Brexit is going to make everything worse(unless you're rich)

Page 1 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Joe90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 18,733
Location: Maidstone, UK

30 Jan 2020, 2:12 pm

It's starting to frighten me. I voted out, but now I'm beginning to think it is not going to make things better, especially with Tories running the country.
Now that the UK is going to be out of the EU, the government will do what they want, which could mean privatising everything including our much needed NHS. There's one thing everyone should know about conservatives, and that's that they only care about the rich, or they think that everybody's as rich as them. So they are bound to make such huge decisions that's going to have a negative effect on the working class.
I know Trump is going to f**k up our NHS, which I don't think he has any business to. I wish the f*****g c**t would do the whole world a favour and f*****g drop dead.

And I heard they're kicking out all the Polish and other EU foreigners and making them go back to where they came from. That means we are going to lose a lot of good workers. I'm not saying the British are not good workers, but the foreigners do seem more keen to do the grotty low-paid jobs for as many hours a week as they can, while to us Brits it's viewed as a dead end job and a "waste of life" working for minimum wage for overwhelming slog.

Am I wrong?


_________________
Female
Aged 30
On antidepressants
Diagnosed with AS, ADHD and anxiety disorder
Empathy score: 61 out of a possible 80. (High)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,596
Location: Stendec

30 Jan 2020, 2:17 pm

[opinion=speculative]

If anyone thinks this is a prime example of "Voter's Remorse", just wait another year.  People will be begging Parliament to rejoin the EU.

[/opinion]


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


Trueno
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2017
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,457
Location: UK

30 Jan 2020, 2:30 pm

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth... that's if you already have teeth, you won't get any off the NHS.

Can't see why anyone would vote Tory, unless they're very rich. That's the power of the Daily Mail.


_________________
Steve J

Unkind tongue, right ill hast thou me rendered
For such desert to do me wreak and shame


JohnInWales
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 94
Location: Wales

30 Jan 2020, 3:56 pm

Loads of us have been saying that since before the referendum, and voted remain. You only needed to look at web sites like "The Bad Boys of Brexit", produced by Molly Scott-Cato, to see the sort of people pushing Brexit. However much any ordinary person may have wanted to leave the EU, voting for something supported by those people was madness. The announcement of the referendum just after the EU announced the new anti tax avoidance legislation can't have been a coincidence. How many leave voters have fortunes stashed away in tax havens? Brexit almost certainly means the rich get richer at our expense, and get to sell off our public assets to their mates. We get lower safety and welfare standards, and less rights, while the EU continue to enjoy the standards they adopted from us, because we used to have the best.

The Electoral Commission fined the leave campaign for acting illegally in the referendum, and I believe it was held in court that if the referendum had been binding it would have been annulled because of the irregularities. So an advisory referendum, that would have been annulled if it was binding, was then regarded as binding by the government.

Over 6 million signed the petition on the government's petitions site for a new referendum, there were several huge marches in London, and a lot of other campaigning, but the government decided to give us a vote in a way they knew they were most likely to win, with plenty of lies and manipulation to make sure they won. Now we've got years of uncertainty and change, probably mostly for the worse, to "look forward" to.



Joe90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 18,733
Location: Maidstone, UK

30 Jan 2020, 4:13 pm

Quote:
How many leave voters have fortunes stashed away in tax havens


A lot of poor/working class people voted leave (including me), because they think that it will get all the foreigners out and leave plenty of room for jobs, housing, education and the NHS. I know this country does have more people than the small island can handle, but I don't think everything is going to be as simple as it sounds when all the foreigners leave. Businesses could shut down and who knows? The country could face another recession because of it.

I wish I had voted remain.


_________________
Female
Aged 30
On antidepressants
Diagnosed with AS, ADHD and anxiety disorder
Empathy score: 61 out of a possible 80. (High)


Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

30 Jan 2020, 6:16 pm

Just make sure you don’t beat yourself up about it.

Putin was playing his web & tv based mind games on us as well as the yanks.



JohnInWales
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 94
Location: Wales

30 Jan 2020, 6:34 pm

Karamazov wrote:
Just make sure you don’t beat yourself up about it.

Putin was playing his web & tv based mind games on us as well as the yanks.

I've hardly been following any of it. Just enough to have a good idea of what's going on. I've been too switched off from the world dealing with the slow running saga of getting my diagnosis, and not being able to cope with life while I wait. Right now, getting ready for my appointment to discuss my diagnosis, and the report I've only just got, on Monday, is taking my mind off it. Then I've probably got to start totally changing my life, which is going to be very difficult anyway, but at a time when there's so much uncertainty about where the country is going probably makes it harder. Us Aspies are supposed to need clarity and simplicity, and Brexit is going to give us anything but that, especially at my age, where I'm likely to be dependant on the NHS, decent care, and an adequate pension at some time in the not too distant future. How can I plan my future, when the country doesn't even know where it's going?



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,222
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

31 Jan 2020, 4:30 am

I don't think it is going to be as bad as you think. I certainly see it as a negative move for the country and I expect businesses and the economy to take a hit, but I expect much of our regulations to be aligned to the EU and immigration numbers won't change an awful lot (but where people come from will)

What is important IMO is that during the negotiation you follow what is really happening rather than what the Government say is happening. In it's short life so far we have already seen that Johnson's Govt are looking to spin and hand out more lies than is normal and looking to have done something appears far more important to them than actually doing that thing.

Right now I fully expect we will stay closely aligned to the EU in many areas but they won't talk about that and will just announce that we are not, overall immigration numbers won't change much but the balance will move from EU immigration to non EU (south Asian mostly) but they will just talk about EU immigration numbers going down to mislead people, and we will see £350M more a week given to the NHS but not because the country has £350M more per week, but because it will be removed from another area of Govt spending which really can't afford to lose it, and they won't talk about that

I think in January 2021 the generally feeling will be 'well what on earth was the point of that?!'



Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

31 Jan 2020, 4:36 am

Biscuitman wrote:
I don't think it is going to be as bad as you think. I certainly see it as a negative move for the country and I expect businesses and the economy to take a hit, but I expect much of our regulations to be aligned to the EU and immigration numbers won't change an awful lot (but where people come from will)

What is important IMO is that during the negotiation you follow what is really happening rather than what the Government say is happening. In it's short life so far we have already seen that Johnson's Govt are looking to spin and hand out more lies than is normal and looking to have done something appears far more important to them than actually doing that thing.

Right now I fully expect we will stay closely aligned to the EU in many areas but they won't talk about that and will just announce that we are not, overall immigration numbers won't change much but the balance will move from EU immigration to non EU (south Asian mostly) but they will just talk about EU immigration numbers going down to mislead people, and we will see £350M more a week given to the NHS but not because the country has £350M more per week, but because it will be removed from another area of Govt spending which really can't afford to lose it, and they won't talk about that

I think in January 2021 the generally feeling will be 'well what on earth was the point of that?!'


I concur: it’s far more likely that Johnson & co. will fudge and compromise just enough to prevent additional severe economic problems, whilst superficially appearing to have been strong and unyielding.
Obtaining and maintaining power with with the minimum effort and hassle is, I suspect, their priority.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,222
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

31 Jan 2020, 5:22 am

Karamazov wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I don't think it is going to be as bad as you think. I certainly see it as a negative move for the country and I expect businesses and the economy to take a hit, but I expect much of our regulations to be aligned to the EU and immigration numbers won't change an awful lot (but where people come from will)

What is important IMO is that during the negotiation you follow what is really happening rather than what the Government say is happening. In it's short life so far we have already seen that Johnson's Govt are looking to spin and hand out more lies than is normal and looking to have done something appears far more important to them than actually doing that thing.

