[JohnRawls]

With respect JR, I think the 'problem' is the reverse of how you portray it.

It shouldn't really be about convincing people about cutting subsidies the areas you mention, rather, it's that it's never been explained, or justified, exactly why they have\are being subsidised in the first place.

We have ended up with our 'democracy' being eroded by the incestuous relationship between business & government.

When businessmen can readily walk into our seat of power, influencing our representatives, whom always 'listen' to them, yet totally ignore the public's wishes, then, what is the point of democracy & voting?

The N.H.S is in a poorer position with the dominating position of the outsourcing of services to the private sector, than it ever was when administered by local health authorities.
The N.H.S patient services is a lottery in many respects, the health administration is appalling in the way that it treats patients by 'churning' those patients waiting for operations, by shuffling them up or down the 'priority' waiting list,sometimes patients are literally discharged from an outsourced service & consequently are erased off the operating waiting list.

That is criminal negligence because, in the N.H.S there is a 'duty of care' & patients should not involuntarily be discharged before their treatment is complete.
Patients get shuffled along, to and fro between different consultants or doctors, with the intent to deny patients who need operations within the 18 weeks specified.
People should be held to account in the N.H.S, they are not, the reputation of the N.H.S is being deliberately set up to fail, ready for the justifying it's complete privatisation, of which outsourcing is a main component of that plan & the Labour Party have never objected to or promised to reverse that direction if they get into office.

Government practice of awrding contracts to the private sector is corrupt, in a democracy within an 'open' society, the process, including decisions of awarding contracts, should be fully open, not behind closed doors & full disclosure of data should always be available to the public as evidence of the integrity of that process.

Your posts sometimes literally make no sense and are Nonsense. You are advocating for more Neoliberalism/Globalization when the whole premise of Brexit was anti-Neoliberalism/anti-Globalisation ?

What you basically just said that Neoliberalism is bad but hey we are going to continue with it. How does this make any sense?

[SolarCross]

Singapoore on Thames means austerity and tax cuts basically.

No it does not. We are a net contributor to the EU. Leaving the EU means more money for welfare stuff not less.

[Nonsense]

(1) While I'm not sure "national consensus" is actually a good thing (it's very, well, German...), I don't think it's fair to say it can't exist in a two-party system. After WW2, there was a "consensus" on the economy known as Butskellism, which lasted until Thatcher came along and tore up the rules. Then, Labour gave in to Thatcherism and that became the national consensus for 20-odd years.

(2) The rise of the "anti-establishment" current via the backdoor wasn't caused by the two-party system, but by a spectacular own goal from a prime minister who was actually in a position of strength. Besides, the Brexit referendum was explicitly not about the two-party system, but rather an aberration. Unlike, say, Switzerland, the British political system is not designed to have referenda as a major part of its lawmaking process. It's precisely why we're in the mess we're in today.

It wasn't just Thatcher though, it was also BLAIR, with his abandonment of Clause 4 which was the final ideological straw.

BLAIR's 'Third Way', like Clause 4, was Labour's ideological capitulation of 'Socialism' to market forces, for which BoJo is continuing into the final phase, with a complete break from the E.U, by rejecting much of what previous union struggles have achieved with various Labour governments.

I suspect that unions will attempt to fight some of those battles again,assuming, the unlikely event, that Labour get elected, following a further period of Tory 'rule', if not, they will have a long generational wait, because the Tories will,again, include constituency boundary reform that favours themselves at elections.

The problem with Labour-unions is, they have become blase about those hard earned social gains, whereas the Tories, with their reverse progress agenda are open about their objectives.

The debate on the E.U is not too dissimilar to those past ideological battles that characterised our politics post war-the Thatcher era.

[Nonsense]

Your posts sometimes literally make no sense and are Nonsense. You are advocating for more Neoliberalism/Globalization when the whole premise of Brexit was anti-Neoliberalism/anti-Globalisation ? :?:

What you basically just said that Neoliberalism is bad but hey we are going to continue with it. How does this make any sense?

It's not nonsense JR, it's based on reality, there will never be really free global markets, individual trade bloc deals, such as the E.U do, are proof positive of that.

It's pointless pursuing globalisation, when the objective will never be reached, because it is not desirable anyway, but neither are the alternative trade bloc deals.

In a relatively free world market, any individual country should be totally free to make trade deals with any other country within WTO rules & trade blocs should not operate against the interest of those one to one deals.

[JohnRawls]

No it does not. We are a net contributor to the EU. Leaving the EU means more money for welfare stuff not less.

