Pundits have said Leavers and Remainers should focus on their common ground. What common ground would that be?
I can just see Man Utd. and Chelsea finding common ground. An utterly meaningless phrase in this battle for the nation's soul. The ground is what's actually being fought over.
Leaver: "One and one are three."
Remainer: "No they're not, they're two - experts in mathematics tell us that one and one are two."
Leaver: "We've all had enough of experts - what do they know? The will of the people is that one and one are three!"
Pundit: "There must be common ground here - let's agree that one and one are two and a half?"
Leaver and Remainer: "I'm sorry, but that's nonsense."
It's interesting to note that the experts that warned the government not to join the Euro, which was good advice, are the same ones that are warning about the consequences of leaving the EU. So were those experts wrong about the Euro?
On the one hand we have the hard Brexiteers who are desperate to escape from imminent EU anti tax dodging legislation by recruiting the powerful twin forces of ignorance and prejudice, leaving the rest of us to make up any tax shortfall and lose jobs, while simultaneously, and hypocritically, setting up arms of their businesses within the EU or countries already having FTAs with the EU. On the other hand we have people whose view of 'we' extends beyond the boundaries of Little England and want to retain the hard-won social legislation and extra trade (not to mention jobs) afforded by the EU and zero tariffs.
I'm sure that eventually, if a hard Brexit is implemented, the UK will stabilise, but while millionaires have the resources to weather the storm (and that might be 10 years or more), Joe Public does not. Why should Joe Public take the heat for the tax dodgers and how can there possibly be any common ground in this matter?
I keep hearing the argument that rich people should be able to retain more of the money they give in tax, as they create the jobs that the rest of us depend on. What I don't hear is that it's the customers of the rich people that make them the money, and if their customers have less money because they are paying the tax that the rich are wanting to avoid, then the rich people won't be rich for much longer. I also don't hear the response that many speculators don't actually create jobs - they take money from the economy and move that capital across borders to where they get the best return.
I also keep hearing about a 2nd referendum being undemocratic when a referendum in a representative democracy can only be advisory and not a legally binding instruction from the demos. Sovereignty resides in Parliament, which means the whole of Parliament, not the people, no matter how many vote in a particular way in a referendum. Even so, a democracy has a right to change its mind, which is why we have general elections every few years, and more often if a government loses a motion of no confidence within Parliament.
Leaver: "One and one are three."
Remainer: "No they're not, they're two - experts in mathematics tell us that one and one are two."
Leaver: "We've all had enough of experts - what do they know? The will of the people is that one and one are three!"
Pundit: "There must be common ground here - let's agree that one and one are two and a half?"
Leaver and Remainer: "I'm sorry, but that's nonsense."
It's interesting to note that the experts that warned the government not to join the Euro, which was good advice, are the same ones that are warning about the consequences of leaving the EU. So were those experts wrong about the Euro?
On the one hand we have the hard Brexiteers who are desperate to escape from imminent EU anti tax dodging legislation by recruiting the powerful twin forces of ignorance and prejudice, leaving the rest of us to make up any tax shortfall and lose jobs, while simultaneously, and hypocritically, setting up arms of their businesses within the EU or countries already having FTAs with the EU. On the other hand we have people whose view of 'we' extends beyond the boundaries of Little England and want to retain the hard-won social legislation and extra trade (not to mention jobs) afforded by the EU and zero tariffs.
I'm sure that eventually, if a hard Brexit is implemented, the UK will stabilise, but while millionaires have the resources to weather the storm (and that might be 10 years or more), Joe Public does not. Why should Joe Public take the heat for the tax dodgers and how can there possibly be any common ground in this matter?
I keep hearing the argument that rich people should be able to retain more of the money they give in tax, as they create the jobs that the rest of us depend on. What I don't hear is that it's the customers of the rich people that make them the money, and if their customers have less money because they are paying the tax that the rich are wanting to avoid, then the rich people won't be rich for much longer. I also don't hear the response that many speculators don't actually create jobs - they take money from the economy and move that capital across borders to where they get the best return.
I also keep hearing about a 2nd referendum being undemocratic when a referendum in a representative democracy can only be advisory and not a legally binding instruction from the demos. Sovereignty resides in Parliament, which means the whole of Parliament, not the people, no matter how many vote in a particular way in a referendum. Even so, a democracy has a right to change its mind, which is why we have general elections every few years, and more often if a government loses a motion of no confidence within Parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment