The City and financial services generates 12% of our GDP. You could call it 'parasatic' or equally you could say it funds education and defence or whatever.
Pro BrExit voters - how do you feel now?
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
And the democrats, the old and wise, the people who could be bothered to vote because they realize this might be the last vote that actually makes a difference.
No not really, it's not just a sector like others, it feeds off people who actually produce or are in other services. A financial sector is necessary to get money from people who have more than they want to spend to people who have less than they want to invest in their company in order to make more money producing what they produce for example. You can't have an economy with let's say 90% consists of the financial sector. And if I need a million to make my company grow I wouldn't pay 12% to the middlemen getting me to that money. Why would that be different for a country as a whole?
Money can't make money by itsef, all the money that goes around in the city is money made by people somewhere working to produce something others want to have or providing services that makes other people's lives better in someway. Financial services are useful because the money when invested well will increase productivity, but financial sectors of this size do certainly not increase productivity by 12%.
Funny that isn't it? Some were all too quick to point out that the FTSE was dropping like a stone in the immediate aftermath but now the 100 has recovered all pre-Brexit losses and then some, and the 250 has recovered most of the losses it appears to have gone a little quiet on that front. In fact the 100 clawed back something like 300 of the 500-odd points on the very first afternoon.
That's not to say it's all hunky dory of course and as a leave voter I've always stressed that short-term losses/gains shouldn't be used as a barometer as to what will happen in the coming years. There will be other slumps on the stock exchange as a result of Brexit.
Of all the people that I know that voted leave, and there were a lot, I don't think a single one is unemployed. I've got mates who voted with the long-term future of their kids in mind, not the short to medium term. Another who works for the NHS and felt that staying in the EU would be a quicker route to full privatisation of the NHS so voted out. Others who could see the EU lurching more and more into a federal superstate with the shoe-horning of ever more vastly differing economies. And yes, there were a few others who voted for misguided or dubious reasons. But there were misguided voters on the remain side too. Not those who did it to keep with the status quo - I can fully understand why they voted to remain. But those who thought their holidays to Spain would triple in price if we left. Or those who thought British people would be barred from working and living in 27 EU countries. Or that their friends from other countries would be deported. None of that is ever likely to happen of course but we had some people educated to university standard who, somewhat astonishingly, thought it would and yet the accusations of "thick" are coming from some people on the remain side. Then there were the younger generation complaining that the older generation effectively decided their future for them but less than 40% of 18-25 year olds could be bothered to get off their arse and vote.
Last edited:
why blame Leavers. blame the government for bringing this to a vote.
All named and shamed, come on guys, lets think of an excuse that makes us sound clever.
I voted leave and I'm very happy with proceedings so far.
The globalisation agenda of modern capitalism has been dealt a serious blow and the ignorant (so called left wing) masses who have been brainwashed into thinking that the EU is anything other than vehicle for a capitalist cabal are in a spin. People across Europe are now starting to realise that leaving the EU is not some unthinkable hypothetical concept but a real thing that can easily be initiated if a country so wishes, and I predict the Netherlands and others will soon follow. The EU in its current form will hopefully collapse and perhaps it can eventually be replaced by something more democratic and something that is not primarily designed to further the interests of a capitalist elite.
The globalisation agenda of modern capitalism has been dealt a serious blow and the ignorant (so called left wing) masses who have been brainwashed into thinking that the EU is anything other than vehicle for a capitalist cabal are in a spin. People across Europe are now starting to realise that leaving the EU is not some unthinkable hypothetical concept but a real thing that can easily be initiated if a country so wishes, and I predict the Netherlands and others will soon follow. The EU in its current form will hopefully collapse and perhaps it can eventually be replaced by something more democratic and something that is not primarily designed to further the interests of a capitalist elite.
So let me get this straight, siding with Goldman Sachs is worse than siding with Rupert Murdoch and the Daily Mail? That's quite a good illustration actually, of the point that there isn't some gigantic right wing conspiracy where they all get together and agree how to best oppress the poor. The fact is, they're all in it for themselves and when their perceived interests happen to collide (see Murdoch with Cameron in the general election) they work together, and when they diverge they destroy each other (see Cameron and Murdoch in the referendum).
