6 ms·

Who could have guessed that having a company in EU helps doing business in the EU... it's like there's a deal in place that helps businesses in the EU move good

Who could have guessed that having a company in EU helps doing business in the EU... it's like there's a deal in place that helps businesses in the EU move goods inside the EU.

fenk85 6y ago
You are missing the point, Brexit was sold as a "Britania would rule the waves, Singapore on Thames selling into Europe, rah rah" to the public. However that's not what happened as it was never realistic or possible, and now the 46% of UK goods exports that go to EU27 are in a very tough spot, thousands of businesses and jobs at risk, direct and indirect. Not to say anything of services which are of course not included in tarrif free trade deal UK now has. anyways purpose of Brexit was not "sovereignity" or whatever other lies were told, the purpose was to distract from decades of mismanagement by political elites in what is a fundamentally undemoratic system (Monarchy with hereditary head of state, vs presidential republic, upper house made of lords vs elected senators, lower house composed of Etonian elites, no constitution, centralisation of power at expense of Scotland, Wales, N. England, well basically everywhere outside the M25)
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Brexit was sold to different people as different things. You're right for some people but you're missing a much bigger voter block: the lazy and jealous. A shit tonne of brits haven't done much with their lives. They've just sat and grumbled that their job doesn't pay enough (while refusing to work harder or change employer or get a qualification). At the same time, for the last 30 years anyone who worked hard, invested, got skills, started businesses etc has been rewarded. The first group are really upset they're being left out. That's why you get all this talk about mysterious "elites". The first group voted for brexit to fuck with people just trying to get on. They're actually very pleased that those companies are struggling and their workers are suffering. The first group would never have started a small business exporting to the EU. They'd have stayed in the pub moaning over stale lager. This is result (and many more to come) is exactly what many brexiteers wanted and voted for: a fuck you for trying hard.
  - agd 6y ago
    To suggest that inequality is due to people being lazy is not supported by the facts. Opportunity is not equally distributed and there’s a reason many people felt left behind.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I didn't say inequality is due to people being lazy. It's not. Nor did I say equality was equally distributed. It's not. I just said a significant number of people CHOOSE (chose) not to take whatever opportunities they were presented with. Now they're upset because the world where you sit in 1 job for 50 year, get a pay rise every year, don't have to worry about anything, and get a nice house and to retire early is long dead. Some of the most deprived places in the country voted to stay in (London) because they choose opportunity. Plenty of well off rural areas voted out because people their don't like others succeeding. That's the great irony here. The people with the least opportunity and the ones at the worst part of the inequality problem mostly want opportunity. It's the ones further up the curve that are standing on the hose. Those who insist they're middle class but are really just workers who inherited a bit of cash or got a free council house.
      - radicalbyte 6y ago
        The North of England has suffered from generational lack of investment. If you follow the UK elections, there was a big fall of the "red wall", which put the Tories in power. That "red wall" are all areas which have been totally abandoned by the UK Government for the last 30+ years. For these people, the "elites" are people in the South East: people in Greater London who have benefited from enormous investment - the investment which should have been spread out more fairly. Because these areas have seen a lack of investment, they are cheap to live in. They also see a lot of Polish/Romanian/Hungarian immigrants who are doing seasonal / tough work (because it's cheap). So if you're going to get **d anyway, why not take some of those smug **s down with you? * Even TheGuardian are a great example of this horrible LONDON focus.
