My family's protest vote - about what?

[Mom2Monkeys]

I can't talk to my family about this, as I was the only person who voted remain amongst them. So sorry, I'm letting off steam here.

I am really fed up of my family going on about how they voted Leave as a protest vote and using words like 'exploitation', 'lies', 'struggling', etc, to justify it. My Dad said angrily the other day that 'as a white middle-aged, middle class man he is last in the queue for everything'. It made me fume inside. He means opportunities in life.

He actually believes it. He worked really hard through the years, but my Dad, and the rest of the family, have done pretty well for themselves, when compared with lots of people who ARE actually struggling.
He could have gone to university if he'd wanted (his sister went). He had one stable middle-management job his whole life, with a lucrative pension (cash payout and generous monthly payments), which enabled him to retire in his late forties. He then bought a flat (cash) to rent out as extra income. He also paid off the mortgage on his house completely years ago. He is careful with money and always been a saver, so does OK.

My husband and I, on the other hand, have no personal pension (SAHM and moved around in jobs) and who knows what the state pension will be like when we retire. House prices are now astronomical. Yet, my mother talks to me as if we are really well off and in a better situation than they are (we do OK, but not well off). They don't seem to realise that their retirements are probably way more comfortable than we could ever hope for.

When my family talk about being 'expoited', they are not talking about other people - they believe it about themselves. My aunt, retired in her big country house - talks as if she is the 'under-class', looking up at people better off than her.

Why don't they realise they ARE the ones who've had it good!?!

I hope you are right twofingers and that people follow their conscience when they vote, shop and live their lives.
I'm amazed some of you seem to be saying you vote out of short-term interest. If only because in the long-run, injustice backfires (see crime & terrorism).
Where the nation is divided is that (like I said earlier) while I would happily get poorer (much poorer) and make efforts for this country if it was to welcome refugees, I'm not going to want to get poorer just so that the country can give 'British jobs to British people'.
It's about how we see the future too, it makes no sense to me to want to withdraw from exchanges with other countries. Ideally I would want people to be able to move around more rather than less as time goes on. Sharing a flat in the 90s with an Algerian guy was an eye-opener. You can only dismiss economic migrants if you've never met any. There was a brutal civil war in his country with Islamic extremists going round slaughtering villagers around Algiers at night. This man lived in London where he'd overstayed his visa and was claiming asylum, but because he couldn't prove he was at immediate personal threat, he knew his application was going to fail and he was going to be deported. Are we comfortable saying that 'we don't need his skills' so it doesn't matter if he has to go back to his war-torn country? If not, aren't we better off getting used to sharing space in this country rather than try to protect ourselves? Especially if protecting ourselves doesn't even look like it's going to bring wealth?
(Incidentally I don't get what the problem is with people such as Blair making money, it's not like it's taking anything away from anyone, or like if he wasn't doing it, anyone would benefit?)

twofingers - If you would like to pay more tax in order to contribute to the NHS, why not work out how much more you'd like to pay and give that sum as a donation to the NHS.

This has become another right wing trope. I have had this from family too, a family who believe deeply in the NHS and just can't see that it is being undermined by this government, even though their own grandchild left the UK because of the deterioration in working conditions. The suggestion that they are heavily influenced by powerful lobbying from the private healthcare industry and that greater trade with the US will almost certainly be at the cost of giving them greater access is dismissed because they have not read it in the Murdoch press......

There is an issue here about civil society though. The US gets away with as much privatisation of healthcare, education, welfare etc as it does partly because the wealthy do recognise their responsibility to society. There are far greater levels of philanthropy and giving there, it is almost a given that you contribute to your alma mater etc. Remember the "Big Society". Whatever two fingers and other posters might be doing in the background to support the NHS the fact is it cannot rely on private donations because that is not hard wired into the British psyche. What is hard wired are the institutions of the welfare state which is why that message on that bus was so effective.

It was one of the big cons of the Leave campaign that people like my parents swallowed hook line and sinker.

I'm amazed some of you seem to be saying you vote out of short-term interest

Fawful I don't think anyone on this thread has said that. Can you point out where you got that impression from?

I think the suggestion that if you would be prepared to pay higher taxes for the NHS, you should just donate that amount is missing the point. Doing that will not have the same effect.

I would like to pay more tax to the NHS. I would like a better funded service so that I and others don't have to wait months for an important hospital appointment (as happened to me recently).

If I pay the, say, £50 a month I would like to pay as extra tax, as a donation, this results in a miniscule extra budget for the NHS and won't effect the health services I or anyone else will get. If everyone paid the extra tax (pro rata for income), then we would all get better health services.

Which is the difference between public health services, funded by tax, and charity which although great, is not a replacement for basic public services like the NHS.

