Is there a tariff on imported horse meat though?
2 Likes
This is the thing. Many people voted for a brexit which fixed all social and economic issues - aka a total pile of bullshit.
Remember this largely wasnât driven by mainstream parties but by the far right, wedging the conservatives. as soon as it went through, half of them resigned and crawled back under their rocks.
They sold something which never existed.
3 Likes
And A discount for Mad Cow Disease?
The Brexit that people voted for was basically a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too fantasy. Complete control over immigrants entering the UK but complete freedom of travel for UK citizens who want to retire in Provence or get on the â â â â in Ibiza! Better trade deals for british exporters but more restrictions on imports! $350 million per day back into the NHS! The Leave campaign was promising all the benefits of EU membership but none of the responsibilities.
And tbh I donât think the people who voted for brexit are even bad people mostly (yeah, Iâm sure all the Nazis etc voted leave, but they are a very small minority). Weâre in a time when in developed countries, the economic consensus and itâs exporting of manufacturing jobs to china, the financialisation of the economy, deregulation and privatisation, persistent corruption and corporate tax dodging and the rise of multinationals as basically immune to law and untouchable by regular people - is hurting a lot of people. I think the vote against Brexit was for a lot of people a protest vote against the decades of conventional and mostly bipartisan economic policy that arrived at this point.
And yeah, there were a bunch of wankers who voted Brexit to keep out the darkies. But theyâre very, very far from the whole story.
3 Likes
Agreed.
There has also been long-term anger over Brussels beauracracy hubris, economic waste and essentially bullying.
I dont think years of austerity measures by their own government has helped either. People were hoping for change.
1 Like
My brother in lawâs position (Pom, living in Cambridge) is that âBrussels was total bollocks and desperately needed to be reformed, but us bailing out is short sighted and far worseâ. Heâs quite depressed about his countries outlook.
And Europeâs outlook too, with nationalism on the rise again.
I told him to move here.
so he could be depressed about ours?
It really is looking like a disaster.
A reminder that regressive politics take you nowhere but backwards.
3 Likes
Allegedly Jacob Rees-Mogg, the UK Minister for the Eighteenth Century, has made his many millions profiting from disasters, and sees a fair prospect of doing so again.
So Sue Perkins suggested in a recent tweet.
Out with the tumbrils and off to an appointment with Mme La Guillotine.
Should remove at least 30 of the plums in his mouth.
If you want a taste of âwhat Brexit people voted forâ, consider that it was a yes/no question on the ballot.
If youâre old enough to remember, think of the referendum on the republic, which was also a yes/no question. What republic were people voting for?
1 Like
It actually wasnât a straight forward âShould Australia become a Republicâ like the âLeave or Remainâ question though.
A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament
Vs
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Not sure what youâre trying to say? 
1 Like
It was a deliberately slanted question to get the debate and answer that Howard and Abbott wanted. Same as the way they selected the group of people to discuss it. They were crafty buggers.
Thatâs despite it actually being an excellent model. Itâs rare that anyone objects to the PMâs ability to appoint the Governor-General (read: President), and it would be rarer that they would object to a more-or-less consensus candidate.
Most people probably canât name the GG.
But if we the people vote for a President itâll solve all our issues with the current political parties! That debate was pathetic.
1 Like
It was also silly to call it a President, which was something else deliberately designed to create confusion and uncertainty.
Thatâs one way to characterise what they did. Another way is to say that Howard proposed the only amendment that would actually work. A âRepublic: Yes or Noâ referendum would not have changed anything, and there would then have to have been another on to make actual changes to the Constitution.
And I completely agree that the idea of a directly elected President is ridiculous, and that those who argued that it would âkeep the politicians outâ of things simply donât have a brain in their heads.
I thought the detailed Republic question was fine in the sense that everyone knew more or less what theyâd get and could vote accordingly. There was more clarity on the future than the Brexit question.
2 Likes
Also, wasnât there to be a follow-up referendum to vote on the actual changes to our constitution?
(if Yes won)
Canât recall that bit. Maybe. Youâd probably need one to set-out the powers and role available to the âPresident/chief minister/El supremo/whateverâ. Although from what I remember the Republican convention came up with a largely toothless figurehead role? Much like the UK now have, actually.
But We donât really want this thread to go down an Aus Republic pathway so Iâll leave it at that.
Summed it up nicely.
16 Likes
Yeah certainly wasnât no Mel C.