Sentiment -Brexit

Discussion in 'General Business Forum' started by Flashh, Oct 11, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GoingOnline

    GoingOnline UKBF Contributor Free Member

    53 18
    To me, as an EU national, Brexit has moved from making me angry to just making me uncaring about what happens to the UK. My business has now diversified to take on more EU clients, so the drop in the GBP actually means I make more money and can charge less to some clients, making me more competitive.

    I have an escape plan ready for when the economy in the UK is not attractive anymore, and my (relatively) substantial taxes will come with me. Same goes for my partner. If anything, this has been a wakeup call to take on more consulting and remote work, instead of trusting the flourishing market in London to always have a job ready for me.

    I'm also not sure 100% why British business would hire me as a contractor if they could hire native British speakers (I charge market rates, my niche is in high demand). So I think the UK will have an issue with skills if/when educated EU nationals move shop. But that's just an educated guess.
     
    Posted: Oct 26, 2016 By: GoingOnline Member since: Jun 18, 2011
  2. DishonestDave

    DishonestDave UKBF Contributor Free Member

    78 26
    I agree. Ideally I'd like the world to only consist of voluntary transactions (as opposed to state force), but this is currently a pipe dream and I'm not going to act as if I was living in it. But if we all act only in the context of our current dislike of our environment (and the EU is pretty thoroughly despised even among remainers) then we are not going to better our environment. The EU deliberately and scurrilously put us into a situation where the only option they left us, if we wanted to change anything at all, was to place immense pressure on our established political parties, that are vastly disproportionately Europhille, to force them to give us a referendum and then go up against the media, much of big business and political parties to vote out of the EU in its entirety. The EU did this to us and themselves. Not 'ignorant' people in Sunderland who have been voting Labour for decades only to find the likes of never-employed, over-educated globalists like Ed Milliband parachuted into Doncaster and Tristram Hunt into Stoke. People who have no connection to these towns and who represent an almost complete inversion of the people who voted for them. These people opened the country up and shipped jobs overseas without bothering to upgrade education or anything else that would allow their voters to cope. They now have the temerity to say their voters are so stupid they did not know what they were voting for on the 23rd of June. "Oh. It was about poverty.", "It was about alienation.", "We need to start listening to the Labour base." They've had plenty of time to listen, including their evisceration in Scotland and Wales. People are rejecting the notion of 'representative Westminster', which took twenty years to address dissatisfaction with the EU and the unnacountable, immutable dictatorship that is the EU. We would not end up in situations like these if we adopted the only system that has worked every time - direct democracy. In this system, there is no option for the establishment to drag a country in unpopular directions for decades before it finally blows up. If Europe took this more voluntary approach, we would not be having this issue now. Again, the fault is with Brussels, not deplorable, low-information voters who are utterly despised by the people whose system required their support. So please place your displeasure and justification for anxiety not with us but with Monet, Junker, Blair et. al.

    As for sentiment. It's swings and roundabouts. I guess fortune favours the bold. Since Brexit I have ascended to the top 0.1% for my age bracket; and I couldn't really care less if I loose it all. I'm more interested in the long-term vitals of the country, which I think will be best served with not just devolution from Brussels, but devolution from Westminster; the encouragement of people to shape and keep in-check their lives and regions; and the investigation of methods of raising up those who the current system bounds to failure - those who live in areas that have elected Labour for decades and fallen further and further behind as a result.

    If you give me another button to press that says 'Eject the Establishment', I will press it. I have red blood coursing through my veins and fortitude in the face of adversity. Give me not a life of safety and acceptance, but one of danger and opportunity. You don't achieve anything by languishing in a puddle.

    - Dishonest Dave: Keep an eye out for my auto-biog

    Keep pressing:

     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
    Posted: Oct 26, 2016 By: DishonestDave Member since: Jun 24, 2016
  3. Scott-Copywriter

    Scott-Copywriter UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    9,731 2,674
    I'm well aware that a lot of voters did this just to stick two fingers up at "the establishment". And also that many voters in Labour heartlands felt a sense of accomplishment by doing the polar opposite to what Westminster wanted.