And what is an antidemocrat? Who are they? I would say propagandists who try to rig an election with lies are working to undermine democracy myself.
As someone who works in the UK (automotive) manufacturing sector I think you're blinkered if you don't think that manufacturing techniques and automation are not signalling the end of many low skilled jobs, unless they're willing to work for less than the cost of the robot of course. Take self driving cars (which my company makes many components for). There are 5 million driving jobs in the UK, what happens to them if self driving vehicles come in? Daimler have already had self driving trucks working in California for 2 years or so. Ok some vehicles would still need someone to load / unload etc but would a taxi for example? These are the sorts of questions our negligent and insular national governments are not addressing and yet they are imperative.
And it's interesting you choose the example of Germany. For several reasons. The most obvious being that they have created the utopic working conditions you're after whilst...being in the EU. Of course they have the advantage of the euro artificially deflating their currency (which we of course rightly decided against despite the fact it may well have been an economic benefit for us), but ultimately the main cause is their national governance and legislation. Their companies are obliged to have worker representation on the boards amongst other things, which ensures the balance of interests isn't so skewed towards shareholders at the expense of the workers and society. This is of course a national legislation having nothing to do with the EU.
And even then, the German manufacturing industry people I know are also concerned that their economy may be in danger of becoming old fashioned and things like 3D printers and AI are going to creep up on them without being addressed.
Final point, I'm quite suspicious that my (British automotive) company are going to use a British exit from the EU as an excuse to move our factories to either France, Romania or Serbia as they don't want the uncertainty of potential tariffs and they can find cheaper labour (though in Romania's case certainly not very skilled). Ultimately they'll move because our national government allowed the sale of a British engineering company to a load of unscrupulous American hedge funds. Again, nothing at all to do with the EU. So I don't see how any of this is going to benefit our manufacturing industry myself, long term or short.
i didn't vote because i feel free movement is causing problems in the country by saturating the job market that has allowed for appalling contracts which is causing problems for our working class. but i also understand the importance of free trade, and in general am quite pro EU.
i havn't really changed my view at all, if it was the same vote tomorrow, i still wouldn't vote, as feel their needs to be some kind of compromise, and the EU needs to see that free movement is been exploited by big buinesness, and set some kind of cap on it.
The last week has gone exactly as i thought it would, markets panic everyone going a bit nuts , but then a slow bounce back where people realise thier is no over night change.
what i think will happen now? no idea, think it depends on alot of things, who wins the tory leadership campaign, whether the continuation of discontented keeps growing in other EU counties and, how strong public opinions stays
i havn't really changed my view at all, if it was the same vote tomorrow, i still wouldn't vote, as feel their needs to be some kind of compromise, and the EU needs to see that free movement is been exploited by big buinesness, and set some kind of cap on it.
The last week has gone exactly as i thought it would, markets panic everyone going a bit nuts , but then a slow bounce back where people realise thier is no over night change.
what i think will happen now? no idea, think it depends on alot of things, who wins the tory leadership campaign, whether the continuation of discontented keeps growing in other EU counties and, how strong public opinions stays
Last edited:
It's not about right wing conspiracies, it's about right wing mechanisms and the EU is full of it.
Nothing was rigged, and voters are well aware that politicians can and will lie, and both sides did. In lying the EU is second to none.
It's despite of the EU, I don't think Greece is allowed legislation like that.
Don't expect the EU to curb hedge funds making a quick buck squeezing companies out, financing take-overs with money from that company and evading taxes.
Of course there's pressure from automation in any form on employement. It is an issue and might be a problem for the future, but the issue has been there since the industrial revolution. My point is that if you have a rich country with high cost of living, you need to produce high value goods that require skilled work, investment and organization. In a rich country you can't produce cheaply, and in a poor country you can't produce high value goods because you don't have the money to train people to the required skill. You can't successfully produce Dacia's in Britain, but you can't produce Jaguars in Romania either.
I'm sure us Europeans will get on just fine, it's like we've had fights in the past or anything.
I might to wrong(I am one of those's lefties) but the best way to tackle capitalist elites(Capitalism by it's very nature causes elites so break of EU won't change that)is not to give credibility and power to the far right.