What? Signapore model implies this. Its in the name Singapore on Thames. You can't just copy paste the name for no reason if you are not planning to use the model.

As for competitiveness. Well, if the inputs in to any system become pricier as a whole then the outputs will become priciers also. Current capitalism is not going to sacrifice profit margins for your well being.

@Nonsense

Okay i get it. Why are you advocating for Singapoore on Thames then? It goes against everything that you preach. Singapore is perhaps the pinnacle of Neoliberal Globalism. The best shining example of it. But even Singapore had to expand its safety net in the recent years.

[SolarCross]

What? Signapore model implies this. Its in the name Singapore on Thames. You can't just copy paste the name for no reason if you are not planning to use the model.

Singapore healthcare system is ranked 6th in the world by the WHO. Just saying.

[Atlantis]

(1) While I'm not sure "national consensus" is actually a good thing (it's very, well, German...), I don't think it's fair to say it can't exist in a two-party system. After WW2, there was a "consensus" on the economy known as Butskellism, which lasted until Thatcher came along and tore up the rules. Then, Labour gave in to Thatcherism and that became the national consensus for 20-odd years.

(2) The rise of the "anti-establishment" current via the backdoor wasn't caused by the two-party system, but by a spectacular own goal from a prime minister who was actually in a position of strength. Besides, the Brexit referendum was explicitly not about the two-party system, but rather an aberration. Unlike, say, Switzerland, the British political system is not designed to have referenda as a major part of its lawmaking process. It's precisely why we're in the mess we're in today.

I) Unless you believe that democracy means the dictate of the 51%, a national consensus is actually a good thing and not everything German is necessarily bad. Even though the referendum aggravated the political polarization, it always did exist in British politics due to the two-party system, as I have demonstrated with the examples cited above. Whether the social division caused the political division or vice versa is a chicken and egg question. The two-party system helped cement the social division and contributed substantially to the de-industrialization of the homeland of the industrial revolution because of the management/labor divide, which is directly linked to the political and social divide.

I didn't say that there are no cases of national consensus in British politics. There certainly are - especially when it comes to going to war. Warmongers will be warmongers

II) There are anti-establishment currents in most countries; however, the victory of the populist right in the UK and the US is directly due to the two-party system. In a proportional system, anti-establishment populists have the opportunity to enter politics gradually. If they want to succeed, they are quickly forced to abandon their unrealistic politics and adapt workable policies. Otherwise, they'll just end up in the dustbins of history. Instead of allowing this very democratic process, Brits actually prided themselves on the idiocy of having excluded Ukip from national politics . The problem is that you can only do it until the pressure blows the lid. That's exactly what happened with the Brexit vote, which Cameron was forced to call because of Ukip encroaching on the Tory vote, which he could not allow because falling to third position in a two-party system means certain political demise.

[Beren]

Michel Barnier: no grounds for reopening Brexit talks

EU’s top negotiator tells MEPs Britain has not offered credible proposals for Irish border

They haven't offered anything yet maybe because they have better things to do, such as planning to build a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland. What could be more relevant these days?

Boris Johnson revives plan for £15bn bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland

Boris Johnson has revived his plan to build a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland - saying that it would be a “very good” idea and that it would cost £15bn.

Speaking to children during his visit to lighthouse tender NLV Pharos on the Thames, Johnson said he had recently been discussing the possibility of constructing a bridge over the Irish Sea. He said:

"[I was talking yesterday] about building a bridge from Stranraer in Scotland to Larne in Northern Ireland – that would be very good. It would only cost about £15bn."

Johnson originally floated this idea in an interview with the Sunday Times last year. At the time his proposal was considered fanciful, but this week Channel 4 News revealed that government officials have been asked to produce a paper on the costs and benefits of such a plan.

The original Sunday Times story about Johnson’s proposal provoked a memorable letter to the paper from a retired offshore engineer who said the idea was “about as feasible as building a bridge to the moon”.

Boris Johnson looking at a model container ship with school children as he visits the NLV Pharos,
a lighthouse tender moored on the Thames. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images

[Seeker8]

Anti-Brexiters file new legal challenge to force article 50 extension

Campaigners who led Scottish challenge on prorogation lodge case at court of session in Edinburgh on Thursday

Anti-Brexit campaigners have filed a legal challenge in the Scottish courts in an effort to compel Boris Johnson to seek an extension to article 50.

