A general election means you just elect a Gvt for 5 yrs max. This decision will affect the U.K. for generations to come, that's just for starters. I still maintain that the majority of voters had real idea of the enormity of the decision they were making. This nonsense today all came about purely from May & her Gvt's arrogance. The U.K. is a parliamentary democracy. What she tried to do was circumvent that. The much maligned Gina Miller did no more than force her to do what she should have done in the first place.
Newsflash: The election of any government has the potential to drastically alter the political landscape for generations, if Blair or Thatcher had failed to get in, or even if they'd been elected on a reduced majority, we'd be living in a vastly different country right now - probably one which was remaining in the EU... Same if David Miliband had beaten his brother to leadership of the Labour party, or even if Burnham had beaten Corbyn. The seemingly insignificant events are often far more consequential than the obvious ones - and laying the 'blame' for Brexit at any individual's door is ludicrous.
The fact remains that a Gvt is elected for 5 yrs max! I'm laying the blame for handing over the decision on a matter of vital importance to the future of the UK for generations to come, not just 5 yrs!, firmly at the door of Cameron. It's blindingly obvious from subsequent events, interviews, etc, that a very large proportion of those who voted had very little idea of exactly what they were voting for, or the far reaching consequences of their decision.
Cameron never expected a leave vote. The referendum was a sop to the Euro sceptics in his party. It was a way of silencing them for a while. But it all went belly up...... This is why there were no plans for leaving - and why the issue is such a mess now. The idea that coming out of the EU was good for Britain was a minority view held by those kind of blue blood, Home Counties, right wing Tory MPs - the ones who seem to have the support of the Murdoch press though. Cameron underestimated the power of the press in promoting their views - particularly scaremongering about immigration, red tape, taxes etc. The propandanda and misinformation was swallowed unquestioningly by enough to tip the vote. When was their any proper analysis or consideration of the real social, economic and political cost of leaving?
As opposed to all the economists, politicians, academics and business leaders who knew exactly what the consequences of their decision would be.... and therefore got virtually every prediction totally wrong...
We haven't even left yet, ffs! But still Brexiteers are claiming the future is gong to be bright. It won't be. This will damage the Uk economy. - it already has done. The damage will be lasting and significant.
Pretty much spot on, Luke. The country has been led up the garden path and into a very uncertain future by a combination of throwbacks of a bygone era, a sizeable section of knuckle dragging, flag waving halwits, and just the totally uninformed or misinformed. The misinformed, of course, ably assisted by the likes of The Fail, The Excess, etc. who had their own axe to grind.
The major destruction of our industrial base, of the value of traditional working jobs, the growing gap between rich and poor, the financial crisis and many many more examples have all happened while we were members of the EU. I am not blaming the EU for much of this, but the EU is a major agent of globalisation and that is the enemy of most of us, because for all it's good intentions, actually accelerates the worst excesses of capitalism, such as the disproportionate slice of the national cake that the rich get. It's all very well to argue about how the economy will or won't be affected by Brexit, but the main point is that the vast majority of people have become increasingly disconnected from any benefits that any type of system offers. In previous times we had cycles of good and bad, which modern economists denigrate as "boom and bust" completely forgetting that the lows of the cycle couldn't possibly match the lows that a financial crisis could hit. And where has the "benefits" of the recovery gone? I refer of course to the statistics telling us how much the economy is growing and how many more people are in work etc. Facts are that in the crash the very wealthy didn't suffer as much as many at the bottom of the pile, and since the crash the very wealthy have gained disproportionately from any wealth created - telling people we are recovering is generally irrelevant. The rich and the "establishment" do not appear to be that interested in improving the lot of the poorest because the poorest appear to have no power, and the rich seem to get richer whether the economy is growing or shrinking. Of course, part of the reason why the poor have no power is that they misdirect it as encouraged by many sections of the media, and this is where I agree with many of the remain arguments made here. However where I disagree is seeing the EU as a good thing that will help the majority. In my opinion the EU is part of the establishment - it shouldn't be and I am totally in agreement with European co-operation, security etc. In other words the EU is not the system that Europe needs, and I see no possibility of reform while it so benefits the rich, the bureaucrats and the multinationals to stay how it is. And while open borders is a good aim, it is completely abused by the idea of economic migration. This means that as long as there are poorer people than your poor somewhere in the EU they will be attracted to your country, and meanwhile there will be no incentive to pay better wages because you will have no problems filling positions at the minimum wage. The ideal of raising incomes for the poor across the EU is an excellent aim and ideal but I see no desire for that - an EU minimum wage or similar. In fact all the EU seems to want to do is expand into newer areas with more poor workers such as Turkey. And however uncomfortable it is to admit, more people entering the country at the lower end of the financial spectrum is going to put our social systems / NHS etc under even greater strain, because our minimum wage is lower than people need to live so they will often need Government subsidies. I am not saying this from a right wing point of view by the way, I happen to think we need to be paying higher taxes and austerity is an incredibly flawed policy.... goodness so much more to say but that will do for now...