Right now I fully expect we will stay closely aligned to the EU in many areas but they won't talk about that and will just announce that we are not, overall immigration numbers won't change much but the balance will move from EU immigration to non EU (south Asian mostly) but they will just talk about EU immigration numbers going down to mislead people, and we will see £350M more a week given to the NHS but not because the country has £350M more per week, but because it will be removed from another area of Govt spending which really can't afford to lose it, and they won't talk about that

I think in January 2021 the generally feeling will be 'well what on earth was the point of that?!'


I concur: it’s far more likely that Johnson & co. will fudge and compromise just enough to prevent additional severe economic problems, whilst superficially appearing to have been strong and unyielding.
Obtaining and maintaining power with with the minimum effort and hassle is, I suspect, their priority.


Yep. Hope I am wrong and that this all works out brilliantly and a we thrive and prosper etc, but I think it will just be a big flop with a lot of spin.

Fishing rights will become a big talking point, disproportionately so compared to other areas of industry, and they will need a lot of spin to cover that up.

There is also going to be a tough moment in 2020 when some people suddenly realise that the European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU and so we are staying in that.



Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

31 Jan 2020, 7:47 am

Biscuitman wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I don't think it is going to be as bad as you think. I certainly see it as a negative move for the country and I expect businesses and the economy to take a hit, but I expect much of our regulations to be aligned to the EU and immigration numbers won't change an awful lot (but where people come from will)

What is important IMO is that during the negotiation you follow what is really happening rather than what the Government say is happening. In it's short life so far we have already seen that Johnson's Govt are looking to spin and hand out more lies than is normal and looking to have done something appears far more important to them than actually doing that thing.

Right now I fully expect we will stay closely aligned to the EU in many areas but they won't talk about that and will just announce that we are not, overall immigration numbers won't change much but the balance will move from EU immigration to non EU (south Asian mostly) but they will just talk about EU immigration numbers going down to mislead people, and we will see £350M more a week given to the NHS but not because the country has £350M more per week, but because it will be removed from another area of Govt spending which really can't afford to lose it, and they won't talk about that

I think in January 2021 the generally feeling will be 'well what on earth was the point of that?!'


I concur: it’s far more likely that Johnson & co. will fudge and compromise just enough to prevent additional severe economic problems, whilst superficially appearing to have been strong and unyielding.
Obtaining and maintaining power with with the minimum effort and hassle is, I suspect, their priority.


Yep. Hope I am wrong and that this all works out brilliantly and a we thrive and prosper etc, but I think it will just be a big flop with a lot of spin.

Fishing rights will become a big talking point, disproportionately so compared to other areas of industry, and they will need a lot of spin to cover that up.

There is also going to be a tough moment in 2020 when some people suddenly realise that the European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU and so we are staying in that.


Re: fishing rights, as far as I’m aware (and I may be misinformed) the majority of the current fisheries agreements go back to the Middle Ages and were contracted between the fishermen’s guilds of the various relevant ports, and have then been ratified, confirmed and upheld down unto the present situation where the WTO upholds them, and passes admin onto the EU commission, who then pass the UK end down to Westminster.
Hopefully this will at least lead to Parliament being forced to prioritise small ports and family run mini-trawlers over the big corporations with deep trawling equipment ... but I’m not going to hold my breath.

Hadn’t come across anyone saying that the ECHR jurisdiction is distinct from the EU, thanks for the info.



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

31 Jan 2020, 8:10 am

Weird how all the banks and bankers and some of the biggest corporations wanted us to stay in. Maybe they just didn't want to get any richer :roll:


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnInWales
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 94
Location: Wales

31 Jan 2020, 8:36 am

JohnPowell wrote:
Weird how all the banks and bankers and some of the biggest corporations wanted us to stay in. Maybe they just didn't want to get any richer :roll:

Not really. I think that the people who actually trade with other countries on a major scale would want to be an integrated part of one of the biggest trading blocs on the planet. Many international companies set up in Britain specifically because of our access to the EU.