The litigation was lodged at the court of session in Edinburgh on Thursday afternoon and is being funded by Dale Vince, the millionaire businessman and political donor who founded the renewable electricity company Ecotricity.

The campaigners have applied directly to the inner house of the court of session, the court’s senior tier, as it has a power unique amongst British courts to provide a legal remedy if one is not available elsewhere, a power known as nobile officium.

The action is being fronted by Jo Maugham QC and Joanna Cherry QC, the Scottish National party MP who led the successful legal challenge where appeal judges in Edinburgh ruled on Wednesday that Johnson had illegally prorogued parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/anti-brexiters-new-legal-challenge-scotland-to-force-article-50-extension?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Nonsense]

What? Signapore model implies this. Its in the name Singapore on Thames. You can't just copy paste the name for no reason if you are not planning to use the model.

As for competitiveness. Well, if the inputs in to any system become pricier as a whole then the outputs will become priciers also. Current capitalism is not going to sacrifice profit margins for your well being.

@Nonsense

Okay i get it. Why are you advocating for Singapoore on Thames then? It goes against everything that you preach. Singapore is perhaps the pinnacle of Neoliberal Globalism. The best shining example of it. But even Singapore had to expand its safety net in the recent years.

I am not advocating or preaching for Singapore JR,they are Angela MERKEL's comments I am merely responding to your comments on the N.H.S ,subsidies etc, as I see it.

Of course these things involve government,business,Brexit,taxes,austerity,et al.

At root though, you engage in your version of project fear, saying negative things will happen,maybe some thing will, maybe not, whatever happens can be undone when the democratic will of the people wishes that to be the case.

A cynic like myself would say that, even if the Tories change so much with,say, 25 years in government,moving so far to the 'Right' , were Labour to then suddenly find themselves in power, do you honestly think they would undo everything the Tories have done that conflicts with their own ideology or 'values' over that period?
I suspect not, because the rationale would be that they have spent so long in opposition that their credentials as 'Socialist' have suffered a complete lack of confidence, which is practically, how BLAIR took over with 'NEW' Labour.

[fokker]

I agree, British and US political system while being quite developed century ago is obsolete and undemocratic by today's standards. It seems to be also unable to reform. In a proportional system UKIP would be in British parliament, having influence on relations with the EU for a long time before the explosion. I would never accept reality of a two party system to force me to vote for one of the parties if they do not represent my opinions on internal politics and international relations. Such a vote would always be meaningless as such an MP could never possibly represent me in parliament. In Britain there is at least better selection of political parties, although their influence is not proportional to gained votes during elections.

The difference in continental political systems to British/US system is also one of many reasons why Steve Bannon's agenda of EU wide nationalist populist movement failed. Nationalist/populist parties are already in parliaments with various levels of success. They cannot take power by gaining even 40% of the vote as there will still be 60% majority against them which forces them to become more moderate. Almost no party can win more than 50% of seats in parliament.

[Nonsense]

I agree, British and US political system while being quite developed century ago is obsolete and undemocratic by today's standards. It seems to be also unable to reform. In a proportional system UKIP would be in British parliament, having influence on relations with the EU for a long time before the explosion. I would never accept reality of a two party system to force me to vote for one of the parties if they do not represent my opinions on internal politics and international relations. Such a vote would always be meaningless as such an MP could never possibly represent me in parliament. In Britain there is at least better selection of political parties, although their influence is not proportional to gained votes during elections.

The difference in continental political systems to British/US system is also one of many reasons why Steve Bannon's agenda of EU wide nationalist populist movement failed. Nationalist/populist parties are already in parliaments with various levels of success. They cannot take power by gaining even 40% of the vote as there will still be 60% majority against them which forces them to become more moderate. Almost no party can win more than 50% of seats in parliament.

It is fallacious nonsense to suggest, as some people,particularly remain MP's do, that our parliamentary system is incompatible with direct democracy, that is to say, by referendums, when all it takes is to recognise that all democratic voting methods are equally valid.

It is hypocritical of opponents of referendums, to oppose the Brexit referendum, because, in 2011, we had an 'Alternative Vote'(AV) referendum, in which that was trashed 2- 1 by the 'noes', yet, until the vote was result was known in the E.U case, there was no objection of any kind,but once the losers realised that they had lost, their nonsensical games then began.

On the AV referendum, there was not any opposition at all to it,indeed, the Lib Dems demanded it & lost.

[Presvias]

"However, it is simply wrong to suggest that no one on the Leave side voted for a deal".

I should have put the notion in it's full context,which is the referendum question,that is all that people voted on.