        6y ago
- cyberpunk 6y ago
  Meh, the Monarchy has no power it’s just a ceremonial position, and as for the lords yes the process of becoming one is not great (it is no longer hereditary however) but it actually is a bit useful these days and many in the upper house are genuinely experts on some aspects of policy and do provide some valuable input. I don’t think you can really compare with the American system where you elect a de-facto king every 4 years...
  - dan-robertson 6y ago
    Yeah I really don’t understand the American comparison in this case. The monarch is unelected but basically powerless while in America the president wields the kinds of powers that the U.K. has removed from the monarch since the US was founded. And while the House of Lords suffers from a lot of issues (eg nominating party donors or stuffing the house,) they are far more constitutionally limited than the us senate which means we don’t get the kind of gridlock and inability to pass legislation that the US has.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      I don't think they're arguing against monarchy because of the ceremonial ruler. The problem seems to lie within the Prime Minister who essentially replaced the king. It's no longer hereditary, but the position seems to have very absolute powers and just a few checks/balances. That level of power is impossible to gather in European republics, they don't view the prime minister as a ruler, it's merely a manager of ministers who are each focused on managing one aspect of the state, also with very limited power, and each minister has a non-political counterpart who's actually in charge of running the ministry itself according to law.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    How is the US president a king? Without the legislature, they can’t get any laws passed, and not even appoint people to important positions in the government. Both of the last 2 presidents were severely handicapped once they lost their party’s control of the legislature 2 years after being elected.
- JeanMarcS 6y ago
  Let's not forget artists that are also hit roughtly by Brexit. A good text by Fish "How Brexit Has Destroyed UK Artists’ Ability To Tour In The EU" [0] [0] https://www.facebook.com/derek.dick/posts/10157827728953587 https://www.facebook.com/derek.dick/posts/10157827728953587
- matthewheath 6y ago
  > no constitution We don't have a codified constitution, but we still have one; it's just made up of various written laws and unwritten things like conventions. I agree that the system isn't particularly democratic though: the executive (Government) can pretty much do what it wants when it has a majority in the Commons and the relevant promises in its manifesto (to bypass the Salisbury Convention in the Lords).
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Monarchy is a red herring. You'll find monarchies between top adjusted HDI and other indicators (like democracy quality) indexes. Monarchy tends also to be cheaper than presidential offices, in countries with president/prime minister (UK may be an exception). edit: grammar
- tremon 6y ago
  anyways purpose of Brexit was not "sovereignity" or whatever other lies were told, the purpose was to distract from decades of mismanagement by political elites No, that's missing the point too. The purpose of Brexit was very much sovereignty for the political elites. The entire point of Brexit was that the policital elites were ceding too much power to Brussels and they explicitly campaigned to "take back control". The Monarchy doesn't enter into it, they'd ceded their political power to the elites centuries ago.