Absolutely.
The divorce will be quite painless to us and the rest of the European countries I think, but will be brutal on EU ideologies. It's simply in no ones interest to kneecap the UK for wanting out. They will not want to upset one of Europe's biggest trade partners, and most powerful European military force. The total collapse of the EU is in sight, and the UK leaving will I think be the mortal wound it won't recover from. There is a good chance that the destruction of the EU could lead to the beginning of a completely new union involving countries worldwide.
Nick what's your view on the future situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland that have being caused by Brexit. I ask this because I've yet to see a good answer on this from a Leave voter.
I mean it's good that you've produced a lot of facts to support your case. What is a right wing mechanism and can you please explain to me how there are more of them in the EU than in our national government?
And on the contrary, I'm of the firm opinion that everything was rigged. The vote was dreadfully administered, coming as it did only 6 weeks after a huge round of local elections. I know half a dozen people who couldn't vote due to the incompetence of the electoral authorities for example. Then you have the fact that more than 2/3 of the British press came out in favour of Leave, putting out racist and anti-EU scare stories at an even more ridiculous pace than has become normal over the last 20 years. No sanction for this despite them clearly having "incited racial hatred". Let's be clear about something. When you allow columnists like Katie Hopkins to call Syrian refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean to escape an appalling war "cockroaches", that is a mandate for murder. Dehumanising ordinary people to that extent is what the Nazis did to justify their concentration camps. And I would love your evidence for how the EU lie more than our national government (who incidentally currently play a pivotal role in the EU anyway). I think you'll find that our national government is likely to soon be lead by someone who at the very least: lied about the cost of the EU, lied about where they would redivert those funds, lied about wanting to curb immigration (or at least whether they could in fact achieve it), lied about the EU's effect on national security, and lied about it being responsible for the effects of austerity on public services. And that's just the big whoppers.
Care to provide some evidence that the EU "wouldn't allow co-determination" in Greece? I've never even seen it suggested.
I'm certainly under no illusions that the EU helps to curb unscrupulous takeovers of sustainable businesses. Shamefully it even contributes towards them occasionally. However, I'm merely making the point that in the overwhelming majority of cases that I've ever experienced it is the failing of our national government. And then they blame it on the EU or whatever foreigner comes to hand.
And my company is actually very high tech, tolerances similar to Formula 1. I agree with you it's unwise to move it to Romania. But then so much of British engineering is, and always has been, incredibly unwise. Which is why I most certainly don't share your faith in our ability to magically create new jobs without the right encouragement from our utterly deluded and incompetent government.
I still haven't read or heard a good reason to vote leave. It's all empty emotional stuff about "shaking up the establishment" or "sending a message of discontented". Can someone who voted leave give a genuinely logical answer? Because as an outsider, even if the EU isn't as efficient as it should be, easy movement of people, goods, funds etc between your nighbours, unless you despise them, seems, at worst, the direction to work towards.
This is an exceptionally verbose way of saying very little. How do you expect globalisation or big business to end in a post-EU Britain? Truth be told as an unashamed capatilist I'd be happy with the result if I had a labour intensive company. Peeling away the EU regulations on workers rights would be a treat.
What kind of good answer are you looking for?
Firstly it is unknown how many Scots would choose between being in the EU and and being in the UK.
In the referendum, the Scottish voted for the UK to remain in the EU. Now that the UK is coming out of the EU, the Scottish people will be unsure of how it will effect them.
They can't apply to join the EU until they first break away from the UK, and a referendum will take time. If Scotland did break away from the UK to join the EU, they'll inherit part of our debt, and will go into the dreaded Euro. When faced with these depressing facts, the majority of the Scottish people would more than likely want to wait and see how Brexit affects them. Why not wait and see what kind of deal the UK gets?
Also, I haven't yet heard from the Scottish what the fundamental reasons are for wanting to remain in the EU.
I don't know about your national government and I suppose it depends on which party is voted in. But I can give you examples from the EU:
- Companies, especially the big ones, have much easier access to representatives from the EP than voters, and for the commission it's even worse. This access is a billion euro industry.
