Brexit Aftermath

[Over Carl]

Yeah the old are getting older and living longer that is an issue, I don't see why we would need to encourage people to have more children tho we still are procreating at a decent rate.

To put it bluntly, old people (i.e. after retirement age) in general do not contribute much to the state, but start taking a lot from the state.

The only way to balance this out is by having a lot more younger people to prop them up.

However these young people also in general do not contribute much to the state until they have finished education, but again cost the state a fair bit. We could consider that an investment we make in our young.

We were in a great position where we had fit and healthy adults helping to contribute to our deficit that we did not have to invest in to bring up and educate.

But now as a country we've decided we don't want that.

And you're telling me we don't need more children.

So what is your plan to fix this then, mandatory euthanasia when everyone hits 85?

[DavidF]

So we have the situation we are in, that everyone needs a house, but only the rich are allowed to buy houses.

However the poor have to pay more to use these houses than the rich pay to purchase these houses.

So in effect it could be considered that rich people are allowed to profit out of the fact that everyone needs somewhere to live but poor people are taxed for it.

Personally my point of view is that we should be building shit loads of houses everywhere (private and council). Then councils tell private landlords they are only offering half the previous rent. If private rents don't fall in line, then sod it, people have the freedom to move into a council house at a sensible price until landlords realise they have to take what is now on offer. So instead of our current situation where a person can save up money for a deposit then enjoy an income while tenants pay off their mortgage, instead people wishing to be landlords will have to top up their mortgages themselves (which still sounds like a very good investment opportunity to me).

The initial changes would probably lower property prices due to reduced rental yields, then prices would drop further as less people are able to buy to let. But suddenly as less people are able to buy to let, suddenly more properties will be remaining for owners to purchase.

So now I kindly ask what you think is more stupid:

What I have suggested, or where we are at the moment?

I have been banging on about this for many years. Even the bloody green party tried to adopt the policy but made a huge cnut of actually articulating it. You "could" borrow 100 million to buy land and build houses and you would eventually save that 100 million and more by not paying it to the private rental sector through housing benefit. The ONLY real reason I can see that nobody likely to gain power has adopted this policy is that it would drive the wealthy landlords absolutely insane. (And im talking the landlords that are in our elite with thousands of houses) also such a move would slow house buying as the punter would just opt for social housing...but tbh I think too much emphasis on the price of a house these days as opposed to it being a place to sleep and bring up the family.

[Bald Bouncer]

Does anyone really believe that the EU exit will be passed by Parliament anyhow?

I think it will but I don't think the exit will be activated for a long time, I say this because not activating is a very good bargaining chip for a trade deal as while we are still in but are going to exit it causes instability within the EU, other EU member countries will have elections before we exit and they all will if it drags on, opposition leaders in these countries would be fools not to run on a referendum platform so causing more instability within the EU and this is why the EU is crying out for us to activate the leave.

[akimba]

I didn't say mandatory euthanasia I was saying voluntary euthanasia to curb the strain the old are putting on us ;-)

But what you are proposing in keeping with immigration at the current rate is pretty short sighted too? As instead of allowing organic population growth via the current population you are looking flood the 20-50 age group with immigrants which means in 30 years time there will be double the dependency that there would have been for these old people you mentioned?

We have a large 16-30 population http://www.statista.com/statistics/2...lation-by-age/ the problem we have become a lazy society and instead of doing the crappy jobs they are more than happy for immigration to pick up the slack.

Either way there is no magic answer but to continue to allow the population to grow at this rate without are infrastructure having time grow and cope also isn't going to work.

[CzarJunkie]

If the £ doesn't recover significantly, and I mean back to at least $1.45, then we're going to see this country on its knees in short order. We import 40% of our food and 40% of our fuel for energy production. That is going to hit every middle class household and below. It's also going to hit thousands of businesses who import both finished goods and raw materials. Even the upside, making our exports cheaper, is hampered by the fact the raw materials to make many of those products we export, will increase significantly.

If it turns out that the £ at $1.30 is the new normal, we are totally fucked. The BoE will have no option but to raise interest rates too to try and curb inflation. Add increased mortgage payments to the increases in food and energy, and you'll have carnage.

[Over Carl]

It is very true I intentionally said mandatory euthanasia instead of what you suggested, voluntary paid euthaniasia.

Reason being what you suggested disgusts me so badly, I hoped it was just something you quickly thought of and typed without fully thinking it through so I thought I would try and modify it to something slightly more palatable.

If someone if taking the choice you suggested of paid voluntary euthanasia, they won't be around to enjoy the payment.

So that payment will probably normally end up with their children (who probably will be adults with their own children by then).

I don't see many rich people taking up this option, let's think about who will.

Maybe those who have children in financial difficulty might voluntarily make the choice to end their lives early, then also you might get nasty and manipulative children who try to pressure their parents to make the choice.