    But this is what I don't get about these ideas of principle and protest. Okay, we've voted to leave. The poorest voted to leave. The people in areas with far more EU investment than the UK Government has ever provided also voted to leave.

    Now what?

    The EU isn't going anywhere, and we've cut our noses off to spite our face with impending economic damage, job losses and higher living costs.

    Sure, we'll leave the EU, but we've voted in favour of 97% of EU laws anyway since 2000.

    And those hundreds of millions for the NHS have already been shot down - even by Farage himself.

    Nothing will change in the fight for whatever is being fought against, and when the economy slumps, those on the lowest incomes will be hit first and hit hardest to shield the UK's commercial interests.

    I commend your willingness to sacrifice everything for the good of the country, but there are many people out there in very difficult situations where they simply can't afford to. The determination to fight for some supposedly bright post-EU future will soon evaporate for many people when they default on bills, lose their jobs, can't afford fuel to drive to work and struggle to feed their family (even more so than many do now).

    I'm all for taking action which will provide meaningful opportunities for change, but this was not one of them. If anything, this financial hole we're falling into is just going to harden the stance of the austerity-driven government even more.

    The same goes for Donald Trump. Voting for him sticks two fingers up at the establishment. But for what? If he comes in and destroys the economy, the public will be clamouring for a polished politician who can restore any sense of normality.

    I personally disagree with this notion of "elite governments" being evil, controlling forces. The fact is, it's extremely difficult to have 7 billion people living side-by-side in peace on this planet. With so many different views, so many different opinions, and so many interests all vying for a piece of the pie, we should frankly pat ourselves on the back just for getting this far.

    There's just no solution to the world's problems. There really isn't. People have different opinions, people wage war for political ideologies, resources are finite, profit incenvitises progression and growth provides jobs. This doesn't change unless we transform human consciousness as we know it.
     
    Posted: Oct 26, 2016 By: Scott-Copywriter Member since: May 10, 2006
  4. KM-Tiger

    KM-Tiger UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    9,852 2,619
    Absolutely agree!
     
    Posted: Oct 26, 2016 By: KM-Tiger Member since: Aug 10, 2003
  5. DishonestDave

    DishonestDave UKBF Contributor Free Member

    78 26
    With so many different views and opinions, the answer is not barring all other views and opinions, except those of the European Commission (not that you would likely agree). The answer is a shift in which, like people adopted the notion of not killing people in the cross-over from barbarism, people adopt the idea that you shouldn't force any agenda you want in any area of life over other people, because that's what you think, i.e. democracy. It seems that humans as a species are not ready for this yet. But you can at least water down the democratic system (direct democracy) so that people can at least carve out a region of a country that is more suited to various leanings. Dictatorship has been tried everywhere and almost always fails. Democracy has mostly failed. But direct democracy has only ever flourished: Switzerland and Lichtenstein. In this system, a runaway elite taking a region/country in an unpopular direction for decades is not possible, especially when you have safety vales like a vote on ejecting the federal government every four years.

    I'd still reject a EU direct democracy model over a UK one for a number of reasons, but one of the main ones is that I don't want people in Sweden, Belgium, Romania... butting into the running of my life in ways that may be universally unpopular in the UK. Its this overarching clawing that has lead to the death of CETA. Small units have been show to be much more efficient, economically productive and stable. When tiny municipalities in Lichtenstein are treated so much like adults that they can ceded by referendum, the intense issues that are now arising in Europe will not occur. Ironically, the secession route is practically the only democratic route The Commission has provided, to their detriment.

    HSH Prince Hans-Adam II of Lichtenstein on 21st century methods of government:



    The EU has taken the whole of the European economy hostage and is using the economic uncertainty of leaving to force down unpopular, unchallenged agendas. They've caused considerable amounts of economic damage in doing so and are now using that damage to increase their power. It is a jump in the dark, but so is continuing the way forward with the EU.
     
    Posted: Oct 26, 2016 By: DishonestDave Member since: Jun 24, 2016
  6. Scott-Copywriter

    Scott-Copywriter UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    9,731 2,674
    There are flaws in every system.