- EU civil servants often have meetings with national civil servants to make regulations, but also representatives of the industry are invited at the table and help write the regulations, of course more from big companies than from small businesses.
- The EU is suddenly just a number of independent member states when it comes to big foreign companies looking for a place to do their business from. They can have the countries in a bidding war for their favours, on taxes, labour rights etc. Also not regulating on EU-level can be a mechanism in favour of right wing interests.
- Having non elected efficials negotiating 'trade' deals with the US, and giving companies access to the negotiation results instead of representatives.
- Freedom of capital and the single market is used to expand the market over public services. Social housing for example is illegal state support, unless it meets specific and limited criteria. This causes an increase in rents, and an increase in profits from real estate, and effectively shifts money from those who work for it to those who own.
- All treaties concerning the Euro prevent Keynsian policies.
- Freedom of movement between poor and rich countries puts pressure on wages, working conditions and job security.
- The EU has no laws preventing or curbing privatizations, deprivatizations would often be a breach of EU-laws.
Didn't hear about that before, but there's general sloppyness and contempt for organizing the voting process well in the whole of Europe. I think that's a different matter, but certainly a concern.
That's the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. You can't forbid people to lie. You can't forbid the BBC to use 'Europe' while they mean 'the EU', you can't forbid EU-officials claiming peace in Europe while it were the democratic nation states who brought peace while the EU didn't even exist yet, and former Yugoslavia was bombed into the EU. You can't forbid the EU to claim the economic success of Northern European social democracies.
Basically the EU together with the IMF and the ECB have a financial dictatorship over Greece, forcing neoliberal 'solutions' upon them for their economic problems, while using this country as a cover up for another bail out of Northern European banks. They even forced their democratically elected minister of finance out.
Yes, the EU is often used as a scapegoat for national policies, but it also works the other way round. The situation that there is a EU and a national government leads to no one taking responsabilities for the consequences of policies, which in most cases serves right wing interests also.
You shouldn't flee to the EU because you have difficulty getting a decent government elected. In the UK that's still a possibility, in the EU the government is effectively appointed and will never be decent because it has nothing to fear from the voters. We also see that with countries who might be a succes as a country but failed as state have a larger popular support for the EU than solid nation states. The Belgians can't wait for a European federation, because it means they don't have to clean up their own constitutional and administrative mess, in Spain there's a simular pro EU force.
This EU, or a EU, or institutionalized European cooperation in any sense should be persuasive with it's benefits for everybody, not because of fear of the alternatives. I'm pro-European, I love my continent, includiding the Islands. But it's biggest problem is that big business is grabbing the power, step by step, in a continuous process, like all Europeans voted for the Tories, which they didn't. It's destroying the cause of it's wealth: Social democracies who educate all of their people, who have a responsible elite, a lagere, stable and big spending middle class and a working class that also has money to spend and which looks upward. The EU is slowly destroying the economic success of democracy it claims as it's own success.
European Union is the greatest chance the working man has of curbing business power. Individual nations will elect individuals that will race to the bottom to win floating capital. The EU doesn't have to, it can set a standard across 28 nations that businesses can't afford to ignore. European Union, clues in the name
Right, thanks for at least providing some substantiation for your claims. However, it is clear to me that you don't really understand British politics at all. Our democracy is a lot more broken than that of the EU.
Our first past the post electoral system combined with a monopolised press (39th in world free press rankings is unacceptable for the world's 5th largest economy), combine to mean that whoever Rupert Murdoch wants to win always will - usually the most right wing option he can find, or at least the most corrupt. The EU legislation enacted by the continent's more socialist elements has definitely been a moderating influence on our lurch to the right. See Theresa May being prevented from abolishing human rights legislation on the pretext of wanting to deport an old hook-handed loon as a classic example. The EU have also fairly consistently supported workers' rights, and environmental legislation (albeit only after a lot of arm tugging from the lobby groups). Ultimately, however, the right decision is usually made.
Taking your example of TTIP, this is a trade deal that will almost certainly not pass with the French and German governments, with good reason, and yet the UK's politicians (including most of the UKIP gimps we usually send to the European Parliament) are broadly in favour. This means that leaving the EU leaves us open to both the possibility of having most of TTIP foisted upon us by the EU without any say, and the much more probable scenario of our snakepit negotiating something even worse for the UK.