If I manage to live to a good age and have children/grand children, I hope I can enjoy my retirement as I believe I would have deserved it. I would rather actually enjoy it without having to over analyse every action from every relative to try and consider whether they are actually trying to persuade me to end my life.

[kroner]

If the £ doesn't recover significantly, and I mean back to at least $1.45, then we're going to see this country on its knees in short order. We import 40% of our food and 40% of our fuel for energy production. That is going to hit every middle class household and below. It's also going to hit thousands of businesses who import both finished goods and raw materials. Even the upside, making our exports cheaper, is hampered by the fact the raw materials to make many of those products we export, will increase significantly.

If it turns out that the £ at $1.30 is the new normal, we are totally fucked. The BoE will have no option but to raise interest rates too to try and curb inflation. Add increased mortgage payments to the increases in food and energy, and you'll have carnage.

So may well end up with people living on the streets, people using food banks ? Oh wait...

[Ganty]

So we have the situation we are in, that everyone needs a house, but only the rich are allowed to buy houses.

However the poor have to pay more to use these houses than the rich pay to purchase these houses.

So in effect it could be considered that rich people are allowed to profit out of the fact that everyone needs somewhere to live but poor people are taxed for it.

Personally my point of view is that we should be building shit loads of houses everywhere (private and council). Then councils tell private landlords they are only offering half the previous rent. If private rents don't fall in line, then sod it, people have the freedom to move into a council house at a sensible price until landlords realise they have to take what is now on offer. So instead of our current situation where a person can save up money for a deposit then enjoy an income while tenants pay off their mortgage, instead people wishing to be landlords will have to top up their mortgages themselves (which still sounds like a very good investment opportunity to me).

The initial changes would probably lower property prices due to reduced rental yields, then prices would drop further as less people are able to buy to let. But suddenly as less people are able to buy to let, suddenly more properties will be remaining for owners to purchase.

So now I kindly ask what you think is more stupid:

What I have suggested, or where we are at the moment?

Excellent post.

Interesting aside, only 10% of our land is developed upon, and we sure as shit don't use the remianing 90 for agrgiculture. We have the means to roll out a huge social housing program, but of course, the landlord class will have non of this. It might mean they may have to resort to work for a living.

If the £ doesn't recover significantly, and I mean back to at least $1.45, then we're going to see this country on its knees in short order. We import 40% of our food and 40% of our fuel for energy production. That is going to hit every middle class household and below. It's also going to hit thousands of businesses who import both finished goods and raw materials. Even the upside, making our exports cheaper, is hampered by the fact the raw materials to make many of those products we export, will increase significantly.

If it turns out that the £ at $1.30 is the new normal, we are totally fucked. The BoE will have no option but to raise interest rates too to try and curb inflation. Add increased mortgage payments to the increases in food and energy, and you'll have carnage.

Am i right in thinking you own a SME? How have your projected margins been affected, if they have, by the leave vote?

A family member runs a Ltd company but luckily doesn't manufacture and doesn't import, so for now is largely unaffected, I'm just interested in the challenges others face.

[Mule]

I think the only answer is carousel

[Over Carl]

I think the only answer is carousel

I think you will actually find the only answer is 42

[piggzy]

The blip / disaster or whatever any of you choose to call it is without a doubt being made worse by the Conservatives complete lack of any action, lack of a plan and well just staring into the headlights.

Right now any pretty much any government would be better than that farce. The cunts tearing themselves apart is the real disaster here.

[Ganty]

Interesting article

Britain’s Democratic Failure

[FONT=Arnhem]CAMBRIDGE – The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.

This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics. A decision of enormous consequence – far greater even than amending a country’s constitution (of course, the United Kingdom lacks a written one) – has been made without any appropriate checks and balances.

Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure? No. Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit? Apparently not. Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on? Absolutely not. Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the UK in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability. I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.

Mind you, citizens of the West are blessed to live in a time of peace: changing circumstances and priorities can be addressed through democratic processes instead of foreign and civil wars. But what, exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions? Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup on a rainy day?

In terms of durability and conviction of preferences, most societies place greater hurdles in the way of a couple seeking a divorce than Prime Minister David Cameron’s government did on the decision to leave the EU. Brexiteers did not invent this game; there is ample precedent, including Scotland in 2014 and Quebec in 1995. But, until now, the gun’s cylinder never stopped on the bullet. Now that it has, it is time to rethink the rules of the game.

The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term. Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences. The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.

That’s why enacting, say, a constitutional amendment generally requires clearing far higher hurdles than passing a spending bill. Yet the current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.

With Europe now facing the risk of a slew of further breakup votes, an urgent question is whether there is a better way to make these decisions. I polled several leading political scientists to see whether there is any academic consensus; unfortunately, the short answer is no.