A lot of what you said was good, but the thing I specifically wish to comment on is ... "In my opinion the EU is part of the establishment - it shouldn't be and I am totally in agreement with European co-operation, security etc. In other words the EU is not the system that Europe needs" From a software/telecoms engineering viewpoint, the EU embodies umpteen concepts that are now discredited. A monolithic entity, rather than modular. A system that does not scale. Effectively "design by committee" , with no speed or agility in operation. "and I see no possibility of reform while it so benefits the rich, the bureaucrats and the multinationals to stay how it is." Indeed. My industry had to change because of the effect that business as usual had on the bottom line (unsustainable) . There is no bottom line for EU politniks when you have a taxpayer money pit.
If only someone had predicted the collapse of our economic system through globalization and labor-saving machinery centuries ago, we could have come up with a reasonable plan to deal with it.
With friends like him... come to think of it, I can't wait for all the illegal immigrants to get kicked out of the good ol' USA. 'Bout damn time we gave the Indians their land back.
One week into the Presidency and this moron continues to defy belief and ostracise large swathes not only of the world outside the US - which frankly seems to matter not a jot to him or his acolytes - but also many within his own shores.... Accordingly to reliable sources, Trump's Friday afternoon executive order was crafted without consulting legal aides and enacted over the objection of homeland security officials, who balked at including permanent US residents in the ban. Part of me wants him to continue to the point he self implodes (and hopefully takes his mate Farage with him). Trouble is that there's every chance the damage will impact us all. The time has come already for the world to kick back. Here's a couple of ideas for starters that are starting to be discussed: 1. No leisure travel to the US - which would hit US tourist revenues and upset key States across the political spectrum. 2. UK to immediately withdraw the invitation of a State visit, which would probably hit him personally even harder as it would seriously damage his ego. People said 'give him a chance, as President he won't be able to be the same loose canon he was as a Candidate'. 7 days in and it's clear they got that one wrong........
Unfortunately no economic system, no matter how clever, can defeat the motivation of greed (be it personal or corporate). It's where the real world crushes the model. As far as "President" Trump is concerned, millions of us signed a petition for him to be excluded from the UK and our will was completely ignored. I suspect a second petition would get even more signatures. Perhaps something about not being allowed to visit London should be instigated by our Mayor, since he's probably not allowed to go to the US!
That would certainly limit access to Buck House. He owns half of the east coast of Scotland unfortunately, so guess he would relocate to Balmoral
There's also the obvious flaw in his plan to pay for the wall by putting a 20% tariff on all Mexican imports: who pays the 20% duty on all Mexican imports? Why, that would be Americans paying it, something I am sure they would be happy to hear, especially the ones who were so gung-ho about The Wall when choosing which evil they considered to be the "lesser" one. As if that didn't make the plan look appallingly thought-out, it didn't take long before it was pointed out that many corporations have been using Mexico as a base for CD, DVD and Blu-Ray production for the North American market for several years. Now before anyone assumes that iTunes and Netflix have rendered that a problem moot, I have a swift counter to that argument: gamers. For example, Madden '17 sold somewhere between 1m and 1.5m physical copies across all platforms when it was released last year, and as it's a AAA title it cost $60 - and this is where stores such as Gamestop are already concerned, because Trump's plan means that either they will have to raise the cost of games and piss off their customers, or their bottom line is going to take a large hit. Considering there were numerous AAA games released last year that recorded similar figures (off the top of my head Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare and Battlefield 1 certainly did, while Uncharted 4 sold at least double that figure in the US) you can see their concern, and more than that you can see the effect it will have: if annual releases such as Madden, Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed contribute $60-90m to the US economy each based on physical copies, and there's an industry based around this that also sells consoles and peripherals that also add a lot of money to the US economy, what this tariff is doing is counter-productive because it's negatively affecting American companies, American consumers and the American economy.
Trump's travel ban reminds me of a chapter I read in a book about HItler called "The Leadership Crisis in the Leader (Fuehrer) State." In the case of an ideologue in charge without the wit to work out coherent policies and surrounded by lackies, the lackies tend to claim power and authority through their agency in making things happen. Everyone free-lances, stepping on each others' toes in their zeal to create a real analog of the leader's bombast. What strikes me most is that Trump could not be more anti-American. This is a country in which 99% are immigrants, that thrived on freedom in general and free trade and freedom of religion in particular. Right, so let's ban immigration, end free trade and provoke a religious war with 2 billion Muslims. Not like it amounts to national suicide. How could Hillary and the Democrats not have made this Trump = anti-America point early and often? It seems to me it would have been a winner. On the other hand, Trump also recalls another German leader, Kaiser Wilhelm II, who, through a love of pomposity and a native arrogance, gradually exchanged a very favorable world diplomatic situation for one in which he united the world against Germany, save for one ally which was in the midst of breaking apart. In other news… Demonstrating the Trump administration will leave no stone unturned in demonstrating the United States of America is second to none in quality control, White House misspells Theresa May's name three times ahead of Trump meeting http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sh-leaders-name-ahead-trump-meeting/97126542/
Absolutely. All the moron has done is give the extremists another useful 'The US is anti-Muslim' tool to use in their recruitment drive. Mindless stupidity!
