Please be aware that this is my take on this. I may not always be 100% correct. But it is from my understanding that I write.
The big issue here is a general election result could mean years and years of delay, and this is why many MP's tried to force it through. And if we get another party in (Which is likely, and likely to be Labour), we are likely to head straight back fully into the EU against the will of the majority of the people who origionally voted for Brexit.
We should not focus on deals as a priority but on leaving the EU because that is what the majority of the people voted for. If we don't get it, then we can give up on democracy now. It is not sustainable. We need a dictatorship (Which ironically is what the EU is, as the head of the EU is a non elected member position).
Here are some thoughts.
The Magna Carter used to be taught in a school history lesson as a matter of priority prior to the GCSE's coming in because they wanted to drum in the reasons it came in in the first place. One of these reasons was that parts of Britain had been peeviously ruled from many different tribes who didn't even live in these shores and so the rules hardly related to the people living here that for those living under these rules life became difficult. The Magna Carter set out one very important rule which can be called on today and still stands today. Britain has to be governed from within these shores. The EU made a way around this by sending laws to the UK parliament, and the UK parliament had to decide to accept or reject them. The EU is not allowed to impose a law onto the UK people and bypass this chain of command as anyone can then reject such a law as it was not debated and accepted from within these shores.
A second point to note is this. As people living in the UK, we have a democratic system. If those who have been voting in stand against the democratic vote of the people, the people legally have the power and rights to remove those people, be it by force or whatever method is necesary, and then force in their own new parliament system to carry out the will of the people. This has been done in the past where kings have been overthrown because they did not take the people under their rule in regard, as in Britain, a king used to stand before God to govern the land for the benefit of the people. It is the fundamental reason wht those who started democracy many years ago were able to overthrow the king, as the king had lost touch with the people, and the result was the setting up of parliament in the first place.
When people voted not to be part of the EU (The vote was never to leave the EU as officially the public has never collectively had a vote which had a result to join the EU so Labour took us in illegally in the first place (So in effect any UK citizen can say "No" to any EU imposed laws if it can be proved they came from the EU in the first place). Brexit was origionally planned to be an excuse to legally take us into the EU as legally, we could not go fully in until the British people voted that way. When the British peoples vote said "No" there was a huge dilemma as the MP's plan backfired.
The whole political system should have been reformed after the Brexit vote and here is why.
1. We had all the major parties split into EU or Brexiteer voters. Very few parties had a definate pro or anti EU policy. So the Conservitives and Labour and several other parties needed to stand down, reform and then stand back up to the challenge... There should then have been a general election there and then but only for the Brexit inclined parties and here is why. Brexit has already been voted on (An all party election should then take place AFTER we leave the EU and NOT before as to do this before means democracy has been bypassed. Yes, at a later date another vote can be allowed to see if the public thinks differently. Of course. That is what democracy is all about. But NOT before the results of the last vote has been carried out. This maybe painful for some, but it is a democratic principle. Errode this and you have a dictatorship).
2. We ended up with a democratic mess. We had MP's who stood for their areas where the individual MP's vote were based on their personal feelings of being pro or anti EU, but the people they stood for in their own areas often had a majority which went the opposite way. (It is why there should have been a total reformingnof all political parties straight after the Brexit vote where most parties should have been split into new parties with new constitutions so that this current mess could have been avoided).
3. Deal or no deal. Never did the British public vote for a deal or a no deal situation. They voted for Brexit. Trade continues be there a eeal or no deal. If youu as an individual wanted to but a BMW car, you could go to Germany and buy one and bringnit back to the UK, be there a deal or no deal. You could even get them to send it here. No laws broken be it deal or no deal.
The deals. What are they? Simple. If there was no deal, big businesses would no longer have access to grants which they get from the UK taxpayers... These grants were set up so big businesses who had the extra expense to paynout shareholdres, could compete with the small self employed people doing the same thing. The problem with this is the big buisnesses, due to these grants could be earning a few thousand percent profit, and due to all the shareholdres they need to pay, they maybe struggling. The small sole trader businesses were typically on 25 to 50% profits. However, due to the grants, many, many small businesses who didn't qualify ended up collapsing.
VAT used to be a way to even out pricss on those big businesses who bought in bulk and had a massive advantage. VAT is not actually a bill or an expense on a business as VAT isn't paid for by the business. VAT is simply collecting a tax directly from the customer and passing it to the government. VAT is not taxing a business whatsoever. Businesses can claim portions of this tax for investing in their own business... NOT to increase profits in a direct way.
If we leave without a deal who suffers? Shareholders! Businesses who are not on stock markets carry on regardless. Limited companies may be hit hard, and the stock market is likely to suffer.
The UK's number one profitable industry is the stock market. This is why, to MP's, a deal is a must. As they, and many other people such as the news industries etc, will be ard hit if we have a no deal Brexit... Hence the TV news programms are doing all they can to manipulate the public into thinking a deal is neccessary for the country. The TV news companies are incredibly biassed for their own survival. Even the MP's themselves may have invested their hard earned money into shares.
The big issue is that the stock market is so fragile anyway, that it could come crashing down regardless of deal or no deal as the whole set up is inclined to implode. If one can see parpttersn of how structures work you wil see this, and understand why recessios come and go in ever increasing waves until finally total disaster comes. It is like a car and trailor or caravan snaking out of control if an unskilled owner has loaded up the caravan or trailer incorrectly. First it starts to wobble, then a little more, and more and if no intelligent action is impliamented at the right moment... Disaster!
_________________
.
04 Sep 2019, 7:16 am