For one thing, the Brexit decision may have looked simple on the ballot, but in truth no one knows what comes next after a leave vote. What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%. There is no universal figure like 60%, but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum, the majority ought to be demonstrably stable. A country should not be making fundamental, irreversible changes based on a razor-thin minority that might prevail only during a brief window of emotion. Even if the UK economy does not fall into outright recession after this vote (the pound’s decline might cushion the initial blow), there is every chance that the resulting economic and political disorder will give some who voted to leave “buyers’ remorse.”

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard. In the Spartan assemblies of ancient Greece, votes were cast by acclamation. People could modulate their voice to reflect the intensity of their preferences, with a presiding officer carefully listening and then declaring the outcome. It was imperfect, but maybe better than what just happened in the UK.

By some accounts, Sparta’s sister state, Athens, had implemented the purest historical example of democracy. All classes were given equal votes (albeit only males). Ultimately, though, after some catastrophic war decisions, Athenians saw a need to give more power to independent bodies.

What should the UK have done if the question of EU membership had to be asked (which by the way, it didn’t)? Surely, the hurdle should have been a lot higher; for example, Brexit should have required, say, two popular votes spaced out over at least two years, followed by a 60% vote in the House of Commons. If Brexit still prevailed, at least we could know it was not just a one-time snapshot of a fragment of the population.

The UK vote has thrown Europe into turmoil. A lot will depend on how the world reacts and how the UK government manages to reconstitute itself. It is important to take stock not just of the outcome, though, but of the process. Any action to redefine a long-standing arrangement on a country’s borders ought to require a lot more than a simple majority in a one-time vote. The current international norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen, a formula for chaos.

Source

[CzarJunkie]

So may well end up with people living on the streets, people using food banks ? Oh wait...

What we see now is nothing compared to what we will see if the £ remains around $1.30 for any length of time. And if it is the new normal, you'll see something this country hasn't seen since before the creation of the welfare state. Food banks won't exist because those people who currently donate to food banks won't have the spare capacity to donate. The welfare system will be overwhelmed and with a population unable to afford higher taxes, public services will start to disappear.

I really can't see any silver lining at the moment, nothing gives me any hope that we have any way out of this. And from what I've seen since Thursday, the politicians don't seem to have any ideas either.

[CzarJunkie]

As expected the EU are going to make our lives as difficult as possible, and who could blame them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36644211

[Bald Bouncer]

I think it will but I don't think the exit will be activated for a long time, I say this because not activating is a very good bargaining chip for a trade deal as while we are still in but are going to exit it causes instability within the EU, other EU member countries will have elections before we exit and they all will if it drags on, opposition leaders in these countries would be fools not to run on a referendum platform so causing more instability within the EU and this is why the EU is crying out for us to activate the leave.

Breaking News: EU will not hold informal talks with UK until it triggers Article 50 to leave, Germany, France and Italy insist

pisses all over that idea and a very clever counter move, anyone who thinks the EU will be rolling out the red carpet to accommodate what Britain wants will be getting a wake up call.

[Ganty]

Breaking News: EU will not hold informal talks with UK until it triggers Article 50 to leave, Germany, France and Italy insist

pisses all over that idea and a very clever counter move, anyone who thinks the EU will be rolling out the red carpet to accommodate what Britain wants will be getting a wake up call.

I never understood where the exit camp got that idea from in the first place. We account for a measly 3% of their GDP ffs.

[flumperino]

Of everything that's going on, what I find most disgusting is the labour party revolt. They've been waiting for a chance to overthrow Corbyn before he was even elected as leader....and so they choose now, when the country is already fragile following the referendum and the tory party's fracture. Completely barmy.

[Bald Bouncer]

Of everything that's going on, what I find most disgusting is the labour party revolt. They've been waiting for a chance to overthrow Corbyn before he was even elected as leader....and so they choose now, when the country is already fragile following the referendum and the tory party's fracture. Completely barmy.

Agreed they should just shut the fuck up and let Labour members decide

[Ganty]

Massive rally outside Parliament Square right now.

Cl-e9qNWAAAQQyM.jpg

[Over Carl]

What we see now is nothing compared to what we will see if the £ remains around $1.30 for any length of time. And if it is the new normal, you'll see something this country hasn't seen since before the creation of the welfare state. Food banks won't exist because those people who currently donate to food banks won't have the spare capacity to donate. The welfare system will be overwhelmed and with a population unable to afford higher taxes, public services will start to disappear.

I really can't see any silver lining at the moment, nothing gives me any hope that we have any way out of this. And from what I've seen since Thursday, the politicians don't seem to have any ideas either.

That's basing things at $1.30 as it's probably difficult to imagine any worse. I've been watching the rate live on and off and it's been scary ever since they started counting votes. I'm not going to claim to be an economist, but just watching the trend gives me real fear that we may end up hoping to try to get back to $1.30 in a few weeks/months. (1.31537 at time of posting) https://www.dailyfx.com/gbp-usd