7 ms·

It's unclear whether the 'they' you refer to are the British people, or the class of ruling individuals who know exactly what they're doing and are set to profi

It's unclear whether the 'they' you refer to are the British people, or the class of ruling individuals who know exactly what they're doing and are set to profit immensely. (I'm aware that all sounds quite America-like already)

CaptainZapp 6y ago
> or the class of ruling individuals who know exactly what they're doing and are set to profit immensely. I'm really not sure about that. I agree that may be the case with some of those ruling individuals. My impression is that Johnson doesn't believe in anything, except his personal interest and profit. Others in that cabinet, however, really appear to be true believers.
- cassianoleal 6y ago
  > Johnson doesn't believe in anything, except his personal interest and profit. > Others in that cabinet, however, really appear to be true believers. My impression is that they all have those same beliefs - their personal interest and profit.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Which is silly (silly on Bojo's part, I mean) to set the country on a path to economic decline and cultural irrelevance because why be a king of an impoverished country instead of being a citizen in an advanced economy? (Clarification: I'm exaggerating for rhetorical effect. The UK won't become impoverished or really stop being an advanced-economy, but it's still going to be far poorer (in a total GDP and PPP sense) than it would be had this whole Brexit business never happened.
    - WanderPanda 6y ago
      Why is everyone so sure about your last paragraph? You could say the same for the EU block and even have more historical evidence of supranations falling apart.
      - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        > have more historical evidence of supranations falling apart Debatable. But even if the EU was - or was not - a tightly integrated federated state, I'm far more concerned about the UK withdrawing itself from the world's largest free trade bloc. I see it heading towards either economic protectionism (bad in the long-term) or getting into a race-to-the-bottom (potentially even worse).
        gobsmacked 6y ago
        > either economic protectionism (bad in the long-term) or getting into a race-to-the-bottom (potentially even worse) That's a strange thing to say. Globalisation is usually criticized as a race to the bottom. The opposite of that is protectionism, which you say is bad. So which one are you in favour of?
        DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        Globalisation allows local economies to specialise and reduce economic waste (e.g. what if every country had its own car factories?) I appreciate that globalisation will lead to localised races-to-the-bottom in the near-term, but in the long-term everyone benefits. Protectionism (for the sake of securing jobs) feels good in the short-term but very few mainstream economists will advocate for it absent other concerns (e.g. safety standards, cultural imports, national security, and human-rights concerns). Take the UK for example: at the time of its accession to the EU it had a sizeable manufacturing and mining economy. Globalisation directly led to those factories and mines closing, but being in the EU meant the UK could specialise in emerging sectors and immediately export to the rest of the EU for free (e.g. service-sector, information economy, banking, finance, media, etc). Globalisation and economic-interdependence is also the main driver for world-peace. I’d rather be unemployed because someone in France does my job but cheaper than be fighting in a war against France for some sense of “national pride”. Globalisation needs a friendlier face, yes. And we need better ways of managing the local negative effects, like better unemployment income for plant closures - but I don’t believe the sentimental negatives in any way outweigh the long-term benefits.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  My impression with politics is that after years of doing it, politicians easily confuse ideas being popular and 'worth supporting'. A bit like a supercritical fluid, where transition between liquid and gas occurs spontaneously.
sverhagen 6y ago
I have no doubt you're right, but I'm just not familiar with the specific details. What are some real ways they stand to "profit immensely"?
- benwad 6y ago
  Lowering taxes, lowering regulatory and environmental standards, and undoing workers' rights legislation can all increase the wealth of those who are already wealthy. I'm not saying all of those things are in the pipeline, but they've all been proposed by pro-Brexit politicians (and this article is one example of lowering regulatory standards).
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Privatising the health system is the elephant in the room that's been talked about a lot.
    - callamdelaney 6y ago
      The Conservatives aren't stupid enough to privatize the NHS. It's a straw man argument - the NHS, much like the EU, is irrationally loved by the common voter and only Labour can get away with privatizing it, having perpetuated the complete myth that they are in some way its defenders while, according to them, the evil conservatives always have some corrupt plan to sack it off.
  - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
    Oh and second amendment style gun rights too
    - dash2 6y ago
      I find it very hard to believe that that would be a popular policy in the UK. Got evidence?
      - 6y ago
simonh 6y ago
For a start the people who actually rule - the MPs in parliament - are predominantly remainers. When it comes to business leaders, they're as divided as everyone else. A lot of businesses do extensive trade with the EU and stand to lose. The finance industry particularly risks losing a lot of business, although there are some sectors of it that might gain it's mostly through trading on short term volatility. They'll cash out before they're stuck in the same boat as everyone else. The basic premise of the "it's an establishment stitch up" argument is that Britain will be weaker and poorer, but the establishment will end up with a much, much bigger slice of the smaller pie such that they gain overall. It's not clear to me how that's supposed to work though. How is this pie-grab supposed to work as the pie itself shrinks? Some people might manage to pull it off, but the whole establishment class as a group? Anyway, this whole premise flies in the face of who we know voted overwhelmingly for Brexit - ordinary British voters, many of them up north and from working backgrounds - even as the actual political parties, majority of MPs and most business leaders were arguing against it. The evidence for an establishment stitch up rests on a few very specific data points, like the fact that Jacob Reese Mog and some of Nigel Farage's hedge fund friends have already and will continue to do quite well out of it. They're hardly "The Establishment" as a whole though. They're just some of the people I was talking about trading on volatility, and hardly representative of the financial sector as a whole that is getting screwed over by losing passporting.
- arethuza 6y ago
  "the MPs in parliament - are predominantly remainers." The Conservatives have a majority and are there any Remainers left in that party - I thought most of them had been purged before the last election?
  - robin_reala 6y ago
    Ken Clarke isn’t going anywhere.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      You know he's retired, right? Interesting guy, my opinion of him changed (for the better) when I found out he presented a regular Jazz show on the radio.

