Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Stanley Road said:
Tosh

They were reported as fights in the old days but now they have a new label.

I live in a country where the PM recently told unruly Turks to "Fukk off back to your own country" on national tv.

So you can think all you like about hate crime but i doubt its anything like the crazy days of the NF
Click to expand...

Do you really think using the lowest common denominator is the right approach to everything? I am no feeble diva but this type of thinking is just wrong.

Kasper said:
Don't bother with him, I've yet to read a post with substance from him in this thread..
Click to expand...
You're right and that's why I've tried to stay away from arguing with these I-know-what's-best-and-facts-don't-matter people but irks me to no end.
 
So, i'm just wondering, who did you blame the rise in hate crime on when we weren't in the midst of a referendum?

I have not overheard, or been present near a single act of anti-immigrant abuse since June 23rd mind you. Not one.

Certainly, there were elements of the broader campaign who were prepared to use existing fears to their advantage, yet this well of sentiment would not exist to its present degree without the policies and broken promises of previous governments. We are also quite incapable of discussing immigration civilly in this country, which only furthers the toxicity (something we've seen demonstrated on this forum at times).


Wednesday at Stoke said:
So the NHS is still fecked for the foreseeable future despite the supposed 350M a week that Brexit is supposed to deliver? I remember seeing somewhere the age bias in remain/leave factions with the older generation voting overwhelmingly to leave. Now these are the same people who still have to contend with reduced access to healthcare and longer waiting lists. Time and again it gets proven that people overwhelmingly vote against their own interests.
Click to expand...

Must explain why all those younger voters who supported Labour in 2015, what with the party's significantly smaller commitment for the NHS budget. That the NHS is presently in difficulty has very little to do with what sort of Brexit windfall it might have received 2-3 years from now.

However, the principle of restoring those monies to the Treasury remains a valid one. The UK's contribution has risen by billions of pounds, and Brussels wanted even more; might not people rather spend that cash on the NHS instead of incurring a hike to income tax for example?
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Must explain why all those younger voters who supported Labour in 2015, what with the party's significantly smaller commitment for the NHS budget. That the NHS is presently in difficulty has very little to do with what sort of Brexit windfall it might have received 2-3 years from now.

However, the principle of restoring those monies to the Treasury remains a valid one. The UK's contribution has risen by billions of pounds, and Brussels wanted even more; might not people rather spend that cash on the NHS instead of incurring a hike to income tax for example?
Click to expand...

This is a bit confusing, in case I wasn't clear I was talking about the projections for the NHS facing a budget allocation shortage for the next 3-5 years with hospitals forced to reduce staff and hours. So if the expectation is that money is being saved with Brexit and diverted to the treasury rather than being sent to Brussels, then why is there still such a bleak outlook for the NHS? I mean shouldn't the picture be a bit rosier?
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
However, the principle of restoring those monies to the Treasury remains a valid one. The UK's contribution has risen by billions of pounds, and Brussels wanted even more; might not people rather spend that cash on the NHS instead of incurring a hike to income tax for example?
Click to expand...
Why are you suggesting it's an either/ or? You know it doesn't work like that.

It's quite obvious that that money paid was a necessity to being a member of the EU and its free market, membership of which has given HMRC far more money than it has spent on membership fees. Without paying those costs, and being a member of the free market and the economic benefits that brings, the government will have less income to spend on services such as the NHS. Unless you think that either the EU are going to give us access to the single market without paying these fees, or, we're going to leave the single market and the British economy won't suffer at all. Which is it?
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
This is a bit confusing, in case I wasn't clear I was talking about the projections for the NHS facing a budget allocation shortage for the next 3-5 years with hospitals forced to reduce staff and hours. So if the expectation is that money is being saved with Brexit and diverted to the treasury rather than being sent to Brussels, then why is there still such a bleak outlook for the NHS? I mean shouldn't the picture be a bit rosier?
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how vast the gap in funding actually is, and likely to rise to in the coming decades? There was never any suggestion that Brexit could solve the problem, only alleviate it.

And even if the Prime Minister had committed to a more realistic £100m/week figure, this would only amount to additional £5bn per year.
 
Last edited:
If you stick your head in the sand you cannot see or hear what's going on around you. Ignoring facts is the best remedy for denying all knowledge.

