Paraphrasing the lyrics of The Kinks, ‘you’ refers to our politicians, our media and the majority of the public who voted for Brexit.
For ‘starters’ I am tired of waiting for:
- politicians who believe one can ‘leave’ the EU and remain in the Customs Union;
- politicians who believe that the UK can leave the Single Market and the Customs Union and still trade with the EU;
- politicians who believe that a free trade deal with the EU can be negotiated within two years (or less), when history shows us otherwise;
- politicians who believe that membership of EFTA means having to obey all the rules of the EU without any say in their formation;
- politicians who believe that membership of the EEA means being unable to control immigration;
- politicians who appear to have no idea that the EU is but a middleman where the setting of global standards are concerned
In short, I am tired of waiting for politicians who know nothing of ‘matters EU’ to show an inclination to rectify their lack of knowledge on the subject; I am tired of politicians who believe they are Gods gift to the country when in fact they are the greatest curse our country has borne.
I am tired of a media who blithely repeat the statements of politicians without any thought as to whether what the latter is saying is true or not. I am tired of a media who, unlike any of the electorate, can hold politician’s ‘feet to the fire’ on a daily basis – but don’t.
Boris Johnson tweeted that the new government was one of all the talents – to which I replied that was unfortunately untrue as it was in reality, one of all the talentless. It has to be remembered that the pool from which the government is drawn is one of 650 talentless, ignorant, individuals who, in turn, form the legislature.
Johnson also tweeted that there would be no ‘Norway’ option; no doubt due to the fact he, like the rest of his ilk, believe that Norway – among others who have EFTA membership – has no say in the formation of EU legislation coupled with the fact that it is believed Norway has no control over immigration. Those of us who do have knowledge of ‘matters EU’ can but stare in bewilderment that those who insist only they are sufficiently knowledgeable to govern us are, in fact, not so knowledgeable.
When the ‘Maid of ‘enhead’ called the forthcoming general election in April, she and her party were, reportedly, enjoying a 20% lead in the opinion polls, which to all intents and purposes we are led to believe, has all but been wiped out. Ever since the 18th April she and her party have been, to coin a phrase, on the back
‘Michael’ foot in the ‘battle of the manifestos’ – what with ‘u’ turns and a mixed-message of her own making. One immediate thought is that if she cannot manage to produce a ‘cast-iron’ manifesto and run a successful political campaign, then how on earth can she present herself as a potential prime minister who would have to juggle far more balls than she would have us believe she has.
The question encapsulated in the title to this article is asked especially in relation to the, what must be additional, costs incurred by recent events in Manchester and London (Westminster and London Bridge) No-one would quibble with whatever money that those three tragic events have incurred – or would they?
As Brendan O’Neill writes on Spiked-online, Islam is a subject the name of which politicians ‘dare not speak its name’. As he points out we may speak of Christian Fundamentalists, Catholic paedophiles, Buddhist extremists; Yet on Islamic terrorists – nope!
Can we dismiss politicians (and their sycophantic followers) from participation in the forthcoming general election? If we could then, just possibly, the electorate may well enjoy it. The suggestion is, no doubt, a tad late in proceedings, but then the best ideas usually come with hindsight.
All we appear to hear from any of them is: our policy is better than your policy; no it isn’t; yes it is; no it isn’t – I’m telling my leader about you. At which point the respective leaders then repeat the same mantra. It is akin to listening to children in a playground squabbling over minutiae, the details of which matters not. All that is missing is a teacher, who to quell the growing ‘Tower of Babel’, would ‘bang a few heads together’ and ‘clip the odd ear or two’.
If our life is ours and belongs to us, thus ensuring that only we can take decisions affecting the content of that life, by what stretch of the imagination does a politician justify attempting to control it?
Jeremy Corbyn is on record stating that fox hunting is barbaric and any government of which he is head would never allow ‘blood sports’.
By what right does Corbyn wish to ban something that should be a matter for those in a county or even a community to decide?
Labour are against privatising the health service, yet private medical heath care is available and one can even take out an insurance policy for the provision of same. Is someone who wishes to provide the means whereby he/she can decide to choose another path and enjoy an alternative aspect of society then to be considered ‘barbaric’?
The questions are asked in all seriousness; although it is doubted that which I am about to raise has occurred to more than 10% of the electorate – and it certainly won’t have occurred to our politicians who are so obviously not of this planet.
The entire ‘panel’ – and I would also include ‘She’ who has deigned to make herself absent – know nothing about what should be the burning issue of the day, namely Brexit. They exhibit a total lack of knowledge on the subject; and ‘matters EU’ in general and consequently appear to go out of their way to ignore it.