Brexit and the Consequences

[sminicooper]

How can an administration think of spending 500 million of the taxpayers' money (don't worry, it will be much, much more) on Buckingham palace, if it is not meant to be a national memorial, open to the public? Not living accomodation for all those, so-called elite, people?

That's peanuts compared to the £5 billion our loyal and trusty servants want to spend on refurbishing Parliament. I still reckon Guy Fawkes had the right solution.

I do prophesy this. Until the nation puts its NHS, public transport, education above defence spending--as has been done in Europe--it will always have a bitter class system.

In 1939, I think a lot of people who were "victims" of the class system and didn't even have an NHS, did wish that the previous government had spent a lot more on defence. You don't need any insurance policies until the event happens – and if you haven't paid the premiums you're in trouble.

 

[Atilla]

I do not believe that any government knows how to do that. Therein is the real problem. Governments think ahead until the next election.

I do prophesy this. Until the nation puts its NHS, public transport, education above defence spending--as has been done in Europe--it will always have a bitter class system.

How can an administration think of spending 500 million of the taxpayers' money (don't worry, it will be much, much more) on Buckingham palace, if it is not meant to be a national memorial, open to the public? Not living accomodation for all those, so-called elite, people?

Precisely the point most people choose to ignore in all their hype. Same and to a much greater extent applies to US.

Health Care Spending - Germany/France/Holland and Italy exceed UK

In contrast UK spending on defense is higher than everyone elses in the EU.


I would reiterate, R&D spending and investment on mass produced high turnover consumer items and white goods would have a far significant returns for the UK then weapons.

Look at what's come of Yemen. Saudies supplied by UK and US, are killing and starving innocent people who have nothing to do with anything other than they are Shias, supposedly allied with Iran.

Saudie's have collosal wealth squandered on amazingly stupid wealthy nobbs killing impoverished poor Yemenise supplied with UK weapons.


There are winners and losers that's for sure. Kill the old and needy. Make the rich richer. Follow the money.

 

[gotu]

That's an interesting hypothesis and I'm not saying it couldn't come true. But do you think that taxing the rich some more is going to be the answer? All the stuff I've seen seems to indicate that it would have a big psychological and publicity effect but do little in terms of redistribution of wealth. If we are to emulate living standards of the countries you mention (and apart from Germany they all have fairly small populations which lessens the problem in a high-tech sophisticated economy) it will surely require a reallocation of the national wealth-cake assets? My question is: how would you do this, what are the specific numbers? Or would it just be the usual governmental solution: borrow more?

I am no expert but here's my two cents.

With regards to taxation, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are considerably less than in all the countries I mentioned, for Instance Austrian tax revenues are 44% of GDP vs 34% in the UK.

Regarding spending, defense budgets are the main thing I'd point out. These will be greatly reduced for EU members if they go ahead with the plan of a United armforce,

For what it's worth, I am not in principle opposed to the decentralization of power, I favor whichever political configuration that results in a greater degree of wellbeing for a majority of the population. To me, the facts suggest that the EU is more committed to this endevour than the folks that are currently pulling the strings in Briain.

I just don't think this chap ever had the best in mind for the average Joe in Birmingham.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B0ktojE6WQA

 

[Pat494]

I see a return of the 19th century Imperialist thinking. Putin has come out publicly that this is how he sees world politics and has acted accordingly with moving into neighbouring countries. If he has a stranglehold on Trump through blackmail then that is the scene set for the next umpteen years.
19th century Imperialism is a very short sighted and dangerous view of the future and has already produced 2 World Wars. A 3rd and probably last WW is on the cards and should be avoided.

 

[Atilla]

Why I, a Brit, am standing to be president of the European parliament

He may have stood a chance but I reckon Brexit has nailed his coffin. :whistling

Next Tuesday, the European parliament is due to elect its president for the remainder of this term and the contest is more open than it has ever been. Every political group has its own candidate and I have been nominated for the Greens/EFA (European Free Alliance).

With the UK set to leave the EU, my nomination has been met with raised eyebrows at home and in Brussels. One MEP described it as “surreal” – others are more enthusiastic. However, neither I nor my group feel that my nationality should disbar me. Indeed, it may well be the last chance MEPs have to elect a Brit to the post.

