The Weasel Blair at it again!

[Gluestick]

See here:

Following on from the anti-democratic forced second vote, over the Lisbon Treaty (the "New Improved" EU Constitution - which failed), now Blair a prototypical Islington Champagne Socialist, demands a fresh vote on Brexit. On the presumption the electorate "...voted the wrong way"!

One must dare to mention how Proportional Representation, was a core plank of the first NuLab electoral manifesto. After a landslide result in 1997, when quizzed about this and when NuLab were going to introduce PR, Two Jags of the copious chins, responded "We don't feel it such a good idea!"

What is it Blair and the rest of the shambling homo sapien political class do not quite grasp on "Democracy"?

Seems their definition might expressed as:

"Democracy is when the voter does precisely what we tell them to do".

Zu befehl, mien Fuhrer!

[PaulT]

Must be more money in it for him if the UK stays in the EU

[andyh4]

So let's be clear,

Are we objecting to T B Liar's assertion because he is a dodgy politician, or because we think the UK electorate do not deserve the right to decide if they should leave the EU once the most likely conditions have been set out - something that the be-leavers never set out at all, let alone in outline?

[idun]

I did the best I could, used to plead with family members who were his constituents to not vote for him, but they wouldn't, they liked him.........and I used to think, give me strength.....being faced with such madness!

I would be very happy if the man was charged and found guilty on at least one of the many things he should be accused of and then locked up and the sooner the better. Just my feeling about the man!

[Gluestick]

Idun:

I couldn't have put it better myself!

Despicable object.

Anyone else noticed, the mad megalomaniac eyes are increasingly more pronounced?

I actually met Cherie Booth in her chambers, prior to NuLab's sweeping victory in 1997.

She was quite small and delicate then and as sharp as a razor. It was pretty clear to me, Blair's political launch was identical to what a cynical old American political columnist stated about the Clintons.

We now have a blow-waved turkey in the White House and the Billary Clinton presidency.

Both Cherie and Hillary were the power behind the throne, pulling the puppet's strings.

[Hoddy]

It seems like a minor miracle to me that anybody gives any credence at all to anything he says.

When he was first elected leader of the Labour Party he did a tour of the party faithful. A friend of mine, a lifelong member of the party, went to the local meeting and when she came home she wrote to the branch secretary and resigned. It's a pity it took other people longer to see through him.

[powerdesal]

andyh4,

The UK electorate decided, by a majority, to leave the EU.

That's democracy in action. Whether you agree with the vote or disagree with it, it's a democratic fact.

No-one knows the conditions of exit, on either side of the argument but.........the decision was made by a majority vote. The choice is simple, live with the consequences or leave the UK.

[woolybanana]

Sorry, PD, you clearly do not understand our democracy. In essence the dictatorship of the majority is NOT what happens, rather a balance between the interests of the majority and the minority.

Which is why hard Brexit is such an aberration and why Theresa May should not be employing hard to manage leaving.

[andyh4]

PD

I accept the result. It is what it is.

However it is becoming clear that what people thought they were voting for is not what is going to be or can be delivered. You could say more fool them for voting as they did without understanding the possible consequences.

I have an ambivalent view on a second referendum. On the one hand when it becomes clearer what the conditions of Brexit will actually be, should the electorate not have the option of saying that's what we want to sign up to? On the other hand I dislike intensely the "Irish" solution of having referenda until the populace get the right answer - like naughty children told to re-do their homework.

In 1975 the UK held a referendum about remaining in the EEC. Over years that organisation morphed, expanded and change. In 2016 there was a referendum to as to whether to remain in the morphed EU. Ergo there is already precedent for having a second referendum as things change.

Given your strong message about democracy, you surely would not want to deprive people of making the final choice when the conditions are clear.

Or maybe, along with a lot of others who support leave, you are afraid that a rerun will reverse the vote. In which case of course you are being anti-democratic.

[PaulT]

The problem I have with the referendum, and this is irrespective of the outcome, is the damn lies put forward by both sides. If it had been two companies promoting their services they would have been stopped using the 'facts' put forward.

Did see an interview with 'a man in the street' who said 'I did not vote for price increases'.

A result not based on genuine insights as to what each side thought.

[chessie]

I'm not sure that deriding most British voters as 'not knowing what they voted for' is very nice, or reasonable.

How do any of us 'know' why others voted the way they did.

Watched a questioner on QTime the other night;  he certainly knew what he voted for - as did many others;  he was mot indignant at being sneered at by the panellists, and commentators et al, for 'not knowing'.   The questioner insisted he had done his research and done his best to weigh up the arguments;  I'd be willing to bet there was a large number of voters who could say exactly the same.

Let's face it;  accusing Ms May of 'hard Brexit', 'soft Brexit', 'velvet Brexit' - isn' helpful.   The UK can take a position - but it depends on the spite, jealousy, vindictiveness and sheer fright of the other federalist eu members, to an extent, doesn't it ?