I don't disagree with you however, on the disgraceful nature of some recent EU policies such as crushing the Greeks with debt they know can't possibly be repaid, and the appalling and illegal handling of the refugee crisis. I would say, though, that the stupidity and arrogance of the ECB is not something that really effects Britain too badly as we're not in the Eurozone. It's only effect is perhaps to curb growth in our EU trade, but then we're about to cripple that anyway. And regarding the refugee crisis, I've no doubt that our government was in full support, and that this kind of policy is an appeasement to the far right nutjobs trying to destabilise the EU and that we have just further fuelled by voting to leave. Hopefully the EU realises how badly appeasing extremists worked for Cameron and put an end to it.
And finally, regarding freedom of speech I do not at all agree with you. We have laws in this country against "inciting racial hatred". Usually these are draconically applied. For example, an alcoholic former England footballer was up in court the other day under this legislation for making a joke about how he couldn't see a black guy in the dark. Personally I find that distasteful but I think being hauled up in court for it is ludicrous. That being said, it's the law. Yet, we give platforms to people to systematically lie about, and spread hatred of, immigrants, and not a single peep out of the justice system.
And that's without considering that the monopolisation of the press by 2 (vile) companies should be in violation of anti-competition law. Should actually be in violation of EU anti-competition law as a matter of fact, but that does not absolve our spineless, corrupt and complicit government of the blame for not splitting them up with UK law either.
Oh and a final note. Any public body that takes £7m of taxpayers' money and then uses it to spread proven falsehoods should be in breach of the law. If that is not the case then the law must be changed.
Last edited:
It's no different to what the UK has always done in terms of writing British Standards to ensure goods and services are of comparable standard and are suitable for purpose. ISO do the same thing on a global scale but what the CEN committees have attempted to do is to harmonize all the EU national norms including the British Standards, Normes Francais, DIN from Germany, CUR form the Netherlands etc. It's very rare that any EU civil servants sit on the committees, it's left to the industries themselves to form the committees, write the standards and enact them. It's not a big business lobby to attempt to wield some sort of monopoly however, when you do get one group attempting to coopt a committee into writing things in a way that favours one or a few of the businesses involved it's usually recognised as such and blocked by others at the table. Committee members are explicitly forbidden from representing their companies in fact, they need to be appointed by a separate national harmonization committee as their recognized expert in the particular field under discussion, ironically prior to our Brexit due to our own history of bureaucracy we typically have far more representatives on the CEN committees than other countries. In my industry there's usually one from the Institution of Civil Engineers, one from the British Standards committee, one from the British Geological Society, one from the Highways Agency or Environment Agency and in most cases also the committee chair as the governing language is always English. It's usually made up of 60-70% academics and senior consultants who have no industry bias and a handful of specialists from manufacturers who are asked to ensure they do not attempt to guide legislation in favour of specific products, company size does not come into it at all, I sat on the committees when I was the only Engineer in a 5 man company and still do now I work for a 4,000 strong multinational, the only thing they ask is for your national body to recognize you as their selected expert on the committee.
It's time consuming and costly, but it's the individual, company or university that pays for the travel and accommodation at the meetings, not the tax payers. I'd estimate it cost us around €100k in terms of man hours for 10 Engineers/Scientists and travel to the various CEN and ISO meetings we are involved in over the last 12 months including trips to Boston, Edinburgh, Talin, Milan, Prague, Miami and Berlin. It's a Technocracy rather than a Bureaucracy but how else do you want complex legislation to be written? I know the Brexit crowd are tired of listening to experts but do we really want to trust the uninitiated when deciding how we should design our railways or bridges? We're likely to go from having 30-40% of the committee membership to less than 5% if we activate Article 50 but will still have to abide by the rules of the CEN committees and the CE marking system if we wish to trade and work within the EU, we just won't have any say in the rules any more and may well have to pay to translate them from French or German in future.