I accept the above as it is in respect of MP's, but not of the referendum question,although reaching a 'deal', arrangement, or whatever, is always preferable in both parties interest,but of course, we are not there yet & the E.U have previously stated that they will not re-open the W.A.

The 'problem' for the E.U is, the U.K has not ratified the agreement in any shape or form, in fact, it has been rejected 3 times,so there is no agreement,yet the E.U insist that it's signed & sealed.
The fact is, until any 'agreement' is ratified by both parties parliaments, there is no 'agreement' reached, in fact, we are still at square one, heading for the default exit, an absolute failure of statecraft on all sides.


Theresa MAY stated that 'nothing is agreed, until everything is agreed', if 'everything' is not wrapped up watertight, then we can say that the default no position is the final one & we leave with no deal.

That is the logic of the situation,A50 provides for a leaving member state to settle it's account with the E.U,it's incumbent on the E.U to also agree with that member, an outcome that is fair,which it is not being so for the reason below.

The 'backstop' is being used by the E.U to attach 'strings' to our exit from the union, when that issue, as well as others is not agreed,then the E.U cannot be said to have negotiated without prejudice.
It is,as I state above, incumbent on both parties to 'agree' an amicable arrangement on the separation,the E.U has an equal responsibility on reaching a settlement on the Irish border question, because half of the problem is of their own making-the insistence of a border between the two halves of Ireland.
The E.U has,so far, refused to actually do 'anything' about the border, because it says, 'it doesn't need to', which is wrong & could be used against it in the ECJ.

Again, parliament is in the midst of a mental breakdown from remainers,if they think that they can influence the outcome they are delusional & deranged.

The E.U would,could never, ever, deal with a foreign, or even,a member state's parliament, only with the government will they negotiate, they will not agree anything concrete with one that is controlled by it's parliament, particularly when it's a matter of confidence & any 'panic' actions by parliament on it's resumption would shatter any blind faith that people have in the political system.

Having read this and your subsequent posts, you appear to be very much an old labour brexit supporter.

Is that right?

I'm struggling to understand the logic behind supporting NDBrexit if you support the social contract, and Attlee style socialism.

I absolutely agree that this Brexit (- were our currently elected govt pre-blair old labourites - )could have been successful for the country, and as you alluded; Corbyn is most likely a secret Brexiteer all these years later. He wanted Brexit for all the 'right reasons' IE a clean break from the neoliberal EU.

But that doesn't in any way negate the fact that the jokers in power want to use NDBrexit to do us over, sell everything off and get filthy rich.

Our govt includes the likes of Priti Patel & Truss (who co authored a book called britannia unchained which calls for total deregulation), or Mogg (who called for indian pollution standards) and BJ who doesn't even believe Brexit could ever have worked -- if his own old quotes and articles are to believed.

In fact, I agree with most of your posts, incl the one quoted above, but it's the conclusion you draw from the info that's IMHO wrong.

You seem to be saying that we've got no alternative.. Yet you know that no deal Brexit will be an utter neolibertarian catastrophe that makes a mockery of old labourite values.

[Nonsense]

Having read this and your subsequent posts, you appear to be very much an old labour brexit supporter.

Is that right?

I'm struggling to understand the logic behind supporting NDBrexit if you support the social contract, and Attlee style socialism.

I absolutely agree that this Brexit (- were our currently elected govt pre-blair old labourites - )could have been successful for the country, and as you alluded; Corbyn is most likely a secret Brexiteer all these years later. He wanted Brexit for all the 'right reasons' IE a clean break from the neoliberal EU.

But that doesn't in any way negate the fact that the jokers in power want to use NDBrexit to do us over, sell everything off and get filthy rich.

Our govt includes the likes of Priti Patel & Truss (who co authored a book called britannia unchained which calls for total deregulation), or Mogg (who called for indian pollution standards) and BJ who doesn't even believe Brexit could ever have worked -- if his own old quotes and articles are to believed.

In fact, I agree with most of your posts, incl the one quoted above, but it's the conclusion you draw from the info that's IMHO wrong.

You seem to be saying that we've got no alternative.. Yet you know that no deal Brexit will be an utter neolibertarian catastrophe that makes a mockery of old labourite values.

Whilst I do have views on the politics of leaving the E.U, I am more motivated by politicians gaming the electorate over the E.U.

On the one hand, the 'remain' Tories under Theresa MAY have shown their disdain for collective responsibility to the party's government, when they were elected on the manifesto,but then proceed to oppose their party when the referendum delivers a result that's at odds with their individual views.

