UK to warn public every week over 'no-deal Brexit': The Times

[tebee]

For those who say "the will of the people must be enacted", I say " remember the Poll Tax?"

 

Things (and views) change in the light of reality - from 1987 to 1990 the UK’s poll tax changed from being something people debated in principle to a dire political predicament when local government budgets were set and the new bills went out. A new system was quickly put in place without a fresh general election, and nobody with sense cared that there had been an explicit mandate for the policy at the preceding general election.

 

Once upon a time there was an idea for a policy of a “community charge” to pay for local government in the UK. Some very clever people thought it was a very clever idea indeed.

 

The idea was put into the Conservative party manifesto for the 1987 general election, set out in plain sight:

“We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer Community Charge."

 

The Conservatives won that election with a sizable majority. As such, there was a mandate for the policy.

 

Many in government, however, were against the idea. Some said it sounded good in theory, but it would not work well in practice. A few said it would be a disaster.

But those in favour of it pressed on. The proponents of the community charge even switched the policy from one that would be phased in over five to 10 years to one being introduced in one go.

 

The community charge was not only “fairer”, said its supporters, it would force (the so-called “loony lefty”) councils to be more accountable to voters. Once people realised how much local government cost, they would vote against such progressive wastefulness.

 

So convinced were they of the righteousness of the policy, that opposition was disregarded. A small team of true believers forced it through without wider consultation. Margaret Thatcher, then prime minister, called it the “flagship of the Tory fleet”. The Conservative whips ensured a House of Commons rebellion was defeated. And to make sure the legislation went though the (then unreformed) House of Lords, every “backwoodsman” hereditary peer in the realm was summoned to do his duty. The strict timetable was kept.

 

But, other than the zealots, few of those involved actually supported the new policy. Most were dismissive if not horrified. Evidence from the time shows that experts in local government finances were uniformly opposed, as were commentators from the serious press. This made no difference.

 

The parliamentary committee on the bill was described by one contemporary as “scrutiny by slogan and soundbite”. People knew something bad was happening, but nothing could stop it. Even the uproar at the botched introduction of a similar scheme in Scotland prompted no more than shrugs in London. There was a mandate and a timetable and true believers.

 

The public more widely were not that engaged at this stage. There were some political campaigns but, as Tony Benn recorded, the impact of the extra-parliamentary protests was to inhibit the official opposition: “the Labour Party is more frightened of the anti-poll tax campaign than of the poll tax itself”.

 

And then came the bills. The community charge became the hated poll tax. The original estimates of between £50 to £150 a head rose to £363. Some bills were as high as £775. One estimate from the time was that 27m households lost out compared with 8m who gained. There were riots, but also widespread non-payment and inability to collect. There was administrative chaos. It was a political disaster.

 

At this point, it did not matter that there was a supposed “mandate”, that there were clever arguments for its merits, that it would dish the “loony left” councils or that it had been delivered according to a brisk timetable. Once people realised the real costs, none of that mattered. The policy had to be ditched. And it was, at the same time as the prime minister who had introduced it.
 

 

 

[My Thai Life]

A few random thoughts ...

 

... the very narrow leave majority was probably carried by the Asian immigrants voting to keep EU citizens out of the UK in the hope that this would provide more opportunity for future Asian immigration

 

... there really should have been more than a simple majority governing this: 55-45, 60-40, two thirds...

 

... the tactics and methods used by the leave campaign arguably render the result invalid

 

... Merkel's well publicised open arms welcome to refugees probably tipped a lot of undecided voters into voting leave, as well as creating huge unrest in the countries located between the middle east and Germany

 

... Obama's intervention probably tipped a few into voting leave too

 

... there has been so much focus on the future of the UK, but the future of the EU is just as uncertain as it ever was: the current centrist alignment is by no means guaranteed; there is no agreement on immigration; the Euro is guaranteed to continue to create problems for many EU countries and quite possibly for the future of the EU itself

 

I have no confidence in the UK politicians behind leave, but I also would find it difficult to support the EU without major reforms...

 

as so often, none of the options would motivate me enough to want to vote.

Edited August 3, 2018 by My Thai Life

[tomacht8]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

I see your anti German stance doesn't stretch to not using the language.

You quoted me wrong.

I never said this.

You copied a statement from an other poster as my statement.

[melvinmelvin]

45 minutes ago, tebee said:

No when you have a split vote like that, you need to find a compromise that works for both sides.

 

If you try and impose one side's wishes over the other you will end up with one half of the population resenting the other. The schism will only get worse - it damages the fabric of society. Think about what happened in Northern Ireland for 3 generations.

 

I don't think remainers are the violent type, but I would expect peaceful civic disobedience  for years to come if we leave. Don't expect us to "get behind it" if you completely ignore our views. Resentment will fester and poison relations in this situation, especially if brexit turns out bad.    