I am happy we voted leave and I would like to see the government get on with the process of leaving now and invoke article 50. I can quite easily see the referendum somehow being ignored though if a pro EU MP becomes the leader of the Tory party.
Since the vote mainstream media are trying to imply many leave voters were mislead and would now somehow change their vote if given the chance. I really do not believe this is the case. Even if they do manage to find and film one or two idiotic leave voters who aren't sure why they voted leave so they can repeatedly show this on the news to give the impression most leave voters are clueless. For every leave voter who isn't sure why they voted leave, you will find 2 remain voters who have no idea why they voted remain other than to go with the status quo.
The constant media streaming of the apparent rise in hate crimes since the referendum and the demonisation of all leave voters shows how unhappy the globalist establishment are with this result. You don't here anything about the disgusting behaviour of angry remain voters abusing people all over social media, walking around at pro EU demonstrations with signs with things such as 'Old white people, please die' written on them.
What's done is done, we voted to leave and if democracy still exists we need to get on with the process of leaving and work together to build a better Britain.
Since the vote mainstream media are trying to imply many leave voters were mislead and would now somehow change their vote if given the chance. I really do not believe this is the case. Even if they do manage to find and film one or two idiotic leave voters who aren't sure why they voted leave so they can repeatedly show this on the news to give the impression most leave voters are clueless. For every leave voter who isn't sure why they voted leave, you will find 2 remain voters who have no idea why they voted remain other than to go with the status quo.
The constant media streaming of the apparent rise in hate crimes since the referendum and the demonisation of all leave voters shows how unhappy the globalist establishment are with this result. You don't here anything about the disgusting behaviour of angry remain voters abusing people all over social media, walking around at pro EU demonstrations with signs with things such as 'Old white people, please die' written on them.
What's done is done, we voted to leave and if democracy still exists we need to get on with the process of leaving and work together to build a better Britain.
Yes, but you also believe big brother and the illuminati are out to get you, the Queen is a shape shifting lizard, David Icke is the son of god and the government are dusting you with mind altering chemicals from aeroplanes (the last one being the only plausible one given the amount of shit you believe). Your ill informed side won and you're still whining on like it's a conspiracy against you, if Article 50 is activated and the UK does sink without trace it will be a pleasure to watch all the tinfoil hatted lunatics, little Englunders and racists sink beneath the waves with it, just glad I've already got my Brexit sorted with a guaranteed transfer to one of our European offices if/when this shit gets real.
Get over it. Never have I said I believe in any of the first four conspiracies you just mentioned by the way.
Ah little Englanders, racists, very original. Glad to hear you have your Brexit sorted, i'm sure the country will be glad to see the back of you. Look at your angry post and you're claiming i'm whining
The question I would like answered is when ,ie which year or decade, do the pro-Brexiters expect the results they hope to achieve by having voted Leave actually come to fruition - other than the economy going down the toilet. When will the first sign of a positive result in their eyes be achieved timewise.
Get over it. Never have I said I believe in any of the first four conspiracies you just mentioned by the way.
Ah little Englanders, racists, very original. Glad to hear you have your Brexit sorted, i'm sure the country will be glad to see the back of you. Look at your angry post and you're claiming i'm whining
He was probably in London yesterday doing his whining with the assortment of yoghurt knitters and out of touch gimps exercising their democratic right to protest about a, cough cough, democratic vote that didn't go their way. That banner about old white people was proper classy by the way.
Meanwhile, most leave and remain voters are doing the one sensible thing - and that's getting on with things and not indulging in any petty points scoring.
Glad you're listening to your own advice
There are certainly more left wing, progressive and liberal elements on the continent. But they are losing out to the institutions of the EU too. The EU is dynamic by design, and it's moving away from democracy and therefore from the left wing. About the press, I suppose that's what the Brits want. They keep buying those papers and watching those media, I guess it's just a cultural thing. Wether it's the tabloids, the BBC or sky sports or something, they are dishonest, manipulative, chauvinistic and still very popular.
TTIP is much more than a trade deal. But Juncker is already busy with making the decision an EU matter were national governments and their parlements have no say in. That's the power of the Lisbon treaty, which was called the European constitution first, and which was rejected in France and the Netherlands, and later illegally pushed through the EP without it's members beeing able to read the text of the treaty.
