So it seems our chums in the ever-democratic EU are threatening to suspend Poland's

[Burney]

1. We haven't extracted ourselves from German hegemony. We had been pooling sovereignty. We got our way in votes 95% of the time, more than both Germany and France. We now have no say in the rules that govern 44% of our exports.

2.The UK and Turkey as military powers? Lol. Bring in France and we can have Crimea 2.0. And we don't want hostile relations with our major trade partner.

3. How are we going to afford to arm? We are predicted to lose 9.5% of our GDP by 2030 because of Brexit. The public - including the idiots who voted fro Brexit - are now saying they want an end to austerity. Yet they voted to see the pound fall by 15-20%, which isn't helpful for a country with a large current account deficit, and for inflation to go well beyond the MPC's 2% remit and for a massive fall in our GDP.

Brexit is going to make us much, much poorer, as everyone knows full well. It disgusts me that there were about a dozen studies looking at how much Brexit will cost us in GDP loss, and all but one said it would be big. The other was was Economists for Brexit - 8 people. So because 8 ideologues came up with taht crap about us being richer, the Beeb were froced to say that there were arguments both ways.

And now all the predictions - as people realise what it entails - are saying it's going to be much worse than we thought a year ago.

By on earth did people vote to make themselves much poorer? The public should never have been entrusted with such a decision. We don't have the space or facilities to have customs checks at the ports for all the containers. Euratom, the fall in all the NHS workers etc. The rural food industry can't get the fruit pickers et al it needs.

I really worry for thsi country. If people are complaining about austerity now, what will they do in a decade when GDP is down 10%? They were moaning about only getting a 1% public sector pay rise. Now we need 3% just to keep real wages on a par.

People are going to realise that they have become a lot, lot poorer and that the reduced growth will devastate the public services they rely on. And what happens when the voters or govt have to decide which groups of people suffer most from the shrinking pie.

One half of the country will know that it's all the fault of the other half.

I can see a dark political future for this country, potentially.

When people see that we've fallen from being as rich as France to as poor as Portugal, and knowing that unlike, say, the Wall St crash that:
1. It's not affecting every nation, just us.
2. That it's not going to go back to how it was, we've got this forever.
3. That it wasn't outsiders - foreign bankers or a hostile power - that's to blame, it's one half of our fellow citizens.

Do you not worry about how voters wil react when it dawns on them what they have either done or had done to them by the other group?

Oh, dear. And we were having such a nice chat until now. This is merely the hysterical ranting of a bedwetter, gg.

Oh, by the way, whenever someone says in all seriousness: 'The public should never have been entrusted with such a decision', I reach for my revolver. You either trust the public with decisions about how they are governed or you advocate tyranny. There is no middle ground.

[Peter]

Oh, dear. And we were having such a nice chat until now. This is merely the hysterical ranting of a bedwetter, gg.

Oh, by the way, whenever someone says in all seriousness: 'The public should never have been entrusted with such a decision', I reach for my revolver. You either trust the public with decisions about how they are governed or you advocate tyranny. There is no middle ground.

There is a middle ground and it is called parliamentary democracy. The public get to choose a few hundred people to make these decisions for us.

They either know best or they are not up to the job. The rest of us have our own work to be getting on with.

[Burney]

There is a middle ground and it is called parliamentary democracy. The public get to choose a few hundred people to make these decisions for us.

They either know best or they are not up to the job. The rest of us have our own work to be getting on with.

Absolutely, and I'm a big fan of it - as long as it remains representative. Where that duty of representation fails - as it did so abjectly on the question of the EU - then the need for recourse to direct democracy arises.

[Peter]

Absolutely, and I'm a big fan of it - as long as it remains representative. Where that duty of representation fails - as it did so abjectly on the question of the EU - then the need for recourse to direct democracy arises.

Which is where the peculiarly british pomposity about representation starts to get on my ****ing tits. The notion that YOUR MP is elected to represent YOUR views has been utter nonsense since political parties acquired the semblance of party organisation in the 1830s.

The first thing your MP does on arrival at Westminster is take the whip, meaning he speaks, acts and votes with and for his party. What his constituents may or may not believe does not matter a jot for another 4 and a half years.
You either accept this arrangement or you don’t.