 

How do you envisage a compromise between leave/remain?

 

[kwilco]

12 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

You quoted me wrong.

I never said this.

You copied a statement from an other poster as my statement.

That why it said Vogie....... TV then misquoted on Android it doesn't work very well.....

Edited August 3, 2018 by kwilco

[kwilco]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

How do you envisage a compromise between leave/remain?

 

There is no comppromise....

[whatsupdoc]

20 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

"No when you have a split vote like that, you need to find a compromise that works for both sides."

In all honesty tebee when you try to please everybody, you will end up pleasing nobody, but Mrs May seems intent on going down this route. Only time will tell.

 

"I don't think remainers are the violent type, but I would expect peaceful civic disobedience  for years to come if we leave. Don't expect us to "get behind it" if you completely ignore our views. Resentment will fester and poison relations in this situation, especially if brexit turns out bad."

I don't think your views are being ignored, but you must admit the views of both sides are polar opposites, some people are bound to be disappointed, I think it will be both sides, why should it be the majority that gets the short straw.

But lets not forget it is the intransigency of the EU that has caused this division in our country.

Good reply except for the last sentence. I see many Brexit comments that only focus on what is good for the UK, they completely ignore the interests of the EU.

Any final deal has to be in the interests of the EU as well as Barnier pointed out many times. The EU is not without faults but if it would fall apart it would be disastrous for the whole of Europe. To withstand the pressure from Russia, China and the USA, Europe needs to be united.

The EU's central idea is the indivisibility of the 4 freedoms. I think that should be preserved at all costs, including that of a no deal Brexit. You may call it intransigency of the EU, self protection would be more accurate.

[kwilco]

4 hours ago, aright said:

What solutions have the EU found to massive unemployment in Southern member States?

What solutions have the Eu found to the dissatisfaction of member States as evidenced by a significant increase in votes for extreme right wing partys?

What solutions have the EU found to illegal and opportunistic immigration?

What solutions have the EU found to a common currency which only benefits one country?

 

 At what democratically held election did I vote for Martin Selmayr?

 

 

I think it is clearly demonstrated that Brexit will never address any of those problems .. perceived or otherwise.

Edited August 3, 2018 by kwilco

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, kwilco said:

That why it says Vogie....... TV misquoted on Android it doesn't work very well

It works very well on my Android.......strange.

 

Uber was a word borrowed from a remainer, strangely enough he is not your greatest fan.

[dick dasterdly]

11 hours ago, oilinki said:

I have watched Yes Minister. It describes how the British politicians behave quite well. I thought it was comedy, until recently, with the Brexit I became more interested of the British politics. It's madness. 

 

In the rest of the EU, our politicians doesn't behave in that way. Yes, there are few bad apples, but in general, we have tendency to find solutions instead of trying to grab power by it's groins. 

 

After Brexit you'll be stuck with your silly politicians and house of lords. Meanwhile we at the EU side will continue to go forward with our democratically elected members of the EU.

 

And yes, we need to improve EU constantly. We wouldn't want to be stuck with the ideas from 40's of last century or even older 'better' times. 

"I have watched Yes Minister. It describes how the British politicians behave quite well. I thought it was comedy, until recently, with the Brexit I became more interested of the British politics. It's madness."

 

Quite.  Whereas brits. knew (at the time) that whilst it was a comedy programme, it worked because (like most/all genuinely funny programmes) it was based on truth.  But I can understand why you as a foreigner didn't realise this.

 

"In the rest of the EU, our politicians doesn't behave in that way. Yes, there are few bad apples, but in general, we have tendency to find solutions instead of trying to grab power by it's groins."

 

Do you honestly believe that the majority of eu politicians aren't as power hungry/money-seeking as brit. politicians??  It's certainly an 'interesting' viewpoint ?!

 

"Meanwhile we at the EU side will continue to go forward with our democratically elected members of the EU."

 

Another 'interesting' viewpoint..... ?.

Edited August 3, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, tebee said:

You can't call a near 50-50 split vote the expressed wishes of the British electorate.

 

Almost half the people didn't want to leave.

 

Democracy is not just about the wishes of the majority, oppressing a minority will always damage the fabric of   society 

"oppressing a minority will always damage the fabric of   society"

 

How are the brexiteers trying to 'oppress' the remainers?

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people....a banal fixation with a simple majority just shows a lack of understanding of what democracy really entails  ..... referendums are the tools of despots and dictators, in countries like the USA constitutional changes require a 2 thirds majority, simple majority is just mob rule.

"Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people"

 

Exactly, and after one of the very rare referendums carried out in the uk (that resulted in a 'leave' result) - the govt. needs to remember that they are supposed to be "of the people by the people for the people".....