They also display absolute contempt for the voters in their own constituencies & referendum voters.

Labour promised to implement the referendum result, they have dishonourably acted to the contrary, engaging in a coup against the elected government,in order to disrupt our leaving europe & equally displayed their contempt for democracy in general.
The people voted to leave the E.U, no 'ifs' or 'buts', there are no excuses.

It is not for any politician to decide that the people got it 'wrong', so we must thwart it by any means, that is the real insult to our democracy.

The people decide, if they get it 'wrong', they pay the price, they can accept that, what they will not accept, is a government that intends to make any particular group of people pay that price, yet 'reward' other groups.

People are not stupid, they know which MP is doing the right thing, they also know those doing the wrong thing, they will always mete out their justice at the next election.

Labour saying that they will hold another referendum is pure contempt for the referendum result in 2016, they are without any credibility whatsoever, they are in total denial of the result in 2016 & they are playing politics when they should be working for an orderly exit.

The logic of a ND Brexit,is because that is the legal default, the other options have been voted against by parliament, leaving under the default,is the only option available, all the others having been ruled out.

Of course, parliament can,at any time up to 31 October, reverse by a show of hands, it's previous opposition to any of the options or ammendments, thus accepting the W.A, without which, there can be no further progress & the W.A cannot be accepted because of the backstop.

The E.U will demand to know for what purpose any further extension is required, with no further agreement on a W.A, that's not negotiable, the request is highly likely to be rejected, because nothing can arise from any further delay & the 27 must all agree to that extension.

If the EU27 did agree to an extension, they would be showing both weakness & contempt for British democracy.

Also, it would be a pointless extension, because our parliament will never reach a compromise, remainer MP's opposition will be blamed for the uncertainty & damage to the economy.

[skinster]

[Presvias]

Whilst I do have views on the politics of leaving the E.U, I am more motivated by politicians gaming the electorate over the E.U.

On the one hand, the 'remain' Tories under Theresa MAY have shown their disdain for collective responsibility to the party's government, when they were elected on the manifesto,but then proceed to oppose their party when the referendum delivers a result that's at odds with their individual views.

They also display absolute contempt for the voters in their own constituencies & referendum voters.

Labour promised to implement the referendum result, they have dishonourably acted to the contrary, engaging in a coup against the elected government,in order to disrupt our leaving europe & equally displayed their contempt for democracy in general.
The people voted to leave the E.U, no 'ifs' or 'buts', there are no excuses.

It is not for any politician to decide that the people got it 'wrong', so we must thwart it by any means, that is the real insult to our democracy.

The people decide, if they get it 'wrong', they pay the price, they can accept that, what they will not accept, is a government that intends to make any particular group of people pay that price, yet 'reward' other groups.

People are not stupid, they know which MP is doing the right thing, they also know those doing the wrong thing, they will always mete out their justice at the next election.

Labour saying that they will hold another referendum is pure contempt for the referendum result in 2016, they are without any credibility whatsoever, they are in total denial of the result in 2016 & they are playing politics when they should be working for an orderly exit.

The logic of a ND Brexit,is because that is the legal default, the other options have been voted against by parliament, leaving under the default,is the only option available, all the others having been ruled out.

Of course, parliament can,at any time up to 31 October, reverse by a show of hands, it's previous opposition to any of the options or ammendments, thus accepting the W.A, without which, there can be no further progress & the W.A cannot be accepted because of the backstop.

The E.U will demand to know for what purpose any further extension is required, with no further agreement on a W.A, that's not negotiable, the request is highly likely to be rejected, because nothing can arise from any further delay & the 27 must all agree to that extension.

If the EU27 did agree to an extension, they would be showing both weakness & contempt for British democracy.

Also, it would be a pointless extension, because our parliament will never reach a compromise, remainer MP's opposition will be blamed for the uncertainty & damage to the economy.

I accept mostly everything you said, I see them all as very duplicitous, but you missed out one key detail:

Boris hasn't even tried to get us a deal and has lied directly to our faces that he has (and ofcourse May negotiated terribly).

In the light of Boris's barefaced lying and duplicitousness, why should we trust him to deliver us a proper and correct NDBrexit that will benefit the country? Did you see skinster's article in this thread?

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brex ... e-backers/

I don't think that backing Boris will ever yield anything good, and while it may be right to condemn all the other parties, his is by far the worst of the lot, as Tories always are.

