BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well, we could have included it in the deal, but seems like we didn't push it.Stevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
Of course, the EU would drag their heels? Why wouldn't they? We are no longer part of the club.0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
Why wouldn't they? UK decided to leave the EU so they could gain some advantage... I assume the EU is free to play the same game, where it can... it's kinda how competition works, isn't it?0 -
That raises the intriguing possibility that Boris has not yet realised whathe has doneStevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
That raises the intriguing possibility that Boris has not yet realised whathe has doneStevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
Well, it took him about a year to realise his Covid ploy of over-promise and delay wasn't the best policy, so maybe by January 2022 he'll twig about Brexit.0 -
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.0 -
Different point. And my question was to Rickelbowloh said:
Well, we could have included it in the deal, but seems like we didn't push it.Stevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
Of course, the EU would drag their heels? Why wouldn't they? We are no longer part of the club."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Equivalence is a two way thing and the EU needs access to the worlds largest financial market.surrey_commuter said:
That raises the intriguing possibility that Boris has not yet realised whathe has doneStevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Are you suggesting that rather than a freewheeling Singapore on Thames model we should go for tighter regulation?Stevo_666 said:
Equivalence is a two way thing and the EU needs access to the worlds largest financial market.surrey_commuter said:
That raises the intriguing possibility that Boris has not yet realised whathe has doneStevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.0 -
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.0 -
FS tax receipt is roughly equal to the entire cost of education.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
So think of FS as paying for the entre nation's primary and secondary education and subsidising university education.
Not so bad now, is it?0 -
Of course it is. Can you not see their incentive to do so?Stevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
City of London is now a competitor, not a member of the union.0 -
Didn't they get that already as a gesture of our goodwill?Stevo_666 said:
Equivalence is a two way thing and the EU needs access to the worlds largest financial market.surrey_commuter said:
That raises the intriguing possibility that Boris has not yet realised whathe has doneStevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.0 -
But do they, and will that be London? they appear to be doing OK so far.Stevo_666 said:
Equivalence is a two way thing and the EU needs access to the worlds largest financial market.surrey_commuter said:
That raises the intriguing possibility that Boris has not yet realised whathe has doneStevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
That would be London saying it's "our ball and you can't play", while the EU is standing outside sports-direct with a sign up saying, "free balls".0 -
that is how you would explain it to me.rick_chasey said:
FS tax receipt is roughly equal to the entire cost of education.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
So think of FS as paying for the entre nation's primary and secondary education and subsidising university education.
Not so bad now, is it?
My question was how to you explain that to the mackems in the given example who we have to assume do not understand funding of govt or even where their free services come from?0 -
how about that would be like a casino refusing to let existing customers spend any more money with them and inviting them to go in the casino next door or the one oppositedarkhairedlord said:
But do they, and will that be London? they appear to be doing OK so far.Stevo_666 said:
Equivalence is a two way thing and the EU needs access to the worlds largest financial market.surrey_commuter said:
That raises the intriguing possibility that Boris has not yet realised whathe has doneStevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
That would be London saying it's "our ball and you can't play", while the EU is standing outside sports-direct with a sign up saying, "free balls".0 -
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.0 -
Right.morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
I find it so weird Brexiters talk about massive inequality when discussing the realtionship with the EU.
Stop voting in Tories who push policies that increase the wealth gap; most Western European nations have a much lower gap between rich and poor than the UK does.
Nout to do with Brexit.0 -
You could start by providing some evidence that trickle down economics has worked for a start. Oh that's right it has been going swimmingly if you are the top 1% since the 80s at least.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.0 -
You're good with that tho, right?john80 said:
You could start by providing some evidence that trickle down economics has worked for a start. Oh that's right it has been going swimmingly if you are the top 1% since the 80s at least.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Healthcare and the welfare state is the most obvious example.john80 said:
You could start by providing some evidence that trickle down economics has worked for a start. Oh that's right it has been going swimmingly if you are the top 1% since the 80s at least.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.0 -
Not good examples to use right now.verylonglegs said:
Healthcare and the welfare state is the most obvious example.john80 said:
You could start by providing some evidence that trickle down economics has worked for a start. Oh that's right it has been going swimmingly if you are the top 1% since the 80s at least.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
Throw in education just to destroy the point.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Oh I agree completely.rick_chasey said:
Right.morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
I find it so weird Brexiters talk about massive inequality when discussing the realtionship with the EU.
Stop voting in Tories who push policies that increase the wealth gap; most Western European nations have a much lower gap between rich and poor than the UK does.
Nout to do with Brexit.