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"I have watched Yes Minister. It describes how the British politicians behave quite well. I thought it was comedy, until recently, with the Brexit I became more interested of the British politics. It's madness."

 

Quite.  Whereas brits. knew (at the time) that whilst it was a comedy programme, it worked because (like most/all genuinely funny programmes) it was based on truth.  But I can understand why you as a foreigner didn't realise this.

 

"In the rest of the EU, our politicians doesn't behave in that way. Yes, there are few bad apples, but in general, we have tendency to find solutions instead of trying to grab power by it's groins."

 

Do you honestly believe that the majority of eu politicians aren't as power hungry/money-seeking as brit. politicians??  It's certainly an 'interesting' viewpoint ?!

 

"Meanwhile we at the EU side will continue to go forward with our democratically elected members of the EU."

 

Another 'interesting' viewpoint..... ?.

Well, in Finland we vote and elect a person and party (and coalition) to represent us in the parliament. The head of largest party starts forming the cabinet. These negotiations have compromises as it takes 2-3 larger parties to have more than 50% MP's.

 

We also elect our president with direct vote.

 

If I understood correctly, In England you vote for your party, which leader becomes the PM.

 

On top of this you have house of lords, who are unlected appointees by the Queen. You also don't vote who is the head of your country, but believe that her family are somewhat better due their birthright. Silly stuff.

 

We both vote on EU's elections. Voting for our MEPs and MEP's EU coalition parties. The largest coalition gets naturally the most power in EU. The president of EU is largely rather powerless head of EU. Quite like your Queen is. Someone who is nice to show around.

 

So, how about those upper cabinet members? Lords and ladies?

 

And yes... I was genuinely surprised how nasty UK politics is once I started to watch it more closely. I didn't care about it before the Brexit vote. In other countries politicians are there to serve our needs. Not the other way around. 

 

And another yes. Of course I'm familiar with political satire. We actually watched quite a lot of brilliant comedy from UK in Finland when I was growing up. Those were also good as English lessons. 

[dick dasterdly]

24 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Well, in Finland we vote and elect a person and party (and coalition) to represent us in the parliament. The head of largest party starts forming the cabinet. These negotiations have compromises as it takes 2-3 larger parties to have more than 50% MP's.

 

We also elect our president with direct vote.

 

If I understood correctly, In England you vote for your party, which leader becomes the PM.

 

On top of this you have house of lords, who are unlected appointees by the Queen. You also don't vote who is the head of your country, but believe that her family are somewhat better due their birthright. Silly stuff.

 

We both vote on EU's elections. Voting for our MEPs and MEP's EU coalition parties. The largest coalition gets naturally the most power in EU. The president of EU is largely rather powerless head of EU. Quite like your Queen is. Someone who is nice to show around.

 

So, how about those upper cabinet members? Lords and ladies?

 

And yes... I was genuinely surprised how nasty UK politics is once I started to watch it more closely. I didn't care about it before the Brexit vote. In other countries politicians are there to serve our needs. Not the other way around. 

 

And another yes. Of course I'm familiar with political satire. We actually watched quite a lot of brilliant comedy from UK in Finland when I was growing up. Those were also good as English lessons. 

And again, you misunderstand - as you similarly misunderstood why Yes Minister was so funny to brits.

 

"On top of this you have house of lords, who are unlected appointees by the Queen." 

 

No, the Queen has little power.  If I understand correctly, politicians appoint the undemocratic house of lords.  But I do agree that they are not elected and undemocratic.

 

"You also don't vote who is the head of your country, but believe that her family are somewhat better due their birthright. Silly stuff."

 

Re. the part I've emboldened, again no.  You may be able to find the odd individual that believes this to be the case (?), but even those that support the monarchy don't argue that "her family are somewhat better due their birthright" ?.

 

If I were you, I'd give up on your crusade to explain to brits. how you understand our country better than ourselves!

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

If I were you, I'd give up on your crusade to explain to brits. how you understand our country better than ourselves!

I take this in the way that you do agree that EU is more democratic entity than UK.

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I take this in the way that you do agree that EU is more democratic entity than UK.

How do you work that one out when the Euro Commission is not elected.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

How do you work that one out when the Euro Commission is not elected.

It's elected quite the same way our countries elect our cabinets. We vote for the members, who then create the cabinet. This applies to Finland, UK and EU. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

It's elected quite the same way our countries elect our cabinets. We vote for the members, who then create the cabinet. This applies to Finland, UK and EU. 

I always suspected that Theresa May was unelected. How else to explain her current status?

[dick dasterdly]

39 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And again, you misunderstand - as you similarly misunderstood why Yes Minister was so funny to brits.

 

"On top of this you have house of lords, who are unlected appointees by the Queen." 

 

No, the Queen has little power.  If I understand correctly, politicians appoint the undemocratic house of lords.  But I do agree that they are not elected and undemocratic.

