Why is everyone getting so pessimistic? The new deal Brexit will give a new lease of life to our nation. We can start again from scratch. Here are the opportunities.
After a hard Brexit, we will have a chance to re-negotiate every trade deal we have including the EU, Canada, South Korea and Japan never mind that our existing trade deals cover 70% of the world's GDP. We can spend years training our trade negotiators to do better and then spend years actually re-negotiating free trade. The UK won't be satisfied with getting back to square one, we want to get back to square zero.
Never mind, if Airbus, BMW and Siemens repatriate the work back to France, Germany and Spain but not the British workers. We can re-build the factories on our own and still sell heaps of cars; despite all the tariffs and quotas that will be imposed on our exports whilst we re-adjust and operate under World Trade Rules. We are Britain we can do what we like.
Our migration problems will be solved as no-one will want to come to the UK because there will be no work for them. In fact our population will probably fall; China will gladly accept the British workers who will be unemployed and can't get visas to work in Germany or Roumania. EU car factories will be working full steam ahead but not with British workers.
Pensioners will have the opportunity to find new careers. Depopulation will mean that there are not enough young people to support the ever ageing population so pension payments will fall. Older people will have to work for longer. Pensioners will have to retrain to be doctors and nurses and learn how to treat themselves when they get ill; all good skills to learn for the future - all the EU doctors and nurses will have left or been repatriated.
Our country will become the land of opportunity.
Thursday, 28 June 2018
Saturday, 16 June 2018
EU has contingency plans for UK to postpone Brexit
The EU is making contingency plans for what happens if Britain asks for an extension of membership past the prospective leaving date of March 2019. First of all, all of the remaining 27 EU states will need to approve the extension. Then provision will have to be made for the European parliament elections.
The EU has made contingency planning for all eventualities surrounding Brexit. This will protect the interests of both the EU and the UK. Responsible governments recognise the need to do this.
This is not the case with the UK. The UK has no agreed plan for the negotiation of Brexit. It has no plan for the border with Ireland. It has no plan for leaving in March 2019 without a deal. There are no contingency plans for the borders at Folkestone and Dover etc.. Belatedly, Parliament which is meant to be sovereign is trying to get the government to confront these issues.
Brexit is a complete mess and it could possibly lead to economic disaster.
Populations quite often get the government they deserve. The population has demanded a referendum which is binding, and which they expect the government to implement despite the divisions.
The population has supposedly voted for a completely sovereign parliament but seeks to limit that sovereignty. This is a contradiction and it has lead to this mess.
It is my opinion that referendums should only be allowed to change the constitutional status quo when there is a two thirds majority. In instances where there is a federated system, a majority of the states should also vote for change. Australia does something similar to this and uses a guarded and sensible approach.
The UK has voted very narrowly to leave the EU, in the general vote, but two of our four nations voted to remain. This is a recipe for complete political division. Many remain voters and politicians simply do not accept that an overwhelming number of the population has voted to change the constitutional status quo. For a "first past the post system" it is valid but from a rational and administrative point of view it is simply invalid.
17 million plus voters voted to leave, 16 million plus voters voted to remain and 13 million electors did not vote at all.
It is wrong to say that the opinions of the 13 million minority should be ignored; they might of been of the opinion that parliament should decide: parliament after all is sovereign.
We cannot allow our union to continue with conducting referendums on the basis of those who are "first past the post" will win. The divisions caused by Brexit could lead to a demand in Northern Ireland or Scotland for an independence referendum: or for a union of Northern Ireland with the Republic. What would happen if a referendum was decided by just 1 vote or even a couple of thousand? No doubt, also, there would be a considerable numbers of abstainers to add to the indecision. To change the constitutional status on a "ham-fisted" basis could easily lead to another civil war in Northern Ireland.
All UK voters should consider the dangers of "first past the post" referendums. Brexit is a classic example of what can go wrong.
Parliament is sovereign and it is under no legal obligation to implement the result of a flawed system of deciding the country's future. Maybe we should start again.
The EU has made plans for our departure the UK government has no plans realistic for leaving and no realistic plan for what happens if we leave the EU without a deal. Given that there is so much national division, could we reasonably expect even the most competent government to implement Brexit successfully.
Parliament has the power to solve this impasse and it should have the courage to act in the best interests of our country. If that means another referendum then so be it. But another referendum should be decided on the basis of a super two thirds majority to change the status quo. And, also a majority of our nations -three out of four - should approve the constitutional change. So be it.
The EU has made contingency planning for all eventualities surrounding Brexit. This will protect the interests of both the EU and the UK. Responsible governments recognise the need to do this.
This is not the case with the UK. The UK has no agreed plan for the negotiation of Brexit. It has no plan for the border with Ireland. It has no plan for leaving in March 2019 without a deal. There are no contingency plans for the borders at Folkestone and Dover etc.. Belatedly, Parliament which is meant to be sovereign is trying to get the government to confront these issues.
Brexit is a complete mess and it could possibly lead to economic disaster.
Populations quite often get the government they deserve. The population has demanded a referendum which is binding, and which they expect the government to implement despite the divisions.
The population has supposedly voted for a completely sovereign parliament but seeks to limit that sovereignty. This is a contradiction and it has lead to this mess.
It is my opinion that referendums should only be allowed to change the constitutional status quo when there is a two thirds majority. In instances where there is a federated system, a majority of the states should also vote for change. Australia does something similar to this and uses a guarded and sensible approach.
The UK has voted very narrowly to leave the EU, in the general vote, but two of our four nations voted to remain. This is a recipe for complete political division. Many remain voters and politicians simply do not accept that an overwhelming number of the population has voted to change the constitutional status quo. For a "first past the post system" it is valid but from a rational and administrative point of view it is simply invalid.
17 million plus voters voted to leave, 16 million plus voters voted to remain and 13 million electors did not vote at all.
It is wrong to say that the opinions of the 13 million minority should be ignored; they might of been of the opinion that parliament should decide: parliament after all is sovereign.
We cannot allow our union to continue with conducting referendums on the basis of those who are "first past the post" will win. The divisions caused by Brexit could lead to a demand in Northern Ireland or Scotland for an independence referendum: or for a union of Northern Ireland with the Republic. What would happen if a referendum was decided by just 1 vote or even a couple of thousand? No doubt, also, there would be a considerable numbers of abstainers to add to the indecision. To change the constitutional status on a "ham-fisted" basis could easily lead to another civil war in Northern Ireland.
All UK voters should consider the dangers of "first past the post" referendums. Brexit is a classic example of what can go wrong.
Parliament is sovereign and it is under no legal obligation to implement the result of a flawed system of deciding the country's future. Maybe we should start again.
The EU has made plans for our departure the UK government has no plans realistic for leaving and no realistic plan for what happens if we leave the EU without a deal. Given that there is so much national division, could we reasonably expect even the most competent government to implement Brexit successfully.
Parliament has the power to solve this impasse and it should have the courage to act in the best interests of our country. If that means another referendum then so be it. But another referendum should be decided on the basis of a super two thirds majority to change the status quo. And, also a majority of our nations -three out of four - should approve the constitutional change. So be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