CaptainZapp 6y ago

> or the class of ruling individuals who know exactly what they're doing and are set to profit immensely. I'm really not sure about that. I agree that may be the case with some of those ruling individuals. My impression is that Johnson doesn't believe in anything, except his personal interest and profit. Others in that cabinet, however, really appear to be true believers.

cassianoleal 6y ago
> Johnson doesn't believe in anything, except his personal interest and profit. > Others in that cabinet, however, really appear to be true believers. My impression is that they all have those same beliefs - their personal interest and profit.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Which is silly (silly on Bojo's part, I mean) to set the country on a path to economic decline and cultural irrelevance because why be a king of an impoverished country instead of being a citizen in an advanced economy? (Clarification: I'm exaggerating for rhetorical effect. The UK won't become impoverished or really stop being an advanced-economy, but it's still going to be far poorer (in a total GDP and PPP sense) than it would be had this whole Brexit business never happened.
  - WanderPanda 6y ago
    Why is everyone so sure about your last paragraph? You could say the same for the EU block and even have more historical evidence of supranations falling apart.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      > have more historical evidence of supranations falling apart Debatable. But even if the EU was - or was not - a tightly integrated federated state, I'm far more concerned about the UK withdrawing itself from the world's largest free trade bloc. I see it heading towards either economic protectionism (bad in the long-term) or getting into a race-to-the-bottom (potentially even worse).
      - gobsmacked 6y ago
        > either economic protectionism (bad in the long-term) or getting into a race-to-the-bottom (potentially even worse) That's a strange thing to say. Globalisation is usually criticized as a race to the bottom. The opposite of that is protectionism, which you say is bad. So which one are you in favour of?
        DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        Globalisation allows local economies to specialise and reduce economic waste (e.g. what if every country had its own car factories?) I appreciate that globalisation will lead to localised races-to-the-bottom in the near-term, but in the long-term everyone benefits. Protectionism (for the sake of securing jobs) feels good in the short-term but very few mainstream economists will advocate for it absent other concerns (e.g. safety standards, cultural imports, national security, and human-rights concerns). Take the UK for example: at the time of its accession to the EU it had a sizeable manufacturing and mining economy. Globalisation directly led to those factories and mines closing, but being in the EU meant the UK could specialise in emerging sectors and immediately export to the rest of the EU for free (e.g. service-sector, information economy, banking, finance, media, etc). Globalisation and economic-interdependence is also the main driver for world-peace. I’d rather be unemployed because someone in France does my job but cheaper than be fighting in a war against France for some sense of “national pride”. Globalisation needs a friendlier face, yes. And we need better ways of managing the local negative effects, like better unemployment income for plant closures - but I don’t believe the sentimental negatives in any way outweigh the long-term benefits.
rich_sasha 6y ago
My impression with politics is that after years of doing it, politicians easily confuse ideas being popular and 'worth supporting'. A bit like a supercritical fluid, where transition between liquid and gas occurs spontaneously.

sverhagen 6y ago

I have no doubt you're right, but I'm just not familiar with the specific details. What are some real ways they stand to "profit immensely"?

benwad 6y ago
Lowering taxes, lowering regulatory and environmental standards, and undoing workers' rights legislation can all increase the wealth of those who are already wealthy. I'm not saying all of those things are in the pipeline, but they've all been proposed by pro-Brexit politicians (and this article is one example of lowering regulatory standards).
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Privatising the health system is the elephant in the room that's been talked about a lot.
  - callamdelaney 6y ago
    The Conservatives aren't stupid enough to privatize the NHS. It's a straw man argument - the NHS, much like the EU, is irrationally loved by the common voter and only Labour can get away with privatizing it, having perpetuated the complete myth that they are in some way its defenders while, according to them, the evil conservatives always have some corrupt plan to sack it off.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Oh and second amendment style gun rights too
  - dash2 6y ago
    I find it very hard to believe that that would be a popular policy in the UK. Got evidence?
    - 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

For a start the people who actually rule - the MPs in parliament - are predominantly remainers. When it comes to business leaders, they're as divided as everyone else. A lot of businesses do extensive trade with the EU and stand to lose. The finance industry particularly risks losing a lot of business, although there are some sectors of it that might gain it's mostly through trading on short term volatility. They'll cash out before they're stuck in the same boat as everyone else. The basic premise of the "it's an establishment stitch up" argument is that Britain will be weaker and poorer, but the establishment will end up with a much, much bigger slice of the smaller pie such that they gain overall. It's not clear to me how that's supposed to work though. How is this pie-grab supposed to work as the pie itself shrinks? Some people might manage to pull it off, but the whole establishment class as a group? Anyway, this whole premise flies in the face of who we know voted overwhelmingly for Brexit - ordinary British voters, many of them up north and from working backgrounds - even as the actual political parties, majority of MPs and most business leaders were arguing against it. The evidence for an establishment stitch up rests on a few very specific data points, like the fact that Jacob Reese Mog and some of Nigel Farage's hedge fund friends have already and will continue to do quite well out of it. They're hardly "The Establishment" as a whole though. They're just some of the people I was talking about trading on volatility, and hardly representative of the financial sector as a whole that is getting screwed over by losing passporting.

arethuza 6y ago
"the MPs in parliament - are predominantly remainers." The Conservatives have a majority and are there any Remainers left in that party - I thought most of them had been purged before the last election?
- robin_reala 6y ago
  Ken Clarke isn’t going anywhere.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    You know he's retired, right? Interesting guy, my opinion of him changed (for the better) when I found out he presented a regular Jazz show on the radio.