Wrong you did write that it's usually ok (in your world, not mine) when people vote for lower taxes for their own interests. It is short-term imo, because some time down the line, the NHS, education, prison, probation & social services crumble through underfunding (=low taxes). But hey, whoever was elected with a promise to 'not spend' is in power and they can plaster services until they really do collapse (which according to my nurse brother in London will not be very long).

I'm saying that I'm disappointed that some say it's ok when people vote for low taxes that give them very short-term gains. That was what you wrote:

I think it's pretty much accepted that people vote in GE's etc according to what they percieve to be in their best interests (using their to mean them and family/community). So for example people vote Tory because they don't want to pay higher taxes (as an example) even though this will mean lower benefits for others. And by my recollection, we don't then have a national grinding and gnashing of teeth session berating people for their selfishness.

Also re: 'according to Guido', 1/ I wouldn't trust Guido, 2/ Mandelson is not the one who goes on about 'elites' and is therefore allowed to dine wherever he wants. His spending his own money doesn't take anything away from anyone, so it's none of anyone business.

Fawful You have misunderstood what I was saying.

To say that some people vote Tory to avoid higher taxes is not to say I approve of it. By saying "it is accepted" I meant "it is common knowledge", not it is morally right. I didn't say anything about how I vote - I've never voted Tory in my life!

I also said "It would be lovely if we did all think of each and shared our wealth more evenly. That's how I'd like the country to be run, but it's not how we run things".

The point I was trying to make is that, it is human nature to base your voting decisions on what you percieve to be your best interests (to clarify, with a greater or lesser degree of altruism). For me, my self interest would mean living in a more equal society with excellent public services, rather than a couple of quid in my pocket from a tax cut. For another person, it would be the couple of quid. I would like to see a political system where rampant self interest was not allowed to dominate, but sadly that is not what we have.

I was then saying that it is unreasonable to expect a greater level of selflessness in the EU referendum than in ordinary elections which I believe some people have suggested leave voters should have had (but this is a minor observation and may be cobblers).

To pick up on the generational point....my Mum voted in the EEC referendum in the 70s, but for me (and I'm 50), this will probably be the one and only chance to vote on this. My Mum voted 'in' in 1975, but 'out' this time, as she is appalled by what the EEC has morphed into.

Dh and I (both postgrads) both voted to leave, and ds (an undergrad) voted to remain. Some of dh's family keep emailing expressing their dismay at the result, but they have always been fervent EU supporters, whilst I have never been so.

The other point to make is that we were not voting for a status quo if we remained. QMV is coming in, EU enlargement will be happening again in the next couple of years, and for those who are worried about France, I'd be having a close look at Italy within the next fortnight if Renzi loses the vote there.

The last point is that in terms of travelling, working and living abroad, nothing much will change. Yes, we might have to fill out something like an ESTA for Schengen countries, but many fly long haul for holidays and work and don't bat an eyelid at having to get a visa for the States, Canada (from this week), Dubai, Oman, India, and closer to home, Turkey. The rest of the non EU world manages to live, work and study abroad without too much difficulty, so I really think this is a bit of a red herring. Those who are old enough to remember life before the EU, can see that there is life/trade and business outside it. I don't see Brexit as hauling up the drawbridge, but an opportunity to engage with the world outside the EU on better trading terms. The result of the referendum was to leave one organisation whose vision didn't chime with that of ours (or some of
us anyway). We are not leaving the UN, NATO etc, just the EU.

You also have to remember that it will be a conscious choice on the part of some EU member states to put tariffs on goods, and that not all will agree. It will be interesting to see who drives that if it happens.

Scary I am not sure what your post has to do with the thread which is about the difficulty of coming to terms with your parents reasons for voting for Brexit when they have comfortable lives and will not be the ones to have to deal with the economic fallout, on top of what is already an inequality of economic opportunity for those now in their 20s and 30s.

You do not mention how your DS feels about your vote, or how you feel as somebody nearer to retirement about the consequences of the vote for his future. One of the reasons for my vote, as well as understanding the reality of business in the global economy (my postgrad qualifications are in business and area studies) and the EU's importance to our competitive advantage, was that the next generation of my family really value the freedom to work and live in 27 countries, and one is already doing so. I have had many opportunities, I did not want to narrow them down even more for the next generation.

You cannot know what the terms of our exit will be in terms of that freedom. It is not simple to go and work in non EU countries by any means, especially if you do not have the particular skills that the country you want to live and work in require, and sometimes even if you do. The immigration process for those coming here from non EU countries is an expensive bureaucratic minefield which causes considerable problems for the business and academic world in terms of attracting the best talent. The number of students coming here from India has halved as a result of the anxiety caused by the treatment of non EU students, including rounding them up and deporting them on a legal point that has since been proved invalid in court. Whatever happened before we joined the EU is completely irrelevant in this different century, the one our children will have to make their lives in.