    Two particular downfalls of direct democracy are:

    1). Sometimes decisions have to be made which the public won't like.

    2). There are varying degrees of knowledge about certain subjects and the risk of misinformation (as we did see with the EU referendum on both sides).

    Switzerland is also fortunate as it's a small country which benefits from lucrative industries many other countries don't have, such as their secretive banking sector. It's just a lot easier to keep everyone happy and make the "morally" right decisions when you can afford it. They even subsidise around 70% of their agricultural industry, for example.

    And, despite all this, they're still heavily intertwined within the EU and allow passport-free free movement. They also had the immigration quota referendum in 2014 which is still up in the air: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_February_2014

    It depends how much importance you place on cooperation and compromise when it comes to our future.

    Being concerned about EU states having an impact on our affairs is like the dislike of London having an impact on those in the North East of the UK. But where does it end? Do we keep chopping up countries into smaller and smaller areas as people isolate themselves? Do we revert back to tribes?

    It's staunch nationalism, is it not?

    Everyone who feels the same way and has the same opinion gets their own plot of land with like-minded others.

    How small do these self-governing regions go? And what happens if there's a dispute? After all, we still need to share the planet, and we still must compete with others economically.

    I actually agree that the EU should be more "loose", but the whole reason it was founded in the first place is because Europe wanted to put an end to thousands of years of European wars and conflict where everyone isn't just in it for themselves.

    Many don't like the idea of globalisation, but perhaps it's the only way to go to survive. Humans must be dependent on others, otherwise we can't be trusted to look at the bigger picture.

    The East vs the West has been forming for centuries. We either keep them separate and let the sparks fly inbetween, or we merge them together. At least when merged, there aren't two sides with their fingers hovering over nuclear buttons.

    I firmly believe that the globalisation we've seen so far has prevented many major conflicts and wars. Just look at China and the US. They differ hugely, but their economies are deeply intertwined. Mutually assured destruction isn't just physical anymore. There's an economic version too.
     
    Posted: Oct 26, 2016 By: Scott-Copywriter Member since: May 10, 2006
  7. DishonestDave

    DishonestDave UKBF Contributor Free Member

    78 26
    I agree, but politicians don't make them. I don't know if the people would make them either, but Switzerland and Lichtenstein at least show restraint beyond what their neighbors do. Ideally, I'd like areas where the government are prohibited from engaging in. Personally I'd like a government that only enforces voluntary agreements and provides apparatus for restitution and punishment for those using force beyond frivolity, but most people can't just be thrown into that.

    Yes. And MPs are not qualified to make the decisions they are making for the most part. David Cameron never had a job facing the market, but he was allegedly at the helm of a £750 billion / year monster. If you look at Labour MPs in particular, they've almost not had a job between them. They're academics, journalists, political aides, union workers... They are not qualified to make any economic decisions, let alone decisions about things they know nothing about. Then look at various secretary positions. The holders often have no experience in the sector. I don't want, for example, the likes of John McCain, voting on technology regulations while he's playing Solitaire on his iPad.

    It's not cooperation and compromise if I don't agree with it. It's force. That's just me personally, but when it's majorities being dragged along unwillingly for decades, it will likely explode eventually. If you want to subsume people into a new state, you need to provide value, which the EU did not do.

    I would agree, the a global society is inevitable, but the pace and manner at which it is being pursued is being rejected. That it's been done by stealth and by moving decision making into unaccountable organistation doesn't help the cause. Most of all, I don't want to be collapsed into totally inappropriate areas like Afghanistan.
     
    Posted: Oct 26, 2016 By: DishonestDave Member since: Jun 24, 2016
  8. DishonestDave

    DishonestDave UKBF Contributor Free Member

    78 26
    As for Switzerland, they've earned their quality of life and the direct democratic system has been part of it; like when there was a secession attempt, it was able to be smoothed over via direct democracy rather than Salmond and Sturgeon cramming though their narrow-band in our unrepresentative culterpuck. I think the best solution for the Scotland problem is treat the people of Scotland like the adults they are and let them specifically choose their devolved relationship from Westminster.