 

"You also don't vote who is the head of your country, but believe that her family are somewhat better due their birthright. Silly stuff."

 

Re. the part I've emboldened, again no.  You may be able to find the odd individual that believes this to be the case (?), but even those that support the monarchy don't argue that "her family are somewhat better due their birthright" ?.

 

If I were you, I'd give up on your crusade to explain to brits. how you understand our country better than ourselves!

 

34 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I take this in the way that you do agree that EU is more democratic entity than UK.

I'd like to think you were joking - but I'm sure you aren't....

[dunroaming]

5 hours ago, kwilco said:

There is no comppromise....

Yes there is no compromise but wherever we end up now we will be worse off.

 

Somehow we have screwed up our country by electing a useless bunch of self serving morons.  There is no one out there to get to grips with this chaotic mess and we just stagger along waiting for the inevitable conclusion.  Shame on them all. 

[melvinmelvin]

7 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Yes there is no compromise but wherever we end up now we will be worse off.

 

Somehow we have screwed up our country by electing a useless bunch of self serving morons.  There is no one out there to get to grips with this chaotic mess and we just stagger along waiting for the inevitable conclusion.  Shame on them all. 

 

you seem to be on to smth there,

but forget it, can't be helped, UK populace just continue and continue, vote Tory vote Tory vote Tory

and down the drain you go

 

[dunroaming]

8 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

you seem to be on to smth there,

but forget it, can't be helped, UK populace just continue and continue, vote Tory vote Tory vote Tory

and down the drain you go

 

I think that the Labour party are realising that they need to dump Corbyn and then they have a real chance of winning the next general election.  Maybe not outright but as the Liberals slowly rise out of the ashes then a coalition could be a possibility.  I am sure a leadership challenge for Corbyn is being formalised.

[nontabury]

3 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I think that the Labour party are realising that they need to dump Corbyn and then they have a real chance of winning the next general election.  Maybe not outright but as the Liberals slowly rise out of the ashes then a coalition could be a possibility.  I am sure a leadership challenge for Corbyn is being formalised.

The trouble with your expectations is that many of the Labour M.P s are remainers, who think that they can rely on the traditional Labour supporters to follow them loyally and blindly. But times are a changing. Thankfully some Labour 

M.P’s do support their electorate.

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

No deal Brexit - hardships

The stuff below was news to me, it is originating from some Guardian www pages:

 

 

UK-DLs.docx

[citybiker]

The trouble with your expectations is that many of the Labour M.P s are remainers, who think that they can rely on the traditional Labour supporters to follow them loyally and blindly. But times are a changing. Thankfully some Labour 
M.P’s do support their electorate.
 
 

I’ve not seen this Caroline Flint clip before and fair play to her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dunroaming]

12 minutes ago, nontabury said:

The trouble with your expectations is that many of the Labour M.P s are remainers, who think that they can rely on the traditional Labour supporters to follow them loyally and blindly. But times are a changing. Thankfully some Labour 

M.P’s do support their electorate.

 

 

My expectations?  What on earth does the fact that many of the Labour MP's are remainers have to do with my post?  The only point that I am making is that whereas in the past the Tory's would win no matter what, is that there is now a chance (brought on by  the Tories total failure to govern and all the infighting) that Labour could rally a real challenge in a general election, subject to dumping Corbyn.  That is not based on anything related to Brexit, simply the way the Tories are screwing up the country.

[dunroaming]

10 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

No deal Brexit - hardships

The stuff below was news to me, it is originating from some Guardian www pages:

 

 

UK-DLs.docx

I understand that there will be "official" stats available on the 20th August on the impact of a no deal Brexit but let's wait and see.

[nontabury]

17 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I understand that there will be "official" stats available on the 20th August on the impact of a no deal Brexit but let's wait and see.

It will be interesting to read those “official” stats, and even more interesting to read who produces them.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, nontabury said:

It will be interesting to read those “official” stats, and even more interesting to read who produces them.

Can official stats be produced by anyone else than the government?

[nontabury]

25 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

My expectations?  What on earth does the fact that many of the Labour MP's are remainers have to do with my post?  The only point that I am making is that whereas in the past the Tory's would win no matter what, is that there is now a chance (brought on by  the Tories total failure to govern and all the infighting) that Labour could rally a real challenge in a general election, subject to dumping Corbyn.  That is not based on anything related to Brexit, simply the way the Tories are screwing up the country.

Off course it’s related to Brexit. If Labour supporters have the opportunity to vote in those remain supporting M.P. Many will put their support aside. I consider Labour tactics of either sitting on the fence, or actually trying to overturn the referendum result, their most gigantic mistake in a generation. If J.C had declared his intention to support Brexit, as many beleive he actually wants, and had been able to take his party with him, then today we would be looking at a future Labour 

government.