As a remain campaigner, I have thought a great deal about the value of the EU and the need to communicate that to people across Europe. I believe I’m well-placed to understand what is happening in the UK, as well as the rest of the EU. I am proud to represent the UK and passionate about the EU, so I know that the UK’s exit must be, as far as possible, a win-win situation for Britain and our European neighbours. But the parliament’s president is not in charge of the negotiations – although MEPs have a vote at the end of the process, as I hope MPs will.

Guy Verhofstadt to run for president of European parliament
Read more
There are many other issues facing the EU within a shifting political landscape, and the European parliament must be a global standard-bearer for human rights and democracy; solidarity and environmental progress. I want to help the EU to rediscover its place and purpose in the face of major challenges.

Principally, the EU must battle to maintain its position as a strong advocate of universal human rights, which are coming under continued threat internally and externally. The parliament, especially, must strengthen its commitment to promoting and defending democracy worldwide. I will fight to ensure the EU is working to safeguard people’s everyday needs, be it job security or the ability to provide a future for themselves and their families.

The EU must work for ordinary citizens – it cannot be seen as an ally of unscrupulous bankers and big business. We must also increase our willingness to show solidarity with those people elsewhere in the world who are in need, including refugees. The EU has been a leader on climate change, but it needs to pursue its goal of delivering a sustainable future for Europe and its citizens with a renewed vigour, if it is to maintain that role. The parliament must exploit its powerful role within the EU to ensure that happens.

The European parliament at a meeting in Strasbourg
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
The European parliament at a meeting in Strasbourg: ‘I will fight to ensure the EU is working to safeguard people’s everyday needs.’ Photograph: Vincent Kessler/Reuters
To fulfil our role as the directly elected representatives, we have to ensure our own house is in order and that we are an “open” institution. The parliament needs to be more transparent and, as president, I will ensure recent rule changes on opening up the law-making process, dealing with lobbyists and any conflicts of interest for MEPs are put into effect. I will also push for the creation of a strong ethics committee. With me at its helm, the parliament will be more independent and do a better job of holding the European commission to account.

I also want to see it become more environmentally conscious: we can cut our use of plastic, promote energy efficiency and reduce our carbon footprint still further – a single seat for the parliament would help do this, although that’s not in our hands. Under my presidency, the parliament would be even more inclusive of civil society and we need to continue and develop the diversity programme that we have.

Electing a female president would certainly help the gender balance at the top level. I will also push for the parliament to take greater social responsibility, safeguarding the rights and wellbeing of workers, not least by improving the working conditions of those on precarious contracts.

I’m convinced that the parliament needs a president who isn’t one of the usual suspects; a stereotypical Brussels insider. I have been an MEP for a long time, and as a member of a smaller political group am often critical of EU policies and a passionate advocate for those who do not have the benefit of living in the world’s richest region.

I am a firm believer in the need for international cooperation to tackle many of the problems the world currently faces. We are stronger as a parliament when we promote the values of democracy, universal human rights and solidarity on a sustainable planet. It’s on that basis that I put forward my candidature for the post.

 

[dbphoenix]

That's an interesting hypothesis and I'm not saying it couldn't come true. But do you think that taxing the rich some more is going to be the answer? All the stuff I've seen seems to indicate that it would have a big psychological and publicity effect but do little in terms of redistribution of wealth. If we are to emulate living standards of the countries you mention (and apart from Germany they all have fairly small populations which lessens the problem in a high-tech sophisticated economy) it will surely require a reallocation of the national wealth-cake assets? My question is: how would you do this, what are the specific numbers? Or would it just be the usual governmental solution: borrow more?

If I may interject, it's not so much a matter of redistribution of wealth but of fairness, which is why discussions of inequity will more likely be of benefit than discussions of inequality.

The wealthy have had it their way since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. They have at the least suppressed wages and dismissed workers' rights, fought regulations, and sought every opportunity to reduce or eliminate taxes. This has resulted not only in substantial inequality but extreme inequity, the result of which is to gut the middle class (most of the poor don't make enough to pay taxes, except for those that are included in the cost of goods and services) and funnel more and more of the wealth which the working class generates to the wealthy. And as revenues decrease, governments must borrow in order to provide even basic services. Debts must therefore rise even if "austerity measures" are implemented. (It's not unlike dieting: one can reduce one's food intake only so much before one sickens and dies.) This lasts until those who are expected to live with austerity observe the wealthy not being affected by it at all say "enough" and rebel in either small or very large ways.