The NHS line was a lie from the start. Even if there was money available who was going to guarantee that any money saved would go on the NHS anyway, as Brexiters said the people who represented the Leave campaign had no power or mandate to carry through their promises. It was just a pack of lies to entice gullible people to vote for what they wanted to believe would happen.

For a start there is zero guarantee that any money would be saved unless there is a total hard Brexit and no access to the single market. Even then there would be unlikely to be any savings as the Uk would then have to comply to WTO which will not be free.

This doesn't take into account the loss in revenue for the UK because of the devaluation of the pound. Higher unemployment and reduced income from taxes and so on.
There is no extra money available, there will be considerably less money available

Why is it so difficult to understand.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Why are you suggesting it's an either/ or? You know it doesn't work like that.

It's quite obvious that that money paid was a necessity to being a member of the EU and its free market, membership of which has given HMRC far more money than it has spent on membership fees. Without paying those costs, and being a member of the free market and the economic benefits that brings, the government will have less income to spend on services such as the NHS. Unless you think that either the EU are going to give us access to the single market without paying these fees, or, we're going to leave the single market and the British economy won't suffer at all. Which is it?
Click to expand...

You actually believe that all of our annual contribution is necessary and essential for the economic benefits we receive? A sizeable amount quite clearly owes its purpose to ideological motives (the project). How it sued tow work, rather than it could have operated, is partly why find ourselves in a Brexit Britain.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Do you have any idea how vast the gap in funding actually is, and likely to rise to in the coming decades? There was never any suggestion that Brexit could solve the problem, only alleviate it.

And even if the Prime Minister had committed to a more realistic £100m/week figure, that itself would only amount to £5bn per year.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I see no alleviating going on and no indication of anything in the near horizon. Lack of access to healthcare in the right time is like a flesh wound that shouldn't be allowed to fester in any developed nation.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
So, i'm just wondering, who did you blame the rise in hate crime on when we weren't in the midst of a referendum?

I have not overheard, or been present near a single act of anti-immigrant abuse since June 23rd mind you. Not one.

Certainly, there were elements of the broader campaign who were prepared to use existing fears to their advantage, yet this well of sentiment would not exist to its present degree without the policies and broken promises of previous governments. We are also quite incapable of discussing immigration civilly in this country, which only furthers the toxicity (something we've seen demonstrated on this forum at times).
Click to expand...

The Mail, The Sun, UKIP and the right wing of the Tory party. The same hateful voices that led the Brexit campaign and imbued it with the sort of vile xenophobic tones that now seem to be acceptable in public. Lucky you if you've not heard it Nick although I'd suggest you're possibly choosing not to listen to anything that might make your hazy little post Brexit bubble seem less pleasant.

We're perfectly capable of discussing immigration in the UK, the problem lies in the fact that one side of the argument depend on lies and distortion of the true immigration figures in order to spread their fear and hatred. There is no reasoned argument against our present levels of immigration other than racism, all the talk about strains on housing, education and the NHS are misdirection, the problems exist because our government underfunds and poorly manages them all, the only input migrants have to the situation is to improve it through filling skill gaps and through contributing to our society as a whole through their tax payments.

This debate did get toxic but when one side choose to reproduce vile Nazi propaganda posters to demonise refugees and migrants it was never likely to stay civil.

Must explain why all those younger voters who supported Labour in 2015, what with the party's significantly smaller commitment for the NHS budget. That the NHS is presently in difficulty has very little to do with what sort of Brexit windfall it might have received 2-3 years from now.

However, the principle of restoring those monies to the Treasury remains a valid one. The UK's contribution has risen by billions of pounds, and Brussels wanted even more; might not people rather spend that cash on the NHS instead of incurring a hike to income tax for example?
Click to expand...

All signs point to us having to continue paying into the EU for a considerable time to clear our debts and possibly continue paying ad infinitum for access to the EU markets so this windfall trumpeted by Brexit looks like it will never happen. Promising to pay it to the NHS and even going as far as plastering that promise on the side of a bus was a mistake that even Farage admitted, the fact was always that the NHS was already fecked and this government were never going to do enough to fix it with or without the mythical £350M a week.

