What does the UK leaving the EU mean for us?

[ickihun]

I have been doing so. That's why I am unclear what you are talking about! There is nothing that I can see in the list of things that we need to be aware of that I wouldn't expect all businesses to be aware of. There's certainly nothing in there that I can point at that says "That's an EU regulation and if we didn't have the EU I wouldn't have to do it," except where it increases the level of worker oppression.

While small businesses are a huge part of our economy, allowing Carte Blanche to ignore rights, etc, is self defeating. Small businesses (even though it costs) should be expected to apply proper health and safety care, pay workers properly and give them fair working conditions.

Other than this, I'm not sure what the additional overheads of the EU are.

How long has it taken you so far?
Half way there?
Any refusals yet?
I'm not referring to on-line companies. I'm taking about a company which will employ more than 70 people in manufacturing!

 

[ickihun]

They're a Dutch company.
All the businesses profits go out of the country.
They sell food, the only reason they source locally in the UK is because it's cheaper to buy a mass produced UK product, and have it re-badged in their logo. It's not a high end product they sell.
The producers pay the bare minimum to the farmers.
We might improve things by buying there, but it's more likely the Dutch owners will take a larger share due to the pound to euro exchange rate, the cheese manufacturers will be a bit happier, and the farmers will get a few pennies more for their milk.

The profit should be for our farmers not taken abroad. Maybe?

 

[zand]

Cameron will go down in history for possible causing the next war. It is very serious. The north-east intake for the services used to be high due to high unemployment. A lot of ex british trained professional service men and women. Their voices were included in the vote. They have physically fought for their country, for the queen. Are you surprised by their decision and the fight within them?
British trained men and woman. Very very effective in a fight. With less police nowand the army normally called in when firefighters paid off. Who will be called in to keep peace. Peace with themselves? Oppression causes war.
Thanks cameron for keeping peace in our country. What a mess!
Lack of direction once the British people spoke out.
This is what happens when the majority of people don't vote a persific leader in.
The way forward is no more hung parliments. Use individual votes not party winners in such circumstances. No more hung parliments might be the way forward.
This referendum has magnitude in providing an insight into taking our country forward. Peacefully and with effective democracy.
But will the British government be clever enough to see what many others see?
Fingers crossed.

So you voted leave because you wanted a civil war? What is it you think you see in your crystal ball?

 

[SunnyExpat]

I have been doing so. That's why I am unclear what you are talking about! There is nothing that I can see in the list of things that we need to be aware of that I wouldn't expect all businesses to be aware of. There's certainly nothing in there that I can point at that says "That's an EU regulation and if we didn't have the EU I wouldn't have to do it," except where it increases the level of worker oppression.

While small businesses are a huge part of our economy, allowing Carte Blanche to ignore rights, etc, is self defeating. Small businesses (even though it costs) should be expected to apply proper health and safety care, pay workers properly and give them fair working conditions.

Other than this, I'm not sure what the additional overheads of the EU are.

A lot of EU 'overheads' have been things like pregnancy legislation, equal pay for women, paternity rights for fathers, minimum wage, zero contract hours and holiday pay.
All the human rights of the employee, but at a cost to the employer.
Without those, or if they are diluted back down again, I can see more business owners and shareholders making money.

 

[linnyb]

I agree, but I think the highly vocal section of the Leave campaign would make this a difficult course to follow. And the situation is likely to become very volatile as a result.

It would make a complete farce of the whole vote, of our Government & of Britain! In my mind it is not an option & I agree if it were to occur, this country would be at huge risk of volatility or even civil war.

 

[ickihun]

The remain voters on this thread have voted in line with the experts. Can I ask what qualifications in say economics, law,finance or politics etc are held by any of the leave posters on his thread? I am just wondering why they think they know better than the experts.

Because they live with the consequences of such expert decisions.
One thing some expects omit is free will and compliance. The human factor, not what a computer would do.

 

[ickihun]

A lot of EU 'overheads' have been things like pregnancy legislation, equal pay for women, paternity rights for fathers, minimum wage, zero contract hours and holiday pay.
All the human rights of the employee, but at a cost to the employer.
Without those, or if they are diluted back down again, I can see more business owners and shareholders making money.

And more unions, because of greed.

 

[SunnyExpat]

The profit should be for our farmers not taken abroad. Maybe?

I think that's more Robin Hood, than business though.
Euro shoppers could simply sell off the UK branches in the end, the exchange rate is unappetising now, for every 76p profit Euro shoppers took a euro home, now they have to make about 83p for the same euro. That's a lot to lose overnight.

 

[zand]

And more unions, because of greed.

Yep worker greed in the coal industry and car industry was what pushed us towards joining the common market in the first place.

 

[Brunneria]

Sorry @ickihun but your rhetoric is getting more and more incomprehensible. Less specific, more emotive, more incomprehensible. I get that you feel strongly about this but I cannot follow your dramatic leaps of what seems to be a premature Call to Arms.

 

[zand]

Because they live with the consequences of such expert decisions.
One thing some expects omit is free will and compliance. The human factor, not what a computer would do.

I think we all understand the sheep following one another principle into a dead end well enough, no need to be an expert to understand that one. I'm out now. Time to do what you suggested in the other thread look after my own family before I think of anyone else.

Jeez I'm speechless, I really am.

 

[SunnyExpat]

And more unions, because of greed.

