It has become obvious that those in the world of media know no more about Brexit than those entrusted to enact Brexit – much to the detriment of those who must rely on the efforts of those entrusted to deliver the edict of our current Prime Minister, namely Brexit means Brexit.

Almost daily we are assailed with hundreds of words – if not thousands – written and spoken by politicians, journalists, think tanks, etc, ie ‘bullshit’; all of which cannot withstand rebuttal, said rebuttal containing detailed facts which have been carefully researched. Yet it is also obvious that those who have done the necessary research and can thus rebut the aforementioned bullshit, when given the opportunity so to do by the media to find their input curtailed/truncated to the point of inconsequence.

It would appear that a  decision of the Swedish Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, to pass a comment on the tax matters of the United Kingdom has outraged two of our finest among the political class.

Owen Paterson has reportedly stated: We decide the level of tax raised by politicians. It’s absolutely nothing to do with a foreign prime minister,  while Steve Baker, also reportedly, stated: Of course we need to negotiate in an atmosphere of good faith, but the bottom line is, we’ll set our tax rates, thank you.

The following news items caught my eye today:

• Theresa May moves to cap the remuneration of Special Advisors (Spads;) except for ‘special’ cases;
• The Honours System is in need of reform;
• Journalists should stop asking politicians stupid questions.
• The Batley & Spen by-election will not be contested.

In none of the above do the electorate,  who have a financial stake in all of them, have any voice whatsoever.

Why do politicians need ‘advisors’? Should said politicians not be masters of the brief they hold; and if they are not, why have they been appointed?

Why should politicians be able to reward, at the public largesse,  those who have supported them in their endeavours?

Why should not journalists ask politicians stupid questions; after all politicians are stupid people, are they not? On the other hand Journalists are stupid people  too if all they can think to ask are stupid questions.

Paul Williams (The Boiling Frog) states on twitter (@PWilliamsTBF): Aside from Brexit, the referendum has really exposed MPs lack of knowledge on how our country is governed.

What follows is not a criticism of the aforementioned comment, being one that is perfectly justified – but it does beg the question of why this situation is allowed to persist.

It remains a matter of amazement/amusement/bewilderment to this blog that our media can remain ‘entranced’ with matters of ‘inconsequence’; said term being defined as characterized by lack of proper sequence in thought, speech, or action.

Within the current system of representative democracy under which we are forced to live, we all know that our politicians are able to take decisions which we have no method of questioning or overturning if we consider them wrong.

To date, when we look at the question resulting from the decision of the people to leave the European Union we can be forgiven if we feel all is not well. So far we have had the likes of David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, John Redwood, Bill Cash (the list is virtually endless), all producing ‘verbal diarrhoea’, giving the impression that they haven’t a clue about how to extract this country from the clutches of the European Union. They appear to be stymied about how to control immigration and simultaneously retain access to the Single Market.

On 25th September the Swiss people will decide, in a referendum, whether pensions should be increased; whether the powers of the Swiss secret service should be increased; and whether Switzerland should increase its carbon footprint.

Contrast this ability of the Swiss electorate to decide such matters compared with those in the United Kingdom where the decision is taken by their elected ‘representatives’ over whom they have no control whatsoever where the decision process is concerned.

With regard to the pension system in Switzerland it is well worth following all the links to understand the ‘three pillar system’ – which seems, to me, both sensible and workable. It also overcomes the problems caused by various governments in the UK who have ignored the increasing problem of an ageing population and how to cater for that, financially.