You think you are allowed to stay outside the Eurozone or at least out of all the rules that the EU has voor Eurozone-members in the long term if you would have remained in the EU?
That's not a British problem, journalists tend to be above the law, because the law fears them and their influence on the opinion of the people. And often they are too smart or slippery to put in a way they could be punished for it. A modern way of inciting or stimulating hatred is to let the people reacting to news items do the dirty work. For example in the Netherlands we have a paper that is always exaggerating crime by Dutchmen of Maroccan descent (which is a real problem btw) but if there's a report about a group of youth beating someone up and the description of the suspects was 'white' instead of North-African, they leave that out like no description of the suspects was given. Appearently this paper doesn't want the suspects to be found and arrested. But then the readers can write a reaction to the report, and they all write that it is a typical Maroccan crime and stuff like that.
Imo for these kind of things there should be a law against libel of groups, which there isn't, it's only if you slander an individual that it can be punished.
Well vote, organize yourselves, make an impact. You can change laws, changing EU laws by democratic powers is a whole different matter.
Nah, his post deserved to be called out for the guff it was. That was a rare slip from me in the Brexit threads where I've exercised more than enough patience in the face of provocation
I'm looking 5-plus years at least.
At that point in time what would you expect to have changed?
They'll have managed to achieved a more balanced, fairer, society as all the 'haves' have left the country with all the jobs and all the 'have nots' are left to mourn the loss of, well, everything.
Unlike the labour lot who are the feckin epitome of self sacrifice. Running the country to ground for their "welfare". Everyone votes for their own interest if you havent figured it out already.
Thanks that helps a lot. As I said, I was deeply conflicted about this vote almost to the point of guilt. Apparently I am right in giving zero fecks about the unemployed northeners.
You dont know much about the city do you? If tomorrow the financial industry were to move away from the UK, most folk working in the city wont suffer one bit. They will just up sticks and move to where their company moves. The ones who suffer would be those providing things like accomodation, food and drink etc.
I agree that those ones will suffer. But i don't think the financial industry is just welcome in another country. It's only an asset if it's feeding off foreign countries and it has been the UK who prevented the EU from curbing the financial sector the last 8 years because the UK depends and especially London depends on it most. The continental financial industry has difficulties enough with providing business with money to invest, there's no nead for more industry preventing money coming available for the businesses who need it.
These were my thoughts exactly while reading your post @rednev.
I'm curious - What makes you think globalisation doesn't benefit the average working man? Why do you expect independence to be any more beneficial?
I was watching this earlier on this topic, albeit it's from an American POV:
I haven't heard any convincing arguments why the poorer sections of society who voted Brexit think this will benefit them. It just seems to be an attitude of hoping the grass is greener on the other side and that things can't get worse. Of course they can get worse. If anything I don't think we appreciate how much we all have, even the poor. It can, and very well may, get worse.
Well our exit from the EU will have happened 2-3 years previously, we'll still have access to the EU market while at the same time having negotiated more trade deals globally. That's how I hope things will have panned out but it'll require a committed, competent government and a lot of man hours to get those deals put in place. I think 5 years has to be the absolute minimum for it to start to come to fruition but probably looking at a couple of years on top of that to be fair.
Ok, but to have access to the EU market, the UK would presumably still be paying the required contributions and still accepting freedom of movement of EU citizens
I don't disagree mate. I wouldn't expect a better deal than the member countries and to expect one would be foolish. There may be some minor compromises but let's see what happens.
Having read this, I really don't think I'll be able to change your mind as it's clearly been made up before understanding the context of the vote.
However, I would like to just object to your point that "British people obviously like having a shit press so feck it". Two things in response: how can they know what they want when they've never had anything else? It's been absolute corruption and bile ever since Thatcher abolished the rules governing monopolisation of the press to allow Murdoch control. And I would suggest you think of it as a crack addiction. People love that too, but it doesn't mean it's good for them and it doesn't mean you should allow unregulated distribution of poor quality crack. You wouldn't just give up on a family member who had a crack addiction and say "well they like it and they're not hurting anyone". At least I'd hope you wouldn't.