Demanding a referendum when it doesn’t get you what you want is not the done thing at all.

Poor form.

[Burney]

Which is where the peculiarly british pomposity about representation starts to get on my ****ing tits. The notion that YOUR MP is elected to represent YOUR views has been utter nonsense since political parties acquired the semblance of party organisation in the 1830s.

The first thing your MP does on arrival at Westminster is take the whip, meaning he speaks, acts and votes with and for his party. What his constituents may or may not believe does not matter a jot for another 4 and a half years.
You either accept this arrangement or you don’t.

Demanding a referendum when it doesn’t get you what you want is not the done thing at all.

Poor form.

Sure, but if Brexit demonstrates anything, it's that all major parties simply ignoring the feelings of a majority of voters on the key constitutional matter affecting the country for 40-odd years and carrying on regardless really doesn't work.

That, it seems to me, is the lesson our political classes are struggling to learn.

[Peter]

Sure, but if Brexit demonstrates anything, it's that all major parties simply ignoring the feelings of a majority of voters on the key constitutional matter affecting the country for 40-odd years and carrying on regardless really doesn't work.

That, it seems to me, is the lesson our political classes are struggling to learn.

That depends on the belief that it is the key constitutional matter. Its not. It means very little and is too complicated for the mass populace to comprehend.

And they didn't ignore the feelings of the majority- they just didn't agree with them. Its called leadership.

David Cameron, for all his faults, understood this.

[redgunamo]

That depends on the belief that it is the key constitutional matter. Its not. It means very little and is too complicated for the mass populace to comprehend.

And they didn't ignore the feelings of the majority- they just didn't agree with them. Its called leadership.

David Cameron, for all his faults, understood this.

It's not British leadership though. That's why he had to go.

[Burney]

That depends on the belief that it is the key constitutional matter. Its not. It means very little and is too complicated for the mass populace to comprehend.

And they didn't ignore the feelings of the majority- they just didn't agree with them. Its called leadership.

David Cameron, for all his faults, understood this.

The 'too complicated' thing is just what those in power say when they want the public to fūck off and stop asking awkward questions.

EU membership only became 'too complicated' because our political classes allowed it to. The public have applied Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot it is and it is now the business of those political classes to sort that out.

[redgunamo]

There is a middle ground and it is called parliamentary democracy. The public get to choose a few hundred people to make these decisions for us.

They either know best or they are not up to the job. The rest of us have our own work to be getting on with.

No, they know nothing, which is why they can all be readily ignored. As you say, just get on with your own life.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Oh, dear. And we were having such a nice chat until now. This is merely the hysterical ranting of a bedwetter, gg.

Oh, by the way, whenever someone says in all seriousness: 'The public should never have been entrusted with such a decision', I reach for my revolver. You either trust the public with decisions about how they are governed or you advocate tyranny. There is no middle ground.

Firstly, there is a middle ground. Represnentative democracy, not referendums. I don't know what level our interest rates should be, so we leave it to the MPC overseen by a govt, accountable in parl, which has experts to advise them.

We shouldn't let the public vote every three months on what the rate should be. Cos people with mortguages will vote for 0% and people with savings will vote for 100%. Leave it to the experts, accountable to govt, accountable to parl, accountable to their voters.

This is precisely the middle ground I'm talking about. Put experts, govt and parl between the voters and the decision.

But the econ issues are not the hysterical rantins of a bedwetter. You read the Times, don't you? Because the Times, FT and Economist have been showing almost daily how this is really going to cost us **** loads.

And if every economist, bar 8, in the country says it's going to cost us **** loads, I trust them. All the experts know this is going to be an economic disaster. A slow, drawn out one, admittedly, but a disaster none the less.

But please answer my question about what happens when our economy does go tits up.

Just for sake of argument, assume that it does go bad. Very bad. The 9.5% fall in GDP predicted by 2030.

How do you think the voters will react? One half knowing the other has ruined their and their children's' futures.

And what about those who voted fro Brexit? Will the Mail and Sun tell them that it was their fault, that they should have listened to all the experts who told them they'd be much poorer? Or will it say that they have been stabbed in the back by traitors like post-ww1 Germany? What do you think?

You really don't think some form of extremism can happen here?