RayC

You make some valid points about Blair and the effects of EU expansion, but I disagree that Blair was responsible for Brexit and that Cameron had no other choice. The Labour Party has been predominantly pro-EU since 'New Labour'. There is - and was - little, if any, internal party debate about holding a EU referendum. On the other hand, the Tory Party has been split about Europe for the best part of 50 years and the signing of the Maastricht Treaty was the catalyst for this split to turn into an internal war between the pro and anti-EU factions. Every Tory leader since then has struggled with how to deal with this. As you say, Cameron believed that the referendum result would be 'remain'. If it were, he could effectively sideline the Eurosceptic wing of the party and tighten his grip on the party for years to come. The alternative would have been to take the 'Major approach'. Reject calls for a referendum and face down the Tory rebels. Didn't end well for Major but, I'd argue, the result was better for the country. In essence, Cameron put his own future and what he perceived as the stability of the Tory party above the needs of the country. As we all know, the gamble failed and the country is now split down the middle. The person who must shoulder the majority of the blame for this state is Cameron.

Many economists see a link between Brexit and inflation in the UK https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-22/brexit-s-legacy-is-hotter-uk-inflation-risk-for-years-to-come

Spoken like a true Boris apologist. I'm pleased that your UK family are ok. My family (all in UK) are also well (but cheesed off with the government).

But if I stand next to an obese bloke eating a cheeseburger who then has a heart attack, I'm not going to catch his obesity and succumb to a heart attack myself.

Sorry still unclear. Are you saying that the UK PM should be held responsible and accountable for their actions or not? If not, does this apply to all PMs or is Johnson some special case?

So as PM he shouldn't be held responsible and accountable for his actions?

Difference is that 2.5 years ago there was a lot less data and knowledge of the virus, and there was no vaccine.

This link might be useful https://idrinkvybes.com/blogs/news/do-cbd-infused-drinks-get-you-high#:~:text=In general%2C you can be,or high feelings to develop.

I assume that you omitted the word 'voted' (3rd line)? In any event, whether the word is included or not, the statement is nonsense: The members of the Union vote in the leadership of their Union. How is that undemocratic? It appears that you would deny individuals the right to withdraw their labour? Not all the public are in favour of the strike, so it is a risky strategy if opposition MPs see it as courting favour with the electorate, hence the reason that Starmer has warned against them being seen on the picket line. Maybe those opposition MPs who defy Starmer on this matter are simply there because they believe in the RMT's case. It appears that your version of democracy comprises a government - of which you approve - with no dissent permitted. Now that is a strange version of a free, democratic society.

71% of those balloted took part in the vote with 89% voting in favour of strike action and only 11% voting against. So 63% of the membership in favour of the strike. Union had no choice but to implement the results of the ballot. After all, that's what democracy is all about, isn't it?

The EU certainly don't want States to leave the bloc and it might be argued that some changes to the implementation of the Agreement can be implemented relatively easily e.g. a 'green' lane for trusted traders. However, the UK entered into the Agreement freely; if it is unable and/or unwilling to comply with the terms of the Agreement it was either incompetent - as it did not understand what it was signing - or dishonest, as it had no intention of complying with the terms of the Agreement in the medium/ long term in the first place. The UK government has no one but itself to blame for the current situation. (There is an intensive debate about this topic in a couple of other threads).

What to do given the role of 'Ethics advisor' is "virtually important"? I know simply rewrite the job description, so that there is no mention of honesty, integrity or ethical behaviour. Problem solved.

I'm certainly no Tory supporter but the government really is facing a perfect storm - falling demand but increasing supply costs - and is caught between a rock and hard place with most inflationary factors outside of their control. A reduction in fuel duty would certainly help industry but how much of that reduction in cost would find its' way to the end consumer? Your suggestion amounts - other things being equal - to a +/-5% cut in government revenue which would - according to my back-of-a-fag packet calculations - cost the Exchequer +/-£2-3 billion. A direct subsidy of this magnitude to, say, the poorest 10% of the population might have a greater macro economic impact? In any event, I wouldn't want Sunak's job at this moment.

Tbf I think that they did cut fuel duty by 5p/ litre in the Spring statement. Also it can be argued that a cut in fuel duty wouldn't help the poorest as they are less likely to own a car.