I see the problem as being more to do the speculators, extremely rich individuals, and those with a particular ideology. Of course it suits some big businesses as well, but probably more those who are looking to exploit short term opportunities, than those who operate over long timescales and rely on long term stability. I think reading up on the people listed on "The Bad Boys of Brexit" shows the type of people who were really pushing for Brexit. There's also a quote, that I can't verify, from Rupert Murdoch, that goes something like "when I walk into Downing Street, the British government do what I want, but when I go to Brussels they ignore me". All I see with people pushing Brexit is personal power and greed, with no concern or empathy for the effect it has on the vast majority of people.
https://badboysofbrexit.com/



Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

31 Jan 2020, 8:58 am

Indeed: there are a great variety of different types and scales of business institutions operationimg in multiple different sectors, which leads to contradictions between their vested interests and thus factions amongst the wealthy, often with wildly different agendas.
Conceptualising them as a single united block which is self-consciously against the rest of us has great emotional immediacy, but ultimately fails to adequately account for the totality and variety of their actions and conduct.
For instance how does a theory of the unified elite account for the strong tendency for Tesco to fund the Tories, whilst Sainsbury’s are far more likely to fund Labour?

Posit that their business models require subtly different economic strategies on the part of government and this phenomena resolves itself as an extension of market competition by other means.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,222
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

31 Jan 2020, 9:00 am

Karamazov wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I don't think it is going to be as bad as you think. I certainly see it as a negative move for the country and I expect businesses and the economy to take a hit, but I expect much of our regulations to be aligned to the EU and immigration numbers won't change an awful lot (but where people come from will)

What is important IMO is that during the negotiation you follow what is really happening rather than what the Government say is happening. In it's short life so far we have already seen that Johnson's Govt are looking to spin and hand out more lies than is normal and looking to have done something appears far more important to them than actually doing that thing.

Right now I fully expect we will stay closely aligned to the EU in many areas but they won't talk about that and will just announce that we are not, overall immigration numbers won't change much but the balance will move from EU immigration to non EU (south Asian mostly) but they will just talk about EU immigration numbers going down to mislead people, and we will see £350M more a week given to the NHS but not because the country has £350M more per week, but because it will be removed from another area of Govt spending which really can't afford to lose it, and they won't talk about that

I think in January 2021 the generally feeling will be 'well what on earth was the point of that?!'


I concur: it’s far more likely that Johnson & co. will fudge and compromise just enough to prevent additional severe economic problems, whilst superficially appearing to have been strong and unyielding.
Obtaining and maintaining power with with the minimum effort and hassle is, I suspect, their priority.


Yep. Hope I am wrong and that this all works out brilliantly and a we thrive and prosper etc, but I think it will just be a big flop with a lot of spin.

Fishing rights will become a big talking point, disproportionately so compared to other areas of industry, and they will need a lot of spin to cover that up.

There is also going to be a tough moment in 2020 when some people suddenly realise that the European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU and so we are staying in that.


Re: fishing rights, as far as I’m aware (and I may be misinformed) the majority of the current fisheries agreements go back to the Middle Ages and were contracted between the fishermen’s guilds of the various relevant ports, and have then been ratified, confirmed and upheld down unto the present situation where the WTO upholds them, and passes admin onto the EU commission, who then pass the UK end down to Westminster.
Hopefully this will at least lead to Parliament being forced to prioritise small ports and family run mini-trawlers over the big corporations with deep trawling equipment ... but I’m not going to hold my breath.

Hadn’t come across anyone saying that the ECHR jurisdiction is distinct from the EU, thanks for the info.


Appreciate the info on fishing rights history.

1. My understanding of our position on EU fishing rights is that each country is given a fishing quota (based on research undertaken each year to check fish stocks), the Governments of each country can then dish out those quota's to fishing companies in whatever way they see fit. The UK Government is the only country in the EU who sold the majority of quota's off to foreign owned companies, on the basis that their bids were higher.