What the Brexit side still refuse to admit is that we look likely to be much worse off after Article 50 is activated. Our economy is already at all time lows and is likely to drop much lower especially if a hard Brexit is taken, city businesses, their high paid employees and a large number of private individuals are very likely to bugger off to the continent and take their tax contributions with them. Departing blue collar industries will leave a jobs hole in already struggling parts of the country whilst those that remain will want so much in grants and exemptions from the government for their loyalty that they are likely to cost the taxpayer more.
 
Kasper said:
Don't bother with him, I've yet to read a post with substance from him in this thread. It mostly goes like that:
"There has been an increase in hate crime in Britain since the referendum."
"Well, there have always been unpleasent people, Referendum or not."
"But this increase is actually recorded"
"Tosh, it was far worse in the old days"
or:
"My industrial sector is struggling because of Brexit and my job is at risk."
"Shit happens, I've lost my job 5 times already, just move on."

Add his favorite "All politicians are liars" line and when someone gives a detailed post to counter his 'arguments' he barely answers with a 'we see things differently' answer if not at all.
Click to expand...
:lol:

I'm sorry I don't feel the need to pigeon hole every event in life into a certain category

I'm might be one of the few that hopes the UK becomes a success story a few years down the line, not one of the many that want it to fail so you can say "I told you so"

Where I used to live had the first mosque in Britain so I might have seen a bit of 'Hate Crime' in my time or punch up's as we called them

Did you not experience the same in the 70's and 80's?
 
PedroMendez said:
@Nick 0208 Ldn

What do you make of the content of May’s leaked speeches? Are you in favor of giving some industries special subsidies/privileges when they stay (e.g. Nissan)?
Click to expand...


Genuine question: how are these benefits ok under, say WTO rules, which prohibit discrimination? The WTO ruled that the Indian govt cannot subside domestic solar panel manufacturers, since it discriminates against US manufacturers (who filed the suit). Now, Nissan isn't a UK company but doesn't it mean that cars made in that plant have an unfair edge against, say, cars made in Germany or even China and then imported into the UK?
 
berbatrick said:
Genuine question: how are these benefits ok under, say WTO rules, which prohibit discrimination? The WTO ruled that the Indian govt cannot subside domestic solar panel manufacturers, since it discriminates against US manufacturers (who filed the suit). Now, Nissan isn't a UK company but doesn't it mean that cars made in that plant have an unfair edge against, say, cars made in Germany or even China and then imported into the UK?
Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess there's more to the Nissan issue than subsidies and/or privileges. Nissan aren't quite so naïve as to believe some empty promises from May. More I suspect will come clear at a later date.
 
berbatrick said:
Genuine question: how are these benefits ok under, say WTO rules, which prohibit discrimination? The WTO ruled that the Indian govt cannot subside domestic solar panel manufacturers, since it discriminates against US manufacturers (who filed the suit). Now, Nissan isn't a UK company but doesn't it mean that cars made in that plant have an unfair edge against, say, cars made in Germany or even China and then imported into the UK?
Click to expand...

Nobody really knows what the british government promised. These kind of deal are usually not addressed in the context of the WTO/GATT. So the short answer is, that GATT/WTO just covers certain areas/cases.

In the case of India the issue is about “domestic content requirements” (DCR measures). India wants to tell the companies, that they have to buy domestic solar panels and not those that are produced by foreign companies. That is generally seen as illegal (Gatt III:4 + TRIM 2.1), but there are a lot of exemptions from this rule. India wanted to claim an exemption based on III:8(a) or Gatt XX(d)(j).
- III:8 (a) doesn’t apply because the solar cells are not the good that the government is actually buying (which is energy) and energy is not in a “competitive relationship” with the solar cells, that these rules discriminate against. It is a bit of a legal argument, so don’t pay too much attention to it, but India is quite clearly stretching the law.
- XX (d) doesn’t apply because the climate acts/conventions/agreements, that determine the goal, don’t constitute laws/rules according to the definition in this article.
- XX (j) doesn’t apply because there is no supply shortage.

There was also another case between Japan/EU vs Canada where a similar ruling happened. So the outcome of this ruling is hardly a surprise.