There are a number of ways of ameliorating the problem, e.g., tying executive officers' wages to workers' wages by means of a ratio, i.e., an executive may not make more than N times the average worker's wage (this was the case not too many decades ago but may seem like a new idea to many). Yes, there are lots of details to work out in terms of what constitutes "compensation" and what sort of benefits are provided, but to receive thousands of dollars (or more) per hour is indefensible.

This isn't the thread for this sort of discussion, but it is a discussion that will go on, particularly when even the rabid capitalists begin to understand that a capitalist society cannot survive if the populace has no money to buy. The alternative -- one which we appear to be working toward -- is a feudal society, one in which the ruling class provides "defense" and the working class supplies goods and services. The poor assume the role they've always assumed.

 

[Atilla]

If I may interject, it's not so much a matter of redistribution of wealth but of fairness, which is why discussions of inequity will more likely be of benefit than discussions of inequality.

The wealthy have had it their way since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. They have at the least suppressed wages and dismissed workers' rights, fought regulations, and sought every opportunity to reduce or eliminate taxes. This has resulted not only in substantial inequality but extreme inequity, the result of which is to gut the middle class (most of the poor don't make enough to pay taxes, except for those that are included in the cost of goods and services) and funnel more and more of the wealth which the working class generates to the wealthy. And as revenues decrease, governments must borrow in order to provide even basic services. Debts must therefore rise even if "austerity measures" are implemented. (It's not unlike dieting: one can reduce one's food intake only so much before one sickens and dies.) This lasts until those who are expected to live with austerity observe the wealthy not being affected by it at all say "enough" and rebel in either small or very large ways.

There are a number of ways of ameliorating the problem, e.g., tying executive officers' wages to workers' wages by means of a ratio, i.e., an executive may not make more than N times the average worker's wage (this was the case not too many decades ago but may seem like a new idea to many). Yes, there are lots of details to work out in terms of what constitutes "compensation" and what sort of benefits are provided, but to receive thousands of dollars (or more) per hour is indefensible.

This isn't the thread for this sort of discussion, but it is a discussion that will go on, particularly when even the rabid capitalists begin to understand that a capitalist society cannot survive if the populace has no money to buy. The alternative -- one which we appear to be working toward -- is a feudal society, one in which the ruling class provides "defense" and the working class supplies goods and services. The poor assume the role they've always assumed.

This is 100% spot on, hammer on the nail observation and accurate assessment Db.

However, sadly so, many capitalist are very much in denial.

Point you make also explains why the mixed capitalism and command economies are the most successful ones as opposed to pure fascist or communist administrations.

 

[dbphoenix]

This is 100% spot on, hammer on the nail observation and accurate assessment Db.

However, sadly so, many capitalist are very much in denial.

Point you make also explains why the mixed capitalism and command economies are the most successful ones as opposed to pure fascist or communist administrations.

They were also in denial in 1789, and we know how that played out. A large part of the problem is that all but a few of the wealthy have no idea what day-to-day living is like for the poor or even the working class, which is why the claims made by the wealthy that they are sympathetic to the plight of these groups are ludicrous. French royalty and aristocrats made the mistake of believing that the lower classes were an unending source of financial support. And I've been thinking about this ever since the whole austerity thing got started.

But then one could also draw parallels with regard to military spending. Only a handful of our Senators have ever seen active duty, and not many more of our Representatives -- less than two dozen -- have seen active duty, which helps to explain not only their irresponsibility toward the magnitude of defense spending but the cavalier attitude toward veterans and veteran affairs, not the least of which include benefits, particularly healthcare.

 

[sminicooper]

dbphoenix - some very interesting and worthwhile input from you and others. It does make one wonder where this will all end up because my gut feeling is that the capitalists will never give in – and that can only lead to big trouble. History has always shown that forcing people into corners with their backs to the wall and starving them of resources eventually leads to seismic changes. I don't think we're anywhere quite near that state yet - but where is the politician(s) with the foresight, charisma and ability to anticipate and deal with this? I don't see any hopefuls at the moment and I can't see that the EU has had much to offer either.