Some Brexit voters I know have said that looking at the 5 Presidents Report, reasding about the initial origins of the eu, and the founders;  looking at the corruption, the lack of democracy - in the UK as elsewhere; the fact that we were lied to by Heath -

made them inclined to vote 'out' - because they wanted their country back; to be governed by people they knew - whether admired or hated didn't matter - they would be politicians who could be judged and kicked out if necessary.

It was more a case of 'don't like future direction of federalist, over-bearing eu, the problems it has caused, the imposition of massive youth unemployment in Greece, Spain and elsewhere; the damage caused by Merkel to her own people. the list goes on.

Staying within the eu was just as 'unknowabl;e' as making the leap outside.  But at least making the leap for Independence, for the accountability of the UK's own government, and judges - and laws made to suit the UK - might all have been factors, mightn't they ?

It's like getting out of an abusive marriage;  it will hurt, there will be problems - but at least the UK will be independent - and free;  anyone like to argue in support of Corpus Juris rather than Habeas Corpus please.......?

Gluestick - nice to see your posts;  presumably recovered from the 'horse fly' damage ?

 

[PaulT]

Surely, tactics will figure largely in the Brexit negotiations. Is it a case of May saying she wants a hard Brexit intended to say to the other EU countries 'Britain will look to other countries to trade with, we do not want your goods'. So now the other countries are on the back foot. Renault, Citroen, BMW, VW group to name just one section of industry would have to find another market for their vehicles. So pressure on the other EU countries to keep an open market?

[Gluestick]

[quote user="chessie"]

Gluestick - nice to see your posts;  presumably recovered from the 'horse fly' damage ?

 

[/quote]

Thanks for asking, chessie. It still itches a bit here and there and still has a hard lump under the skin.

Never known anything like it!

[8-)]

[Gluestick]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Sorry, PD, you clearly do not understand our democracy. In essence the dictatorship of the majority is NOT what happens, rather a balance between the interests of the majority and the minority.

[/quote]

Oh I really do wish it might be thus, Wooly!

I and many other professional advisers and business organisations, are girding their loins to vehemently agitate against the UK government's latest spavined brainchild with HMRC.

Under the sobriquet of "Making Tax Digital", Treasury and HMRC are trying to railroad through changes which entail (both sole traders, partnerships and limited companies):

1.  Filing Four quarterly Tax Returns each year:

2.  Operating accounting software in all cases, instead of paper records and using (e.g.) an Excel or similar spreadsheet.

Plus other bits...

SME businesses generate circa 47% of UK (private Sector) GDP and create and sustain circa 48% UK employment. A majority are small and the largest majority are what are called Class Sized Zero; which unscrambled means a sole trader with no employees.

The level of their computer literacy is frankly, dire.

However, despite the usual "Consultation Process, sic where all opinions are to be welcomed" those of us who have been around the block a few times (I, for example, led for my previous professional body on all consultative processes; which were numerous).

Utter waste of my valuable time!

Government, will decide and proceed on their course which clearly, is already set; the consultative process is merely another whitewash - like them all - to try and assuage public opinion, whereupon when they introduce these crazy changes, they will say:

"We sought opinion and input from all concerned blather, blather, blather and we listened, carefully, and took not of all representations".

Since the UK supposed "democracy", as Norman has graphically espoused, is now driven by the corporatist state where ministers and the head honchos of the supposed civil servants, are puppets to massive globalised multinationals, take their coin in various ways, and do precisely what those venal self-interested corporations tell them exactly what to do.

This achieved by high powered lobbyists, back handers and the promise of top executive jobs when they leave government service. perhaps the very best recent example is the once upon a time Marxist, Barroso (Finance minister of Portugal and long-term minister) whop demonstrated his prowess by assisting to drive Portugal to the edge of fiscal bankruptcy and economic disaster, who has recently been awarded a nice top job by the Vampire Squid; AKA Goldman Sachs.

The delightful so-called Investment Bank, who advised Greece and Italy on how to err, "Fudge" their fiscal numbers to succeed in joining the Euro mechanism.

They also assisted Boris The Boozer Yeltsin in re-orientating Russia to a market economy. Leaving millions starving and in destitution in the vacuum of their wake.

These were the same honest people who were flogging MBSs (Mortgage Backed Securities), as AAA class investment, whilst meantime shorting the bonds to crash...

Mario Draghi? Ex-Goldman: Mark Carney? Ex-Goldman: keep on going.......

[idun]

Yes, keep a careful eye on HMRC, they do not seem to do what I would call proper accounting these days, in fact, I'm not sure if they know their coudres from their culs these days, especially where IT is concerned.

Not quite as bad as my french bank, who are worse, as they simply lie to me.

[Gluestick]

Andy: [quote] because we think the UK electorate do not deserve the right to decide if they should leave the EU once the most likely conditions have been set out - something that the be-leavers never set out at all, let alone in outline?[/quote]

They did, actually. See the Bruges Group website.

The problem was and is, the majority of electors are not too astute; neither are they well informed in terms of economy, politics and etc.

Therefore: any political party must, with media puffs and manifestos "fight fire with fire" and simply hone-in on major areas.