2. Around 80% of fish caught in UK waters are sold to EU countries.

3. The tax revenue brought in from the UK Fishing industry at present is less than the tax revenue brought in from Harrods (though the analysis should always go beyond money)

1 could have been fixed at anytime by our government but they chose to prioritise money. Had they fixed it then it would have impacted on 3 which would have then made more of an impact in terms of perceived importance but also the non money factors which be seen as more imprtant than they are as £££ always seems to dictate these things. 2 is where the problem lies now as we will be trying to negotiate a deal on fishing rights where we want to take business away from people who we want to then buy the produce from that business. Good luck with that Tories.



Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

31 Jan 2020, 9:14 am

Biscuitman wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I don't think it is going to be as bad as you think. I certainly see it as a negative move for the country and I expect businesses and the economy to take a hit, but I expect much of our regulations to be aligned to the EU and immigration numbers won't change an awful lot (but where people come from will)

What is important IMO is that during the negotiation you follow what is really happening rather than what the Government say is happening. In it's short life so far we have already seen that Johnson's Govt are looking to spin and hand out more lies than is normal and looking to have done something appears far more important to them than actually doing that thing.

Right now I fully expect we will stay closely aligned to the EU in many areas but they won't talk about that and will just announce that we are not, overall immigration numbers won't change much but the balance will move from EU immigration to non EU (south Asian mostly) but they will just talk about EU immigration numbers going down to mislead people, and we will see £350M more a week given to the NHS but not because the country has £350M more per week, but because it will be removed from another area of Govt spending which really can't afford to lose it, and they won't talk about that

I think in January 2021 the generally feeling will be 'well what on earth was the point of that?!'


I concur: it’s far more likely that Johnson & co. will fudge and compromise just enough to prevent additional severe economic problems, whilst superficially appearing to have been strong and unyielding.
Obtaining and maintaining power with with the minimum effort and hassle is, I suspect, their priority.


Yep. Hope I am wrong and that this all works out brilliantly and a we thrive and prosper etc, but I think it will just be a big flop with a lot of spin.

Fishing rights will become a big talking point, disproportionately so compared to other areas of industry, and they will need a lot of spin to cover that up.

There is also going to be a tough moment in 2020 when some people suddenly realise that the European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU and so we are staying in that.


Re: fishing rights, as far as I’m aware (and I may be misinformed) the majority of the current fisheries agreements go back to the Middle Ages and were contracted between the fishermen’s guilds of the various relevant ports, and have then been ratified, confirmed and upheld down unto the present situation where the WTO upholds them, and passes admin onto the EU commission, who then pass the UK end down to Westminster.
Hopefully this will at least lead to Parliament being forced to prioritise small ports and family run mini-trawlers over the big corporations with deep trawling equipment ... but I’m not going to hold my breath.

Hadn’t come across anyone saying that the ECHR jurisdiction is distinct from the EU, thanks for the info.


Appreciate the info on fishing rights history.

1. My understanding of our position on EU fishing rights is that each country is given a fishing quota (based on research undertaken each year to check fish stocks), the Governments of each country can then dish out those quota's to fishing companies in whatever way they see fit. The UK Government is the only country in the EU who sold the majority of quota's off to foreign owned companies, on the basis that their bids were higher.

2. Around 80% of fish caught in UK waters are sold to EU countries.

3. The tax revenue brought in from the UK Fishing industry at present is less than the tax revenue brought in from Harrods (though the analysis should always go beyond money)

1 could have been fixed at anytime by our government but they chose to prioritise money. Had they fixed it then it would have impacted on 3 which would have then made more of an impact in terms of perceived importance but also the non money factors which be seen as more imprtant than they are as £££ always seems to dictate these things. 2 is where the problem lies now as we will be trying to negotiate a deal on fishing rights where we want to take business away from people who we want to then buy the produce from that business. Good luck with that Tories.


Aye, I don’t envy them the problem they’ve walked themselves into to be sure.
Now you mention it I do recall a R4 feature program which went into the species of commercially relevant fish in the North Sea in particular, and flagged up that most of them are only really demanded by consumers in Denmark and Germany to an extent capable of supporting a viable industry.