Doesn’t mean people can’t be pursuaded otherwise.0 -
or you could mock up what Govt spending would look like with no taxes from FS and overall taxes down 7% Maybe shut some schools and redistribute the kids around those that are left, maybe slice 15% off pensions, welfare and housing benefit, maybe collect the bins less frequently?morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
if we did this experiment in mackemland everybody else could learn that we are all in the same boat and that those that those most dependent on the State have most to lose from "their" economy slowing down0 -
educationverylonglegs said:
Healthcare and the welfare state is the most obvious example.john80 said:
You could start by providing some evidence that trickle down economics has worked for a start. Oh that's right it has been going swimmingly if you are the top 1% since the 80s at least.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
pensions0 -
I’m not making their argument. I’m explaining it.surrey_commuter said:
or you could mock up what Govt spending would look like with no taxes from FS and overall taxes down 7% Maybe shut some schools and redistribute the kids around those that are left, maybe slice 15% off pensions, welfare and housing benefit, maybe collect the bins less frequently?morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
if we did this experiment in mackemland everybody else could learn that we are all in the same boat and that those that those most dependent on the State have most to lose from "their" economy slowing down
Unless the economy totally collapses, those at the very bottom will lose very little as they are already at the bottom and there is little left to lose.
The gaps, losses and costs will be borne elsewhere.
Your argument is sound but intangible to somebody disenfranchised.
However, trickledown economics are not delivering equity. This applies irrespective of Brexit and is a significant issue society needs to tackle.
Homelessness and foodbanks are real.0 -
they are so shellfishkingstongraham said:Mussels - interesting comments in the thread:
In the comments to this article (behind a paywall unfortunately) someone asks why the EU could not make an exception for EU-UK trade - the relevant EU rules are the ones applying to all "third countries". The reasons for not doing so sum up what Brexit is about.
If the EU were to make an exception, other third countries could ask for it too on the basis of the WTO principle of most-favoured-nation treatment. This would be different if the exception was part of the EU-UK TCA, because that is a free-trade agreement which derogates from MFN.
But I suspect that the reason for not having this exception in the TCA is that the UK did not want to sign up to the relevant EU SPS regulations - because that is evil EU law. All EU countries accept and apply those regulations, ergo free trade between them, including in molluscs. The UK no longer accepts them (even if in effect the UK regulations may be equivalent), ergo no free trade with the EU. That is really the UK's decision: to leave the single market and its regulations and to steer clear of any EU law. Sadly, it has these very unwelcome effects.
Sorry john80 it's another penny.my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny1 -
I agree with you about the ones who have fallen through the safety net but if all Govt spending was cut who do you think would suffer the most?morstar said:
I’m not making their argument. I’m explaining it.surrey_commuter said:
or you could mock up what Govt spending would look like with no taxes from FS and overall taxes down 7% Maybe shut some schools and redistribute the kids around those that are left, maybe slice 15% off pensions, welfare and housing benefit, maybe collect the bins less frequently?morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
if we did this experiment in mackemland everybody else could learn that we are all in the same boat and that those that those most dependent on the State have most to lose from "their" economy slowing down
Unless the economy totally collapses, those at the very bottom will lose very little as they are already at the bottom and there is little left to lose.
The gaps, losses and costs will be borne elsewhere.
Your argument is sound but intangible to somebody disenfranchised.
However, trickledown economics are not delivering equity. This applies irrespective of Brexit and is a significant issue society needs to tackle.
Homelessness and foodbanks are real.
The top 1% will have private education/healthcare and paying for additional security.
I am proposing an experiment in a small Brexit supporting area where you cut all Govt spending by 15% to let them and others see that “their” economy is “their” economy0 -
You might well see that nationwide within 3 budgets.surrey_commuter said:
I agree with you about the ones who have fallen through the safety net but if all Govt spending was cut who do you think would suffer the most?morstar said:
I’m not making their argument. I’m explaining it.surrey_commuter said:
or you could mock up what Govt spending would look like with no taxes from FS and overall taxes down 7% Maybe shut some schools and redistribute the kids around those that are left, maybe slice 15% off pensions, welfare and housing benefit, maybe collect the bins less frequently?morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
if we did this experiment in mackemland everybody else could learn that we are all in the same boat and that those that those most dependent on the State have most to lose from "their" economy slowing down
Unless the economy totally collapses, those at the very bottom will lose very little as they are already at the bottom and there is little left to lose.
The gaps, losses and costs will be borne elsewhere.
Your argument is sound but intangible to somebody disenfranchised.
However, trickledown economics are not delivering equity. This applies irrespective of Brexit and is a significant issue society needs to tackle.
Homelessness and foodbanks are real.
The top 1% will have private education/healthcare and paying for additional security.
I am proposing an experiment in a small Brexit supporting area where you cut all Govt spending by 15% to let them and others see that “their” economy is “their” economyThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