As Churchill one stated: "It only takes a five minute conversation with the average voter to realise why democracy is a bad idea!"

Try discussing, say football, EastEnders, Coronation Street, Strictly Come Prancing and pretending you can Dance like a Pro": celebrity, etc, then one will receive many more answers...

PD: Agreed, in principle, sort of...

Andy: (Later post).

[quote] However it is becoming clear that what people thought they were voting for is not what is going to be or can be delivered. You could say more fool them for voting as they did without understanding the possible consequences. [/quote]

Agreed. However, both sides lied and lie; from the Wilson referendum in 1975 onwards.

Heath lied through his copious teeth in 1973.

Indeed, I have on file (paper archive which I am presently in process of sorting through, junking much and scanning a few which are important) a letter Sir James Goldsmith wrote me when he founded the Referendum party (precursor to UKIP) sent to Heath by a Tory Grandee by then in the Lords, saying (I paraphrase) "Ted, you are wholly misrepresenting the true facts to the electorate and our party will, in the future, suffer as a result!".

Heath waffled aound this and contiu=ined lying through his teeth and misdescribed the E.E.C. as simply a "Free Trade Bloc". Yeah right...

Whereas, from the get-go, the architects of the union, particularly, Jean Monnet, and his cronies, knew precisely wehat they are aiming t achieve; one federal state, with its own currency (Called EMU - Economic and Monetary Union), where every member state would surrender its own tax laws, legal system and laws, central bank, etc to become one homegenous entity. It is ALL in the Treaty of Rome 1957; to Which Heath and the spavined Tory government, acceeded in 1973 on...

PaulT:

[quote]The problem I have with the referendum, and this is irrespective of the outcome, is the damn lies put forward by both sides. If it had been two companies promoting their services they would have been stopped using the 'facts' put forward. [/quote]

Ably assisted by wholly biased media sources, particularly, BBC, Guardian, Independent (hah hah! Oh that it were!!); Call Me Dave, Gideon Osborn, Mark Carney, OECD,the EU itself; Goldman Sachs; J P Morgan and Co; and uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

Still, as Mark Twain (a newspaperman) wrote so profoundly; "The man who does not read a newspaper is misinformed. The man who does read a newspaper is ill-informed!"

Chessie:

Wholly agree!

Three cheers for some comprehension and clarity.

PaulT:

[quote] Surely, tactics will figure largely in the Brexit negotiations. Is it a case of May saying she wants a hard Brexit intended to say to the other EU countries 'Britain will look to other countries to trade with, we do not want your goods'. So now the other countries are on the back foot. Renault, Citroen, BMW, VW group to name just one section of industry would have to find another market for their vehicles. So pressure on the other EU countries to keep an open market? [/quote]

Smack on the ol' button!

German manufacturing exporters are already, covertly, advising Merkel of their misgivings; and pressurising her to act sensibly.

Holland, another idiot blobby sabre rattler, is out of his depth.

This is the core problem with ideologues: they simply hate it when more and more people are clamouring for sanity and socio-economic stability

My hope and belief, is an adult, non-political dialogue will transpire, where Britain gains almost all of its necessary and essential objectives and access to the free market: and the profligate overweening ambitions of idiots in Bruxelle are brought to heel by their electors.

It is clearly in the interests of the major manufacturing and exporting economies in the EU which are reasonably successful.

Watch this space, we shall see......

[andyh4]

Chessie wrote

"I'm not sure that deriding most British voters as 'not knowing what they voted for' is very nice, or reasonable.

How do any of us 'know' why others voted the way they did."

I have read through the posts again and I cannot find a single reference to anyone suggesting that the voters did no know what they were voting for.

I probably got closest by saying that voters would not get what they thought they were voting for, and I stand by that. None of us know what the final agreements will hold, but one thing is for sure some of the leavers will not be happy because the agreements either go too far or not far enough.

[idun]

Well I knew one thing that was being voted for or against, and that was no longer being a member of the EU. How this would play out, no one knew. How could they, never been done before.

Step into the unknown.

Strangely when I stepped into the unknown, was when I moved to France. And I lived very poorly for a number of years, in fact in some conditions that I had never encountered in my life before, and saying that I was brought up in the 1950's!! Which compared to now was rather austere, but my living conditions in France in the early 80's were 'worse'. And I could be back to poor living conditions again, and as I was when I first moved to France, I don't care, because I believe things will sort themselves out, eventually.

[powerdesal]

Wooly wrote:-

''Sorry, PD, you clearly do not understand our democracy. In essence the dictatorship of the majority is NOT what happens, rather a balance between the interests of the majority and the minority.

Which is why hard Brexit is such an aberration and why Theresa May should not be employing hard to manage leaving. ''

I would suggest Wooly, that I have not reached my exalted age and experience by ''not understanding our democracy''.:-)

I fully understand that the will of the ''majority'' SHOULD prevail, but doesn't always, due to various circumstances. However, in this particular case I really believe that it should prevail - perhaps I live in (vain) hope.