Who could have guessed that having a company in EU helps doing business in the EU... it's like there's a deal in place that helps businesses in the EU move goods inside the EU.

fenk85 6y ago

You are missing the point, Brexit was sold as a "Britania would rule the waves, Singapore on Thames selling into Europe, rah rah" to the public. However that's not what happened as it was never realistic or possible, and now the 46% of UK goods exports that go to EU27 are in a very tough spot, thousands of businesses and jobs at risk, direct and indirect. Not to say anything of services which are of course not included in tarrif free trade deal UK now has. anyways purpose of Brexit was not "sovereignity" or whatever other lies were told, the purpose was to distract from decades of mismanagement by political elites in what is a fundamentally undemoratic system (Monarchy with hereditary head of state, vs presidential republic, upper house made of lords vs elected senators, lower house composed of Etonian elites, no constitution, centralisation of power at expense of Scotland, Wales, N. England, well basically everywhere outside the M25)

LatteLazy 6y ago
Brexit was sold to different people as different things. You're right for some people but you're missing a much bigger voter block: the lazy and jealous. A shit tonne of brits haven't done much with their lives. They've just sat and grumbled that their job doesn't pay enough (while refusing to work harder or change employer or get a qualification). At the same time, for the last 30 years anyone who worked hard, invested, got skills, started businesses etc has been rewarded. The first group are really upset they're being left out. That's why you get all this talk about mysterious "elites". The first group voted for brexit to fuck with people just trying to get on. They're actually very pleased that those companies are struggling and their workers are suffering. The first group would never have started a small business exporting to the EU. They'd have stayed in the pub moaning over stale lager. This is result (and many more to come) is exactly what many brexiteers wanted and voted for: a fuck you for trying hard.
- agd 6y ago
  To suggest that inequality is due to people being lazy is not supported by the facts. Opportunity is not equally distributed and there’s a reason many people felt left behind.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I didn't say inequality is due to people being lazy. It's not. Nor did I say equality was equally distributed. It's not. I just said a significant number of people CHOOSE (chose) not to take whatever opportunities they were presented with. Now they're upset because the world where you sit in 1 job for 50 year, get a pay rise every year, don't have to worry about anything, and get a nice house and to retire early is long dead. Some of the most deprived places in the country voted to stay in (London) because they choose opportunity. Plenty of well off rural areas voted out because people their don't like others succeeding. That's the great irony here. The people with the least opportunity and the ones at the worst part of the inequality problem mostly want opportunity. It's the ones further up the curve that are standing on the hose. Those who insist they're middle class but are really just workers who inherited a bit of cash or got a free council house.
    - radicalbyte 6y ago
      The North of England has suffered from generational lack of investment. If you follow the UK elections, there was a big fall of the "red wall", which put the Tories in power. That "red wall" are all areas which have been totally abandoned by the UK Government for the last 30+ years. For these people, the "elites" are people in the South East: people in Greater London who have benefited from enormous investment - the investment which should have been spread out more fairly. Because these areas have seen a lack of investment, they are cheap to live in. They also see a lot of Polish/Romanian/Hungarian immigrants who are doing seasonal / tough work (because it's cheap). So if you're going to get **d anyway, why not take some of those smug **s down with you? * Even TheGuardian are a great example of this horrible LONDON focus.
      - 6y ago
cyberpunk 6y ago
Meh, the Monarchy has no power it’s just a ceremonial position, and as for the lords yes the process of becoming one is not great (it is no longer hereditary however) but it actually is a bit useful these days and many in the upper house are genuinely experts on some aspects of policy and do provide some valuable input. I don’t think you can really compare with the American system where you elect a de-facto king every 4 years...
- dan-robertson 6y ago
  Yeah I really don’t understand the American comparison in this case. The monarch is unelected but basically powerless while in America the president wields the kinds of powers that the U.K. has removed from the monarch since the US was founded. And while the House of Lords suffers from a lot of issues (eg nominating party donors or stuffing the house,) they are far more constitutionally limited than the us senate which means we don’t get the kind of gridlock and inability to pass legislation that the US has.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    I don't think they're arguing against monarchy because of the ceremonial ruler. The problem seems to lie within the Prime Minister who essentially replaced the king. It's no longer hereditary, but the position seems to have very absolute powers and just a few checks/balances. That level of power is impossible to gather in European republics, they don't view the prime minister as a ruler, it's merely a manager of ministers who are each focused on managing one aspect of the state, also with very limited power, and each minister has a non-political counterpart who's actually in charge of running the ministry itself according to law.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  How is the US president a king? Without the legislature, they can’t get any laws passed, and not even appoint people to important positions in the government. Both of the last 2 presidents were severely handicapped once they lost their party’s control of the legislature 2 years after being elected.
JeanMarcS 6y ago
Let's not forget artists that are also hit roughtly by Brexit. A good text by Fish "How Brexit Has Destroyed UK Artists’ Ability To Tour In The EU" [0] [0] https://www.facebook.com/derek.dick/posts/10157827728953587 https://www.facebook.com/derek.dick/posts/10157827728953587
matthewheath 6y ago
> no constitution We don't have a codified constitution, but we still have one; it's just made up of various written laws and unwritten things like conventions. I agree that the system isn't particularly democratic though: the executive (Government) can pretty much do what it wants when it has a majority in the Commons and the relevant promises in its manifesto (to bypass the Salisbury Convention in the Lords).
bassman9000 6y ago
Monarchy is a red herring. You'll find monarchies between top adjusted HDI and other indicators (like democracy quality) indexes. Monarchy tends also to be cheaper than presidential offices, in countries with president/prime minister (UK may be an exception). edit: grammar
tremon 6y ago
anyways purpose of Brexit was not "sovereignity" or whatever other lies were told, the purpose was to distract from decades of mismanagement by political elites No, that's missing the point too. The purpose of Brexit was very much sovereignty for the political elites. The entire point of Brexit was that the policital elites were ceding too much power to Brussels and they explicitly campaigned to "take back control". The Monarchy doesn't enter into it, they'd ceded their political power to the elites centuries ago.