Recent Politics, and why I am fed up.

Note:  Much of the background information is for foreign readers, who have no idea what is going on in Britain…

With the ongoing chaos that revolves around “Brexit” (a term that I believe trivialises the actuality), my thoughts are that it might be a “Good Thing” if the British parliament could endeavour to adopt the system of many other European countries: that of collaborative coalition between parties. Instead we have two large parties and several smaller ones that will engage in limited coalition to achieve a specific target, but are mainly deeply entrenched in their own policies.

In the UK we historically had two parties: the Whigs and the Tories. They evolved in the 20th century into the Liberals vs the Conservatives (still nick-named the Tories). Then the Labour Party emerged, representing the working class. Eventually the labour and Conservative parties became the main protagonists, with the Liberals sidelined.

Early in my “eligible to vote” timeline, the Liberals combined with some disgruntled members of (mainly) the Labour party to form the Liberal Democrats. Later smaller parties such as Plaid Cymru (Welsh nationalists), the Scottish National Party and the Green Party began to emerge.

In the 1970s the UK population was unusually allowed (instigated by the Conservatives) a referendum and voted to join the European Economic Community (EEC). Since then, through various treaties, the EEC has evolved to become something more similar to the USA, and several former Soviet states have joined. Not only has this become a larger power bloc, but is perceived by the Russians (their own power bloc having in the meantime disintegrated) as a potential threat as actual military integration between the EU states becomes a possibility.

Later, as the idea of leaving the new European Union (EU) – which was beginning to look like the USA or the former Soviet Union – began to raise its head, UKIP (The United Kingdom Independence Party) arrived on the scene.

The UK held another referendum in 2016 about whether to leave the EU. It was narrowly won by the “leavers” at 52% vs 48%. The instigator of the referendum, David Cameron, having not achieved his expected answer made a cowardly resignation speech and left the problem to the new leader, Theresa May. Unfortunately she deigned (possibly having no idea) to outline how we would implement the decision, merely stating “Brexit means Brexit”.

Two years of negotiation between the UK leader and the EU leaders went on. Then the leaving plan was presented to Parliament and rejected. Parliament then voted in an unprecedented step to take over the control of “Brexit”, but failed many times over many weeks to agree on any way out; or if the UK should leave at all; or indeed anything!

Next week we vote for our EU representatives, even though we do not expect them to actually take up their jobs before we leave in October 2019 (the latest deadline).
This is yet another expensive vote that will only serve to indicate the will of the public.

It looks increasingly like there will be a second referendum, costing umpteen millions of taxpayers money, to decide whether the UK will still go its own way or if we will remain as EU partners, in which case the last three years have been a total waste of parliamentary time and taxpayers’ money, both of which could well have been utilised to better public use.

 

Beware – Brexit Politics: delete post if not interested.

All opinions expressed below are my own, and if any offence is taken, I’m sorry, but that is your issue.  Offence is never given, only taken.

I must congratulate the Attorney General, the Shadow Solicitor General, and any other parliamentary speaker in this afternoon’s London House of Commons debate on the expected leaving of the United Kingdom from the European Union for having created, ready for presentation, their speeches and propositions between midnight and 12:30 today, and still being capable of making public speeches.

One wonders how many of our elected representatives in the House of Commons today will have spent as much time studying the political and legal material that was released after midnight today before making their own statements this afternoon and eventually voting this evening, or whether many of them simply got a good night’s sleep before returning to spout their previously entrenched opinions?

I keep hearimg our MPs stating that nobody voted for a “no deal” exit from the EU.  Well, I’m sorry to disappoint them but I believe that Nigel Farage of UKIP and I were both of the opinion that that was exactly what we were voting for.  I know that was my expectation at the time.

Almost three years on and nobody can yet agree on what we actually voted for in 2016 – and some of our representatives want us to vote again with now too much, rather than too little, dis-information.

Much of the problem seems to revolve around the “Northern Ireland Border” (in fact the UK  border across Ireland.).  As I understand it, the current “no (hard) border” agreement was the idea of Anthony Blair, MP; a politician for whom I personally have never held any respect.  Does that make it sacrosanct?  If The Irish Republic is a member of the EU and the UK is not, surely The RoI  should be treated as any other EU member and EU borders should be respected?

l have even less respect for David Cameron, the Prime Minister who introduced the EU exit referendum and then walked away into oblivion when he was delivered the wrong result.

The UK must be either in or out of the union.  Mucking about with one treaty to honour a previous treaty is nonsense.  Treaties are made, treaties are broken, treaties are renegotiated.  They always have been, they always will be.

The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, has just reinforced the above paragraph.  We can make a new treaty with the Republic of Ireland if necessary.

And the last thing I want is another referendum.  In that way madness lies.  Should we have “best of three”, “best of five”?

In conclusion, although she would never get my vote, I feel very sorry for Prime Minister Theresa May,  who is desperately trying to juggle the balls left in the air by two untrustworthy predecessors.

I will be happy to read any comments to this post, but I have said my piece and will not respond.

What is Britain coming to?

WARNING.

This post may contain views that are offensive to some readers.

While I have no hostile feelings towards foreigners, having spent over half my working life either negotiating with or supporting the work in an IT system (written in Sweden) of colleagues from probably two dozen nations, deep down I probably subscribe to the sentiments expressed by Michael Flanders and Donald Swann in their “Song of Patriotic Prejudice”:

“The English, the English, the English are best.   I wouldn’t give tuppence for all of the rest.”

But when I see on TV members of the British Border Force encountering suspected illegal workers and gabbling to them their rights at high speed, followed by the question: “Do you understand?” and then the comment from the same officer:  “Probably not.”, then I get very annoyed. 

Surely it is the duty of the arresting officer to ensure that the suspect understands their rights under UK law before making an arrest, even if it involves the additional time and expense of obtaining a translator?

Or have we as a nation slipped so far in our standards that I need to delete Messrs. F & S from my playlist?