2016 is officially the year of the “populist”. The dictionary defines populism as the fight of the many to being ruled (and presumably being taken advantage of) by the few, privileged elite. On the surface, it appears to be a triumph of democracy. “Kick out the dictator” and “power to the people”.
I understand the problem, and wholly sympathize. If you lived all your life and lost your job because the coal mines closed down, of course you are angry. If you live in Redcar and over the years you saw your factory close, and your job move to a cheaper country, of course you are angry. If you live in South Wales and watched the steel mills close down then I can understand you wanting positive change, something and/ or someone to help you out. If you have fished your whole life and now the EU tells you how much you are allowed to catch of course you are angry.
But let's step back a minute and take stock. Britain's economy in the 1950's and 1960's was the sick man of Europe. The oceans were full of fish and most people had never heard of global warming or species extinction. Productivity was very low and frankly the unions were too strong. But in terms of UK everyday life, two things happened back then. One was the entry of the UK into the EEC (European Economic Community) the predecessor of the EU and also an iron lady by the name of Margaret Thatcher happened.
The EEC forced Britain to wake up. The successful British companies realized that either they invested and improved their productivity, or else they would go bankrupt. Many did go under, but many thrived and grew and reached world-class and expanded abroad. Little consolation for those who lost their jobs. But think about it. If you produce steel, and the cost is higher than the price you sell it at, how much do you think you will sell? How can you stop all those customers that use uour steel to produce their own products (eg cars) from putting up their prices? You could put tariffs on the imports, or get he government to put money in every year, called subsidy. Good idea? -NOT - Because that means that the whole of Britain is paying to keep a few thousand jobs. Moral: If you can't compete in a fair market then you should be allowed to go under. That ,means you have to grow, become more efficient. It means you have to train your staff and workforce and invest in new machines. EU didn't stifle Britain, its rules and regulations forced it to become more competitive.
Then there was Margaret Thatcher. Her adoption of US style economics, selling off nationalized industries and breaking the back of the unions also contributed. People realized that having a job was no longer guaranteed. And the pendulum swung to the right. But if you think that's the end of the story you are very much mistaken. Because with weaker unions came exploitation. When these massive profits are not ploughed back (in part at least) , the economy again deteriorated.
The Tories, sadly have proven themselves to be as short-term in their thinking as the unions were before. More so, because they have proven that they are selfish and care about nothing but themselves and worse they are morally corrupt. How to save on taxes, which country to start their trust funds, what salaries they can pay themselves.
Germany also has a weapons factory, but they stopped supplying Saudi Arabia because of their abuse of weapons. Does that make Britain smarter because they didn't?
Today Britain has the third lowest investment in infrastructure of the developed economies. Only Italy and the US are lower, It has one of the lowest GDP growth rates and is moving down the ranks. It also is the only one if Europe were the growth rate does not even cover the rate of inflation. National wages are in the doldrums and in real terms, moving backwards. Good hard-working people are struggling to make ends meet.
And what are the Tories doing? Making excuses. From the way they handled the Grenfell tower tragedy to the NHS, local counsels, police, army, the nurses, the teachers, the schools, social care ... everything is suffering. Their answer? Well they have 3 main ones: Take your pick
We have to make up for the overspending of Labour 10 years go
The EU won't let us
We budgeted for that or we just gave an extra £.x billions
Number one isn't even true. The excessive expenditure of that period was necessitated by the near collapse of the financial sector. When the Tories came to power, did they even investigate the culprits. Of course not, because they were all supporters of the right.
Lies, lies and more lies. The police have been squeezed to the point where they are having to prioritize which crimes they respond to. There are fewer police on the streets, and police stations are closing down. Local counsels are having to ration essential services like fixing potholes and social care. Some nurses are dependent on food banks and quitting the profession altogether.
People, you don't save money through austerity. Just look at Greece and Spain. You want to restart an economy, you need investment, just like the Marshall plan of 1945 for Germany and its equivalent for Japan. Nationalization of industries, as I already covered, is inefficient. What you need is far rigid more regulation, monitoring and supervision. Stop thinking in terms of expenses and start thinking in terms of investment. Investment in people (education), in health and research, investment in machines, and taxing according to the benefits being reaped.
Meanwhile, since you are here, perhaps you would consider signing the petition to return the final vote on Brexit to the people.
We now know that nobody can negotiate a decent Brexit! It is an impossibility ... and so what I am suggesting is to put the question back to the people in the form of a final vote on the Brexit deal. Not a referendum, because that is a binary tool, and this is a non-binary problem. What I am proposing is a vote. To be held in Early November latest, with a three-way question.
Accept whatever deal is being proposed and leave in an orderly manner
Reject the deal and simply leave, opting for the NO DEAL option
Accepting that any Brexit is too detrimental, therefore choosing cancelling Brexit
Consider what could happen. If the vote shows a 50% majority for anybody then the question is settled. Most likely it would not and then, just like the elections in many countries, it goes to a second round, with only the top two options going forward. If the two options don't include staying in the EU then the choice will simply be between hard - soft Brexit (or whatever is your preferred nomenclature for the options.)
Most likely, the result will include staying in the EU and one other. If the other is a hard Brexit, then those who voted 'soft' will be obliged to decide in the second round, either 'stay' in the EU or accept crashing out (a 'hard' Brexit). If on the other hand it is the hard Brexiteers that lose out on the first round they will either have to accept an orderly 'soft' Brexit or 'stay' in the EU. In this way nobody can say this is undemocratic or that they don't have a chance at a Brexit of their choice.
All those who still insist the people have already spoken are doing nothing but risking the entire future of the United Kingdom, from Ireland to Scotland, from Tory to Labour. To delegate this decision to the politicians is silly, as can be seen from the state of Brexit negotiations where they can't even agree on the simplest of deals.
Then there is always the question of the interpretation of the EUA 2011 (EU Agreement of 2011), that hasn't been tested yet. One small phrase contained therein 'or replaces any EU Treaty' needs to be ratified in a referendum. What do you think will happen if this goes to court? It could even be said that the referendum held was in fact premature, and the terms of the Brexit should have been known before the people were asked.
The man in the photo is Lord Kerr. He wrote the Article 50, never once thinking it was his own team that would invoke it. Lord Kerr, a former UK ambassador to the E.U, said Brexiters in May’s cabinet were suggesting Brexit was irreversible and thereby misleading the public.
This former diplomat says the UK could opt to reverse Brexit up to the moment it leaves, even if a date for the country’s departure from European Union were added to the withdrawal bill, as Theresa May plans.
SIGN THE PETITION DEMANDING THE FINAL VOTE BE RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE.
This is the only way to truly know what the people want and to unite the country again. Everybody, knowing the consequences, takes an informed decision. These are the options, this is the price! - DECIDE -.
Ask yourselves, do you really trust a politician, many of whom take donations from the Russians , to take what is almost certainly the most important decision of your and YOUR CHILDRENS' lives for you?
Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell your fellow students. This offer is only on until March 29th, 2019. (Actually, if a transition period is negotiated it could be longer but I wouldn't risk it). Before Mar 29th 2019, even the EU can't stop a reversal. After that who knows) Vote the way you think and then its in the lap of the gods!
Sign Petition : https://t.co/Wo8DgvjjYN