I am fairly sure that India will find other – legal – ways to support this industry. The trade rules are a bit dodgy and to some extend arbitrary and by no means comprehensive. I havn’t read the newest commentary yet, so I am not really up to date.

My final remark would be, that the EU-internal laws against distortion of competition are a lot stricter, but even they have more loop-holes than cheese. Sometimes it is hard to understand why certain things are allowed, while others are not without understanding the history of certain laws/agreements.
 
Stanley Road said:
:lol:

I'm sorry I don't feel the need to pigeon hole every event in life into a certain category

I'm might be one of the few that hopes the UK becomes a success story a few years down the line, not one of the many that want it to fail so you can say "I told you so"

Where I used to live had the first mosque in Britain so I might have seen a bit of 'Hate Crime' in my time or punch up's as we called them

Did you not experience the same in the 70's and 80's?
Click to expand...

"Hate crime" doesn't equate to "punch up", as if that's a fairly harmless thing in itself. Recent murders and arson attacks have also fallen into that category.

When you have people like the Police and the UN telling you there's been a spike in such crimes, along with the general acceptance that "hate crimes" are underreported anyway, then you probably shouldn't be too quick to dismiss it.
 
sullydnl said:
"Hate crime" doesn't equate to "punch up", as if that's a fairly harmless thing in itself. Recent murders and arson attacks have also fallen into that category.

When you have people like the Police and the UN telling you there's been a spike in such crimes, along with the general acceptance that "hate crimes" are underreported anyway, then you probably shouldn't be too quick to dismiss it.
Click to expand...
Some British people have always been like that and always will, they just need a trigger. Some people don't even need trigger, they are just violent scumbags and the uk has its fair share of them.
 
Stanley Road said:
Some British people have always been like that and always will, they just need a trigger. Some people don't even need trigger, they are just violent scumbags and the uk has its fair share of them.
Click to expand...

That seems like a positive of the EU, has a civilising effect on racists and bigots. As soon as we voted out they felt empowered to make their hate public
 
Bury Red said:
Our economy is already at all time lows and is likely to drop much lower especially if a hard Brexit is taken, city businesses, their high paid employees and a large number of private individuals are very likely to bugger off to the continent and take their tax contributions with them.
Click to expand...

It amuses me that the same people on the right who spent years arguing against high rate income tax because 'the wealthy will just move abroad' don't seem to be willing to apply their own logic to things like a heavily damaged economy and currency rates.
 
Kentonio said:
It amuses me that the same people on the right who spent years arguing against high rate income tax because 'the wealthy will just move abroad' don't seem to be willing to apply their own logic to things like a heavily damaged economy and currency rates.
Click to expand...
Just last week I paid 52% tax on a payment of just 1200 gross. One of the reasons the uk is a mess is that no-one wants to pay for it, so the idea that the rich would move abroad is a valid one, it just wouldn't be to western Europe.
 
Bury Red said:
if a hard Brexit is taken, city businesses, their high paid employees and a large number of private individuals are very likely to bugger off to the continent and take their tax contributions with them
Click to expand...
And have to pay European salaries and taxes, not a smart move

Unless they move to Hungary
 
Stanley Road said:
Just last week I paid 52% tax on a payment of just 1200 gross. One of the reasons the uk is a mess is that no-one wants to pay for it, so the idea that the rich would move abroad is a valid one, it just wouldn't be to western Europe.
Click to expand...

Many people have absolutely no problem whatsoever paying a fairly high tax rate in return for access to great economic opportunity and benefits. Paying a fairly high tax rate (or even a slightly lower one) in return for much reduced economic opportunity and benefits however is likely to be much less appealing.

Personally I probably pay slightly more in France than I would back in England. After Brexit the UK could cut its tax rate in half and I still wouldn't want to move home.
 
Kentonio said:
Many people have absolutely no problem whatsoever paying a fairly high tax rate in return for access to great economic opportunity and benefits. Paying a fairly high tax rate (or even a slightly lower one) in return for much reduced economic opportunity and benefits however is likely to be much less appealing.

