Brexit negotiations

And he is supposed to be a diplomat!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44618154

Here's an idea:

We know that our national expenditure requirement is growing with the increase of population and import costs and that the UK economy has declined to the lowest growth rate of all G7 nations since the Brexit referendum, so there will inevitably be cutbacks and austerity, so how do we decide which services suffer most from Brexit?
We also know that the Government is attempting to reframe the question as "what services are we prepared to prop up by paying increased taxes for"? as shown by their recent NHS funding scam.
In my local Tesco, they give you a token to select which local charity should receive funding and we pop them into the box of our choice as we leave the supermarket.
So in the interest of the democracy, why not give every tax payer a "token" to choose which of the national expenditure streams they want their taxes to go towards?

Sadly not very practical. Health followed by social care and pensions would probably get most votes but what about education and various welfare payments and would anyone vote for defence if they only had one vote?

xmiles wrote:Sadly not very practical. Health followed by social care and pensions would probably get most votes but what about education and various welfare payments and would anyone vote for defence if they only had one vote?

True but if all Government departments had to openly state their case for funding it would help put an end to the hypernormalisation of political decisions.

'Hypernormalisation'. That's a nice word. What does it mean ?

It means he’s watched the latest Adam Curtis documentary

T.R.O.Y wrote:It means he’s watched the latest Adam Curtis documentary

I did - a couple of years ago.
Glos: The word comes from a 2006 American book about the collapse of the Soviet Union in which it was argued that that whilst everyone knew that the society was falling apart, and nobody could imagine an alternative (not that the totalitarian USSR would allow any other system) so the entire country pretended everything was normal and the delusion became accepted as being real. So rather than change the society, the Soviets just buried their heads in the sand  - until it finally and inevitably went tits up.
Effectively, "fake news" maybe bullshit but it doesn't matter to those in power if people believe it.

Adam Curtis argues that since the 1970's the real world has become too complex to deal with so we now live in a fake world that is run by private corporations and that politicians only serve to maintain the status quo on their behalf using hyper normalisation as the means to keep the people sweet - and ignorant.

Thanks Wander. Sounds like a perfect explanation, and there's a bit of truth in the Adam Curtis argument as well, I think.

Come the revolution !, which will be prompted by too many people chasing too few resources, and the politicians pretending all is good. (not long to go now).

Danny Dyers outburst on Good evening Britain was spot on!

Not a fan of Danny Dyer and although I am an ardent "Remainer", he put the current situation to a tea, and was also correct on how we have reached the current situation, who was to blame and who should be accountable for the mess we are in.

Yep, Danny Dyer, for once I agree with you.... David Cameron is a T**T!

gloswhite wrote:Thanks Wander. Sounds like a perfect explanation, and there's a bit of truth in the Adam Curtis argument as well, I think.

Come the revolution !, which will be prompted by too many people chasing too few resources, and the politicians pretending all is good. (not long to go now).

I tend to take Adam Curtis' stuff with a pinch of salt, but it is fact based, riveting and informative.

I still can't get over the fact that the Americans who built the dams in Afghanistan effectively created the heroin industry or the oil deal between Roosevelt and the Saudis opened the door for Islamic extremism.

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Thanks Wander. Sounds like a perfect explanation, and there's a bit of truth in the Adam Curtis argument as well, I think.

Come the revolution !, which will be prompted by too many people chasing too few resources, and the politicians pretending all is good. (not long to go now).

I tend to take Adam Curtis' stuff with a pinch of salt, but it is fact based, riveting and informative.

I still can't get over the fact that the Americans who built the dams in Afghanistan effectively created the heroin industry or the oil deal between Roosevelt and the Saudis opened the door for Islamic extremism.

it's 'The American Way'.

Yes he looks so very busy but there's nothing on his mind and his wavy hair continues not to grow.

Just to get back on topic, Downing Street have now produced a third model for Brexit and already they're arguing about it especially that arrogant little shit JRM.

So after version 1 (Brexit means Brexit) was laughed off the stage and version 2 (Brexit means something similar to Brexit but not what we originally said Brexit was) collapsed in the face of the realisation of what they'd gotten us into it's looking like version 3 (Brexit means whatever we can spin to offend the least number of voters possible) is being floated by Mayday.

I'll give it a week.

Is anyone surprised that Vote Leave cheated?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561

xmiles wrote:Is anyone surprised that Vote Leave cheated?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561

As it looks as though they have cheated the system and broke electoral laws, then, under current British legal system, it actually means that the referendum is null and void.

I wonder whether the Government will declare it null and void or continue with the mess.

bwfc71 wrote:
As it looks as though they have cheated the system and broke electoral laws, then, under current British legal system, it actually means that the referendum is null and void.

I wonder whether the Government will declare it null and void or continue with the mess.

Illegal or not, the government will take us to the promised land because it was the will of the people.

The promised land? Don't make me laugh! The Government are in turmoil and can't agree anything amongst themselves never mind the EU.
It'as going to be a disaster when we leave with no deal in place.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Illegal or not, the government will take us to the promised land because it was the will of the people.

The less than a third of the population who voted to leave were "promised" loads of different things, and since last year they've gone back on/ruled out most of the "promises" made, so which promised land and which people are you on about? The corporates who engineered it or the mugs that swallowed their lies?

wanderlust wrote:The less than a third of the population who voted to leave were "promised" loads of different things

I seem to remember it was a 52% who voted to leave. Or are you counting the people who didn't bother voting in your stats?

Because that's their own fault.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:The less than a third of the population who voted to leave were "promised" loads of different things

I seem to remember it was a 52% who voted to leave. Or are you counting the people who didn't bother voting in your stats?

Because that's their own fault.

Wanderlust is right as less than a third of the population gave an opinion to leave.

It was 52% of people, that gave an opinion, wanted to leave,  but then that is only 36% of the electorate that were allowed to give an opinion.   Also lets not forget about the scandal of the ex-pats opinions that somehow "got lost" until after the referendum, and as such could not be counted, and from those opinions it would have been "Remain" winning the opinion poll.

No one voted to remain or leave as referendum do not have any legal rights.  People, as in all referendums, only give an opinion.  Hence referendums are just large opinion polls and that's it!