[snapdragon]

I've a real problem trying to debate with posters who don't live here and never have.

Everyone is entitled to a point of view, of course, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to post whatever they want, but it would be better if they did it honestly.

It helps prevent crossed wires. I started to carry out little tests so I could find out who was a wannabe Brit and who was a real one, but it was depressing - although sometimes amusing - but I can't be arsed with it any more.

I know Boycey, skinster and solar cross live here, but that's about it.

I don't think Nonsense is remotely old Labour. He sounds more like a Republican to me

Anyway, I agree with you Presvias.

Backing Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and/or Anne Widdecombe will not lead to anything except misery.

The remaining Tories have now completely lost the plot. They all seem to be ranting and raving about not surrendering.

No longer content with dragging us back to the fifties they're dragging us back to the second world war. That's quite clever, because some leavers are stoking themselves up with the bulldog spirit and are hoarding toilet rolls and tinned tomatoes, ready to repel the invaders.

For some reason, the BBC news team conduct interviews solely with disgruntled leavers who live in various northern towns - all spouting the usual tosh about taking back control and making Britain great again.

They're being prevented from doing that by moaning remainers, though they never say how.
May's deal was awful, but it was all she could get. Crashing out would be catastrophic.
So what do you leavers suggest?
What are you, personally, going to do to take back control - and control of what , exactly?
And how are you going to make Britain great again?

[foxdemon]

As i said before, this a doable option. The problem with that is how you convince the UK people to slash half if not most government programs like Rail, NHS, subsidies for food and homes etc. Basically this goes heavily against the premise of Brexit that was promised. This is not how Brexit was advertised. Singapoore on Thames means austerity and tax cuts basically.

Do you really think the people of UK will allow anybody to destroy NHS and replace it with private healthcare for example? Removing all subsidies from business? Removing all subsidies for Home purchases? Removing all subsidies for food/basic needs?

This is a suicide plan as it stands right now. Not because it is not doable but because the people will revolt and chop everyone heads off like in the French Revolution just British style.

On top of that fact that we already warned Britain that if it will try to transform itself in to a tax haven of sorts then we will put punitive tariffs. It has always been a no brainer that you will need to cut taxes and spending to stay competitive. This is technically okay if you don't do it too much.

First things first. If you keep eating all that pop-corn, you will get fat.


Secondly, I agree that the Singapore model is not what main stream Brexiteers signed up to. Rather it was a resection odiferous the perceived undemocratic nature of the EU political system.

OK, so the Singapore model might not work for the UK. SG does actually have public housing and health care. But it is based on a sustained government enforced history of private household savings. If the people of the UK were prepared to sacrifice their current living standard in return for two or three generations of hard work and saving the proceeds in the place of private consumption, then it might work. Also, though SG is noted for low levels of internal corruption, they take full advantage in corruption in the surrounding states. They are reviled for it is SE Asia. Finally, the state has a grand strategy for economic development, much like China. Many companies are actually state owned. It isn’t crony capitalism, but rather Imperial capitalism with Chinese characteristics.

Japan and S Korea, by contrast, are more like feudal capitalist states. There is a strict hierarchy but the various levels owe obligations between them. I am skeptic although of any suggestions that Asian models can be applied to Western societies as there is no longer the required hierarchical social structure in the West to make an Asian style political economy work.

Post Brexit UK will have to develop a model if their own which suits their social values. Australia or New Zealand would be better models of Anglo Saxon nations succeeding on their own. However, bear in mind that both are primarily resource exporters. The UK would need to export in a big way. Presumably that would be manufactured products. How will they achieve that in a competitive world?

[Beren]

I don't think Nonsense is remotely old Labour. He sounds more like a Republican to me

To me he sounds more like "Russian", a surreally nonsensical pro-Brexit character with a name completely fitting his posts. I always wonder how that name was chosen, would you ever consider it for yourself? His American counterpart could be Hindsite, an also surreal and nonsensical Evangelical pro-Trump character that could even be a parody.

No longer content with dragging us back to the fifties they're dragging us back to the second world war.

In my opinion BoJo would drag Britain, or rather England, back to the Tudor period, like the rest of the world is waiting for getting reconquered by England. Henry VIII, charismatic and robust leader with his own Brexit and without parliamentary scrutiny, was the real thing. And the economy was also rather deregulated!

[ingliz]

I've a real problem trying to debate with posters who don't live here

Why?

I have worked in the UK. Paying in to a State Pension that will likely be lost if you, 'Little Englanders', have your way.

I have every right to comment.