 

[Atilla]

They were also in denial in 1789, and we know how that played out. A large part of the problem is that all but a few of the wealthy have no idea what day-to-day living is like for the poor or even the working class, which is why the claims made by the wealthy that they are sympathetic to the plight of these groups are ludicrous. French royalty and aristocrats made the mistake of believing that the lower classes were an unending source of financial support. And I've been thinking about this ever since the whole austerity thing got started.

But then one could also draw parallels with regard to military spending. Only a handful of our Senators have ever seen active duty, and not many more of our Representatives -- less than two dozen -- have seen active duty, which helps to explain not only their irresponsibility toward the magnitude of defense spending but the cavalier attitude toward veterans and veteran affairs, not the least of which include benefits, particularly healthcare.

Sky News was talking about Kerry's vietnam service and how he won a medal for bravery.

It added upon returning to USA he went to becoming an anti-war campaigner.

Without seeing and actual experience it's all wishy washy hype. Spending money on weapons has an opportunity cost of not spending that same money somewhere else.

I guess it's about what society and nations value most but sadly national defense spending don't seem to register much in elections.

Trump, has question the cost of Lockheed F35 production which is a good sign imo. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lockheed-ceo-idUSKBN14X25E

 

[dbphoenix]

dbphoenix - some very interesting and worthwhile input from you and others. It does make one wonder where this will all end up because my gut feeling is that the capitalists will never give in – and that can only lead to big trouble. History has always shown that forcing people into corners with their backs to the wall and starving them of resources eventually leads to seismic changes. I don't think we're anywhere quite near that state yet - but where is the politician(s) with the foresight, charisma and ability to anticipate and deal with this? I don't see any hopefuls at the moment and I can't see that the EU has had much to offer either.

I doubt that the resolution will be pretty. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a Stephen King novel. We've been through this before, of course, and we've always made it through the other side. Unfortunately, memories are short, and we go through it all again. The difference now is that we're running out of time. What with global warming, over-population, food and water shortages and so forth added to the screwing of the middle class, it is not likely that we will find solutions before TSHTF.

Fact is that there's little to nothing that one can do about any of this. A more productive alternative is to concern oneself with one's home, one's neighborhood, one's community and locality and state. Influence what one can influence, which may lead to more measurable results than just complaining about how awful everything is. Even if one ends up living in a progressive pocket that's surrounded by assorted anal-retentives, it's not a bad way of negotiating one's way through life.

 

[Atilla]

Absolutely!

Brexit is turning out positive from a portfolio and corporate tax drop pov if it happens and negative in terms of holiday's abroad with respect purchasing power of the pound.

Other than that, not much impact at the mo.


However, do I think it's good for the UK or the masses, no categorically not. Remains to be seen. England has had its hey day and trying to stop the rot more likely to add fuel to the fire imho.


Time will tell all... :whistling

 

[gotu]

Db, do you think your assessment also applies to the wealthier European Nations? . I suspect it would fall on deaf ears in nations such as Denmark or Holland.

It seems like these nations have succeeded in creating a leveled playing field on which regardless of their circumstances, individuals are empowered to pursue their goals, whether these are intellectual, financially or of another kind.

You mention fairness, which is a term subject to interpretation but if equality of opportunity is at all relevant they seem to have nailed it.

 

[sminicooper]

Sky News was talking about Kerry's vietnam service and how he won a medal for bravery.

It added upon returning to USA he went to becoming an anti-war campaigner.

Without seeing and actual experience it's all wishy washy hype. Spending money on weapons has an opportunity cost of not spending that same money somewhere else.

I guess it's about what society and nations value most but sadly national defense spending don't seem to register much in elections.

Trump, has question the cost of Lockheed F35 production which is a good sign imo. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lockheed-ceo-idUSKBN14X25E

It's one of the major shortcomings of modern politicians that very few of them have seen military service at all, let alone active service. IMHO Our participation in the F35 program is shaping up to be a financial disaster as well as a questionable defence asset in terms of bang for buck. But there again, lots of military projects are job creation schemes and export earners which governments and unions like. The military don't always get the best product for their needs but being serfs and grateful for what they can get, they keep their heads down (usually). The European joint project (UK-Germany-Italy) for the Tornado aircraft produced a good but not outstandingly brilliant product (did a bit of everything but nothing perfectly). But it also created loads of jobs over a long period with good export income and kept the military reasonably happy. Politicians happy also. End of problem.

I always have doubts over anti-war campaigners - nice thoughts but no answers.