I remember the unions, the miners, British Leyland, Rover, Ford, railway, truck drivers, nurses, gravediggers, dustbinmen, the power cuts, the candles at the ready. I could see you having another Winter of Discontent if all the impossible promises don't materialise.

 

[tim2000s]

This is what happens when the majority of people don't vote a persific leader in.
The way forward is no more hung parliments. Use individual votes not party winners in such circumstances. No more hung parliments might be the way forward.
This referendum has magnitude in providing an insight into taking our country forward. Peacefully and with effective democracy.
But will the British government be clever enough to see what many others see?
Fingers crossed.

Now then. There's an interesting question in itself. The British Public was asked if it wanted a different voting system and declined, in a referendum, five years ago. A fully, legally binding referendum too.

As it happens, none of the alternative parliamentary voting systems, normally allow you to vote a specific leader in, unless a party has more than 50% of the votes. The only place in recent memory where this has occurred is the Scottish Parliament, where the SNP received more than 50% of the total Scottish vote.

Based on the last UK General election, the split of parties in the house of commons, based on share of vote if proportional representation had been used, would be:

• Conservatives - 37%
• Labour - 30%
• UKIP - 13%
• Liberal Democrats - 8%
• SNP - 5%
• Green - 4%
• Others - 3%

There is no majority in that vote, and therefore no-one would have been able to vote a leader in. If you look at results of similar elections going back 50 years, you'll see that no party in British politics ever wins more than 50% of the vote. Any form of PR always results in coalition governments, which are no different to a hung parliament.

The only way to avoid coalition governments is with the first past the post system, but then you get a government that wasn't voted in by 50% of the voting population.

Neither model is ideal.

 

[tim2000s]

I'm not referring to on-line companies. I'm taking about a company which will employ more than 70 people in manufacturing!

I was looking into manufacturing. The cost of non-differentiated labour in the UK was far higher than the product could afford, so instead I opted for outsourcing to where the cost of production was a lot lower. That's the main reason that we don't have a large self-grown manufacturing sector in the UK.

The successive governments in this country over the past 40 years have voted to invest in UK services industry rather than manufacturing.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Now then. There's an interesting question in itself. The British Public was asked if it wanted a different voting system and declined, in a referendum, five years ago. A fully, legally binding referendum too.

As it happens, none of the alternative parliamentary voting systems, normally allow you to vote a specific leader in, unless a party has more than 50% of the votes. The only place in recent memory where this has occurred is the Scottish Parliament, where the SNP received more than 50% of the total Scottish vote.

Based on the last UK General election, the split of parties in the house of commons, based on share of vote if proportional representation had been used, would be:

• Conservatives - 37%
• Labour - 30%
• UKIP - 13%
• Liberal Democrats - 8%
• SNP - 5%
• Green - 4%
• Others - 3%

There is no majority in that vote, and therefore no-one would have been able to vote a leader in. If you look at results of similar elections going back 50 years, you'll see that no party in British politics ever wins more than 50% of the vote. Any form of PR always results in coalition governments, which are no different to a hung parliament.

The only way to avoid coalition governments is with the first past the post system, but then you get a government that wasn't voted in by 50% of the voting population.

Neither model is ideal.

It's interesting, but the party that seems to have done the least damage was the conservative/liberal coalition.
Then the public decided to punish the liberals for selling out to the conservative ideas they objected to, and voted in a majority conservative?
Without getting into the politics, the other issue we have is the extended leadership, unlike the American system that only allows any president two terms.
Both Thatcher, and Blair, were effective initially, but it was noticeable after an extended period, they became more megalomaniac, perhaps they had indeed served too long.

 

[zand]

The PR system that has been favoured by most ordinary people seems to have been the one where 2nd votes counted. This would have given the lib dems (as the 'middle' party) more power and they are the party who most wanted to remain so I'm not sure the general public would have been happy even then.

Maybe there's a reason the Aussies call us whinging poms huh?

 

[zand]

It's interesting, but the party that seems to have done the least damage was the conservative/liberal coalition.
Then the public decided to punish the liberals for selling out to the conservative ideas they objected to, and voted in a majority conservative?
Without getting into the politics, the other issue we have is the extended leadership, unlike the American system that only allows any president two terms.
Both Thatcher, and Blair, were effective initially, but it was noticeable after an extended period, they became more megalomaniac, perhaps they had indeed served too long.

Yes I agree, Thatcher and Blair only got stupid in their 3rd term.

 

[ickihun]

So you voted leave because you wanted a civil war? What is it you think you see in your crystal ball?

In EU the same as we have. Out - a chance to make things better, longterm.

 

[ickihun]

I think that's more Robin Hood, than business though.
Euro shoppers could simply sell off the UK branches in the end, the exchange rate is unappetising now, for every 76p profit Euro shoppers took a euro home, now they have to make about 83p for the same euro. That's a lot to lose overnight.

Maybe a British firm would like to diversify and buy at a good price?

 

[KevinPotts]

The remain voters on this thread have voted in line with the experts. Can I ask what qualifications in say economics, law,finance or politics etc are held by any of the leave posters on his thread? I am just wondering why they think they know better than the experts.

I was a remainer and I have a doctorate in Economics, an MBA, I have been the CEO of a number of public companies, private equity/VC start ups, I ha e run and terns tonal brand with over 10,000 staff.

Please believe me, this is not me tooting my horn, I just have perspective from hard fought experience


Sent from my iPad using DCUK Forum