomes a tax haven).

We could refuse to pay the exit bill, but it would appear that the EU have been busy making up the bill that we owe when leaving. We could always just do a runner and hope the 27 remaining nations do not find out where we live!

Refusing would be dishonourable. We've entered into commitments and we should keep them. I believe the UK government will keep their commitments. But we have also built considerable equity in various EU assets over the decades we've been contributing. That value needs to be calculated. Any talk of exit bill without mentioning these assets smacks of scare tactics to me. I believe our share of the assets is worth several tens of billions of euros and may be worth even more than that exit bill.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

What is imminent is that modern communications allows the commoner to be better informed,

Didn't work with the Brexit referendum did it? Surprisingly I have met more leavers who voted because of the £350 million a week promise than any other single cause.

 

[Clinton]

Surprisingly I have met more leavers who voted because of the £350 million a week promise than any other single cause.

They voted Leave on the sole grounds of the NHS getting an additional £350m a week?!

You should find a smarter circle of friends.

The claim always was that £350 a week would be released for spending on things like the NHS. Not that the NHS would get £350 / week.

And, yes, if we leave we'll be "saving" the amounts we're currently paying. The exact figure is disputed, it could be less or more than £350m, but the main fact hasn't changed. When we leave we'll not be making the current contributions and those funds could go to the NHS.

It wasn't a "promise" as you claim. Nobody can make such a promise except the government in power and, as I recall, the government in power was campaigning for Remain.

 

[Gecko001]

We have a lot, lot more leverage than you think. If the UK left without a deal and choose to go rogue the Euro would collapse and the entire EU project would unravel. The EU have to keep us sweet. Ignore all the stagemanaged talk of unity. The unity of 27 will collapse in due course (especially when they realise what's at stake if the UK becomes a tax haven).


Refusing would be dishonourable. We've entered into commitments and we should keep them. I believe the UK government will keep their commitments. But we have also built considerable equity in various EU assets over the decades we've been contributing. That value needs to be calculated. Any talk of exit bill without mentioning these assets smacks of scare tactics to me. I believe our share of the assets is worth several tens of billions of euros and may be worth even more than that exit bill.

The Euro will collapse, with or without the UK being in the EU in my view. The EU nations remaining will almost exclusively be using the Euro when we leave. As far as I can see that will be one of the advantages of Brexit from the EU's point of view. The UK does not have much leverage there, I suspect.

With regard to the equity that we have in the EU at present, are you suggesting that the UK government threatens to put restrictions on how much money UK individuals and companies can invest in the EU after Brexit?

 

[Clinton]

With regard to the equity that we have in the EU at present, are you suggesting that the UK government threatens to put restrictions on how much money UK individuals and companies can invest in the EU after Brexit?

I don't think you get the point.

As part of the group we signed up to several spending commitments. If we do not honour our commitments it'll fall unfairly on the others to make up the difference.

However, over the years, we've invested hundreds of billions in EU institutions, real estate etc. Let's take just real estate - the EU owns billions of pounds worth of real estate. Given the size of our contributions over the years, our share is roughly 10%. We've also contributed to CERN, ECB and tons of other stuff.

Even the value of the real estate is tiny compared to, for example, EU/EC investment in space (Copernicus, Galileo etc via the ESA and universities). We own circa 10% of all of that! The ESA alone is probably worth about £80b - £100b (based on investment to date). 10% of that single asset will give the NHS £350m a week for over 4 years!

When we leave, it's only fair to credit us for the shares in those assets that we're giving up.

And that's just the tangibles.

I handle business exits. Every business going to market has a lot of value tied up in intangible assets - brand, IP rights, the processes and systems they've put in place, operating manuals, teams they've built to handle specific tasks etc etc. I document those and put a value to them. Each and every single one of intangible assets like these has value.

But their value pales into insignificance compared to the value we've built in EU institutions, systems, processes, regulation, legislation, you name it.

Even if we get nothing for the intangibles, our share in the hard assets on its own is way above the figures being thrown around as a "divorce settlement".