 

[dbphoenix]

Db, do you think your assessment also applies to the wealthier European Nations? . I suspect it would fall on deaf ears in nations such as Denmark or Holland.

It seems like these nations have succeeded in creating a leveled playing field on which regardless of their circumstances, individuals are empowered to pursue their goals, whether these are intellectual, financially or of another kind.

You mention fairness, which is a term subject to interpretation but if equality of opportunity is at all relevant they seem to have nailed it.

No idea about the wealthier nations. I'm not a student of this. I just try to be logical about it knowing what I know about how societies are constructed in the first place. But on the face of it, it does appear that Scandinavia is more "evolved" than everyone else (though one could also argue a case for aboriginal peoples). And their views on Universal Basic Income should not be unexpected.

As for fairness, that depends in large part on whether or not an individual who has accumulated wealth owes anything at all to the society that provided or created the conditions that enable that individual to find success.

 

[dbphoenix]

I always have doubts over anti-war campaigners - nice thoughts but no answers.

One wonders whether there would be any difference if we were to go back to the days before gunpowder and machines, when combat was face to face. God knows there were plenty of wars anyway, but at least they were more confined to the actual combatants, and civilians, particularly women and children, were largely spared.

There is a school of thought that we will have to go through another world war before we reach the point where we are willing to put forth the effort to evolve. But then there's also a school of thought that this is as good as it gets, that we've evolved as much as we're going to, and that the end result is nihilism. The latter may in fact be true, but what a waste.

 

[Atilla]

It's one of the major shortcomings of modern politicians that very few of them have seen military service at all, let alone active service. IMHO Our participation in the F35 program is shaping up to be a financial disaster as well as a questionable defence asset in terms of bang for buck. But there again, lots of military projects are job creation schemes and export earners which governments and unions like. The military don't always get the best product for their needs but being serfs and grateful for what they can get, they keep their heads down (usually). The European joint project (UK-Germany-Italy) for the Tornado aircraft produced a good but not outstandingly brilliant product (did a bit of everything but nothing perfectly). But it also created loads of jobs over a long period with good export income and kept the military reasonably happy. Politicians happy also. End of problem.

I always have doubts over anti-war campaigners - nice thoughts but no answers.

Yes but you ignore the waste and collosal cost of input.

Everybody wants security around the their home but is it worth buying a detached house and building a moat around it?

Which European country has been attacked or threatened with invasion in the last 70 years?

You should always ask if one is getting value for money!


You seem to be the missing the point about the same R&D investment being denied to consumer manufacturing.


How do you think spending the same level of investment on BL, Massey Fergusson, ship building, Raleigh or Ferranti or Marconi might have played out? So many World beating brand leading companies.

We simply have Rolls Royce engines and BAE Systems.


If we did have a little more of a manufacturing industry fall in pound might prove to be a boon but right now the only boon is if foreigners come to UK to spend their money as we are pretty useless at making anything worth exporting in comparison to our neighbours.

 

[CurrentBill]

Big day on Tuesday. Hopefully, Teresa May will announce what a Brexit UK will look like

 

[Splitlink]

dbphoenix - some very interesting and worthwhile input from you and others. It does make one wonder where this will all end up because my gut feeling is that the capitalists will never give in – and that can only lead to big trouble. History has always shown that forcing people into corners with their backs to the wall and starving them of resources eventually leads to seismic changes. I don't think we're anywhere quite near that state yet - but where is the politician(s) with the foresight, charisma and ability to anticipate and deal with this? I don't see any hopefuls at the moment and I can't see that the EU has had much to offer either.

Well, the West does have a voting system that could do that but, in the UK, at least, it has always been a pendulum system which has led to left and right excesses between two main parties. It needs a centralist party and I don't think that UKIP is the answer.. Spain has got fed up with the two party system, with the emergence of one leftist group--Podemos-- and Ciudadanos, a kind of Liberal group, I think, that is between our Labour and Conservative parties. But we have a deeper problem, which is the restlessness of some autonomous regions ie. Cataluña and the Basque Region.

All complicated stuff, the outcome of which has not been resolved.

 

[Atilla]

Big day on Tuesday. Hopefully, Teresa May will announce what a Brexit UK will look like

We know that already. It will look Red White and Blue.

I'm more interested in the contents of the how, when, what, why, where.

Looks can be deceiving