Personally I probably pay slightly more in France than I would back in England. After Brexit the UK could cut its tax rate in half and I still wouldn't want to move home.
Click to expand...
You cant run a country on low tax

Any govt bearing gifts will get voted in, that's the issue with the uk, tax shy

Average salary in Holland is 100 euros higher than the uk but the tax rate is double
 
Stanley Road said:
Just last week I paid 52% tax on a payment of just 1200 gross. One of the reasons the uk is a mess is that no-one wants to pay for it, so the idea that the rich would move abroad is a valid one, it just wouldn't be to western Europe.
Click to expand...
.

Agree that the UK expect to have everything for a small outlay. However, every country has different tax rates in the EU. You're in the wrong country
 
Stanley Road said:
I'm in a good country, best road network in the world allegedly. paid for with taxes
Click to expand...

You're happy there, which is the most important. Yes you have to pay taxes for the quality of services you get.

This is what annoys me about the EU fees versus NHS funding
The EU fees are a pittance compared with the whole UK budget.

It's just the blame game again, the EU is not the reason the NHS is underfunded, it's all a lie.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You're happy there, which is the most important. Yes you have to pay taxes for the quality of services you get.

This is what annoys me about the EU fees versus NHS funding
The EU fees are a pittance compared with the whole UK budget.

It's just the blame game again, the EU is not the reason the NHS is underfunded, it's all a lie.
Click to expand...
Privatisation is the only way forward, the envy of the world my R's
 
Stanley Road said:
Privatisation is the only way forward, the envy of the world my R's
Click to expand...

The UK population should be prepared to pay for the service they want but do they trust any government , Tory or Labour , to spend that revenue on the NHS.
I know you have a very good health service in Holland, France is fantastic as well compared to the UK. The NHS is a sick old dinosaur, atrocious.
 
Stanley Road said:
Average salary in Holland is 100 euros higher than the uk but the tax rate is double
Click to expand...

Where on earth did you get that 'double' figure from?

top40.jpg
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The UK population should be prepared to pay for the service they want but do they trust any government , Tory or Labour , to spend that revenue on the NHS.
I know you have a very good health service in Holland, France is fantastic as well compared to the UK. The NHS is a sick old dinosaur, atrocious.
Click to expand...
Dunno about the politics but while we are on the subject, I've witnessed about 5 government collapses since I've been here and the uk think they are the only ones with party issues, its madness.

And they're focused on ukip like the rest of Europe doesn't have worse threats in politics.

Its also utter lunacy to think there is no better alternative outside the eu without anything to compare it to.
 
The countries in purple on the map have net average monthly salaries in excess of €2400, in blue – in the range of €1700–€2399, in olive – in the range of €600–€1699 in yellow – in the range of €300–€599, in red below €300.

Netherlands tax rates
0 € 19882 € 33% 1.85%
€19822 33589 € 41% 10.45%
33589 € 57585 € 42% 42%
57585 € - € 52% 52%


UK
£0 £11,000 0%
£11,000 £43,000 20%
£43,000 £150,000 40%
£150,000 - 45%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe
 
Stanley Road said:
The countries in purple on the map have net average monthly salaries in excess of €2400, in blue – in the range of €1700–€2399, in olive – in the range of €600–€1699 in yellow – in the range of €300–€599, in red below €300.

Netherlands tax rates
0 € 19882 € 33% 1.85%
€19822 33589 € 41% 10.45%
33589 € 57585 € 42% 42%
57585 € - € 52% 52%


UK
£0 £11,000 0%
£11,000 £43,000 20%
£43,000 £150,000 40%
£150,000 - 45%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe
Click to expand...

The Netherlands tax rates include social security. The UK numbers don't include National Security contributions.
 
Stanley Road said:
You cant run a country on low tax

Any govt bearing gifts will get voted in, that's the issue with the uk, tax shy

Average salary in Holland is 100 euros higher than the uk but the tax rate is double
Click to expand...

Not for expats though, they have the '30% rule' for 5 years. In fact, Holland has some of the most competitive tax exemptions in Europe, which make it one of the most competitive countries to set up business in.
 
Rams said:
Not for expats though, they have the '30% rule' for 5 years. In fact, Holland has some of the most competitive tax exemptions in Europe, which make it one of the most competitive countries to set up business in.
Click to expand...
Its 10 years. all my colleagues are on it but not me as I chose to come here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.