    And the largest party in Switzerland for seventeen years is a right-wing populist party most similar to UKIP. Good results:

    http://tinyurl.com/hb78we2

    I'd take this over the current order in this country that wants me to have practically zero control over my life, being paraded over by people who tell me I'm a low-information deplorable who didn't understand what the referendum was about.

    And the EU could oblige the Swiss people by exempting them from free movement, as per the referendum, but that would hobble their system, which they are forcing out via economic capture. The EU does not cooperate or compromise. You do what they tell you, or they put a gun to your head. Great 21st century model. The last I heard the Swiss said they will just scrap freedom of movement in 2019? if the EU won't negotiate.

    [​IMG]

    Give me liberty, or give me death.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2016
    Posted: Oct 27, 2016 By: DishonestDave Member since: Jun 24, 2016
  9. Scott-Copywriter

    Scott-Copywriter UKBF Legend Full Member - Verified Business

    9,731 2,674
    So, would you consider yourself a confederalist?

    That's usually what they do, and that's what Switzerland is officially called (the Swiss Confederation). More power to regions, with the main government taking a subordinate role.

    One good example of where this can go wrong is the American Civil War. The US Government tried to abolish slavery, and seven slave states attempted to secede from the US by forming the Confederate States of America. A bloody war then ensued.

    The problem is the reliance on regions to do the right thing. The sensible thing. It just takes one to go against the grain, or to do something bad which they believe is good, and then what?

    Then there are other issues, such as tax competition. Let's say one region drops its tax rate down to 5%, and it draws millions of people to the region whilst causing significant damage to the others. Who steps in? Do regions take matters into their own hands? Is there just a battle to the bottom?

    You have the political party system to blame for that. We are not given a free opportunity to vote for whoever we wish with any realistic chance of winning. There are only 2 parties capable of that, with the resources and membership figures to do so. They have committees which interview and select people to serve as parliamentary candidates.

    So we are basically given a choice of what the major parties put forward as candidates. You can vote for an independent or smaller party candidate, but more often than not, it's a vote of principle. Candidates of smaller parties just don't have the money, resources or press coverage to make any serious headway.

    And then you're faced with the situation which could have potentially erupted in the US. If Bernie Sanders run as an independent, he would have split the democratic vote and almost certainly gave Trump the presidency. This creates a dilemma. Do people vote for who they want, or do they use their vote to keep out who they really don't want?

    Anyway, more working class people should get into politics if they're so dissatisfied with our country. The problem is that politics within this demographic are demonised heavily.

    I grew up in the North East, where many people see politicians as evil, vindictive and dishonest money-grabbers. They also speak about it openly. Now why would any young person growing up in this area ever want to be a politician?

    Meanwhile, those in the middle/upper classes see politics as a noble career, and encourage young people to follow this path.

    Then you have this issue: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/could-you-afford-to-become-an-mp/

    And therein lies the main problem. In such a densely populated world, people just have radically different ideas of governance.

    The EU shows the pros and cons of federalism quite clearly. All pulling in the same direction, all working to benefit each other as a whole, and all using unanimous/majority voting to factor in the decisions of the members.

    But then you have CETA. 99% of EU members want it, 1% don't. As a result of unanimous voting requirements, it doesn't happen. Regardless of who's right or wrong, what do you do? What's fair? Should Wallonia be allowed to break away so the rest of the EU can continue down this path? Should it accept the will of the majority even if it doesn't agree? After all, that's what us remainers are expected to do in this EU referendum.
     
    Posted: Oct 27, 2016 By: Scott-Copywriter Member since: May 10, 2006
  10. DishonestDave

    DishonestDave UKBF Contributor Free Member

    78 26
    Forgive me for not responding to all your points and questions. I don't have a lot of time today. I don't give myself any idealogical descriptions. My ideal is for no or virtually no government, but I know that is not possible due to the economic viability and mentality of people. So, I work within the matrix that we find ourselves. In this matrix I am primarily interested in:

    - upgrading education, making it competitive and 21st century (currently stuck in the 19th century); for example in Hong Kong and Singapore the average IQ of school-leavers is about 110, while here it is 100. In HK and Singapore, roughly 50% of the young population are intellectually capable of undertaking skilled professions like law, programming, surgery etc., whereas only about 20% of young people in the UK are capable of undertaking such occupations.

    When you have such a society, you don't need so much government - total taxation in HK is a third of the UK and half in Singapore. High IQ people also make much better life decisions, like not having children out of wedlock, not getting divorced, not committing violent and property crime.

    - devolving power locally, direct democracy, abolishing political parties, abolishing the House of Lords, making MPs essentially redundant

    - limiting immigration to people who are likely to be net-lifetime contributions; why on earth would you want anything else unless you are importing a voting block or trying to erode sovereignty?

    - constitutional limits on government power

    - sound money, moving towards ending counterfeiting in the financial sector and thus removing the threat of debt implosions

    - some liberalisation of housing regulation to alleviate housing prices

    - gradually remove corporate tax on money that will be reinvested in the UK; increase capital gains on non-productive income

    The American Civil Ware probably would have broke out regardless of the system of governing regions. It was to do with sentiment, not boundaries.

    As for regions doing the bad thing, by your own admission, and the admission of practically all remain voters, our supranational government is doing the wrong things and no one really knows what to do about it. Smaller blocks are more accountable. In the last several years we've had a couple of local government people who got caught doing something and no pressure was even neccesary for them to resign. When its Bush, Blair and Clinton, they are able to ride out seemingly no end of doing the wrong thing, even when they leave office. If one block is doing the wrong thing, then at least all of the others might at least be doing the right thing. And what the wrong thing is would be subjective in many cases. This is one of the things I like about the system - at lest I can move somewhere that is 10% more to my liking, rather than there being no difference.

    I am somewhat happy for big government people like Corbyn to have their slice. I just want to be left alone from his encroachments beyond what already exist. A lot of people in Scotland think they can be more like Norway. I don't want any part of it, but would support them doing so if I am exempt. Then there is the added bonus of them having no affect on my sectioned-off buffer zone.

    If you want a central government, it needs to be operating off widely held sentiments for it to be efficient and viable long-term. If you are dragging 90% of the people along, they will drag their heels at best. There are enough things in this country that are common-threads to have a lot of central policy, but enough difference to also have considerable devolution.

    I think broadening the electoral process and more working class people in parliament are the only things we agree on. The later has been killed by Never Laboured.

    I see regional tax competition as a good situation. It hasn't created the situation you described in Switzerland or the US.

    Make that one.
     
    Posted: Oct 28, 2016 By: DishonestDave Member since: Jun 24, 2016
  11. Flashh

    Flashh UKBF Contributor Free Member

    47 5
    Thanks to everybody for taking the trouble to post on this (very popular) thread and impart your sentiments. Some interesting debates and a clear majority are more worried by this than optimistic (I belong firmly in this category, despite a natural optimism). That said, the thoughts of the 'get on with it' brigade are very helpful.

    I must say that everything feels a bit 'weird'. I am still selling (premium food imports) still getting new customers but I cannot rid myself of the thought that a car crash is ahead....
     
    Posted: Nov 5, 2016 By: Flashh Member since: Dec 9, 2015
  12. Gecko001

    Gecko001 UKBF Enthusiast Free Member

    2,841 448
    People have made the links between US presidency and Brexit. I voted to remain and am no fan of Trump always believing that he has little chance of winning - up until now. I saw the news reports this morning of Clinton's rally with the pop stars last night. It reminds me a little of the Kinnock vs Major election campaigns. It was widely believed that the images of the big party that Kinnock threw just a few days before election day was one of the reasons that Major won against all predictions. Those images were compared with image of Major out on the street on his soap box. Trump isn't exactly doing what Major did, but I think the comparison with the Major/Kinnock race can be made in at least one aspect.
     
    Posted: Nov 5, 2016 By: Gecko001 Member since: Apr 21, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.