Scary it really is about pulling up the drawbridge. Of course as whatwouldrondo said it will be harder in this century for everyone to swap country. Things have changed since the 70's. People are saying on this forum that they only want immigration for skills. It can't have been how immigration worked 40 years ago, since my DP left the UK in the very early 80s to take unskilled work all over Europe for a bit. He was a graduate but had this urge to do it, like I did and a lot of young people want to do.
It's sad people should only want to be surrounded by 'useful ' others. If your DC aren't completely necessary to another country for its own benefits they won't be allowed to live abroad. I don't think that's the direction of things I'd want in an ideal world, far from it.
'An opportunity to engage with other countries' rings very hollow when the UK takes as few refugees as it can get away with and only want to engage if it thinks it's truly necessary. As an idealistic young person I'm not sure I would have been interested in the UK as it has become. But then that's probably good news for you, since I'm only a decent person and can't prove my usefulness to you.

Fawful - well Alastair Campbell is always going on about 'elites' so maybe he shouldn't complain when he has a pretty elite life himself.
When you say don't trust Guido, do you think Guido was actually lying about this dinner?

(Incidentally I don't get what the problem is with people such as Blair making money, it's not like it's taking anything away from anyone, or like if he wasn't doing it, anyone would benefit?)
This is interesting. I'd love to know who you think is acceptable to be rich and who isn't.
Mandy and Blair are ok in your view. What about Anthony Bamford whose JCB business has made him very rich and also provides a lot of jobs?
He did vote leave though, and is a Tory donor so maybe you don't think he deserves his wealth.

I didn't think that Bamford was all that good an employer? If people make money and still treat their employees decently then fine. If they are doing it off the backs of others then not fine.

Peregrina - why don't you think Anthony Bamford is a good employer? Genuine question.

I don't personally know Bamfords - I just thought that I had read it somewhere that there were better local employers around.

A quick trawl of employer reviews, allowing for bias in those who have been sidelined, seems to suggest they are pretty par for the course for an engineering company,. Good prospects of job development for skilled workers if they can get a contract but agency and temporary workers who have no job security are used to deal with peaks in demand. Outsourcing to India too. This is pretty representative

"JCB is a grand place to work, as long as you can get off the Agency onto full time, usually depending on your Team Leaders if they can push management to get you a contract. The benefits of being full time are amazing, private health, dentist, gym etc.
Work load isn't too much, if you don't meet deadlines no one really has a go at you they just tell you to do it as fast as possible. However working in fabrication, deadlines aren't really an issue.
I learnt everything at JCB, it's made me who I am.
Management isn't great, not sure whether they know what they are doing. Sending all the work to India leaving British people with no work, no job, no money. All because Bamford wants to line his pockets more.
Co-workers are the best part, always up for a laugh, always up for helping you out if you're struggling, couldn't ask for a better group of friends.
Hardest part of the job is putting up with the management, knowing the guy keeping you in work hasn't got a clue.
Co-workers are the best part of the job they make the place worth going to, as well as the great rates of pay for the work you do.
I'd love to go back to JCB, but just for the co-workers, as the management sucks and I'd no doubt get laid off again.
Watch this space, when JCB goes under cause the work from India is shocking quality yet Bamford loves the money hes saving by sending it out there.
Make way for CAT and Komatsu.
Sorry to be so negative, but its true."

www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Jcb/reviews?start=20

I guess scaryteachers doorbell must have rung

I genuinely don't understand the reasoning of people who think leaving the EU will "give us control of our borders" and allow us to stop people coming here if we don't want them, but that that won't happen in reverse and British people will still be able to live and work in Europe almost as easily as before.

As far as we know, Blai,r or George Osborne if it comes to that, haven't made money by (possibly) exploiting their workers. They have made oodles of money by going onto the after dinner speech circuit, and quite honestly if people are prepared to pay good money to hear either of them speak then more fool them.

I fully understand the UK national won't have freedom of movement into the other EU countries and that therefore it will not be as easy for them to live and work in these countries. There will be regulations just as there are for all the other countries in the world.
The world is a lot bigger than the EU.
I spent 2 years travelling after Uni. Lived and worked all over the U.S. , Australia, Asia and Africa.
I don't see the problem. A small drawbridge may be partially pulled up but the main, much bigger bridge is still open.
It is worth it to stop uncontrolled immigration to the UK.
We have no problems with some voting leave and others remain. We all voted leave except I grand dad. He says he's moving to an EU country. We'll see.

dapple does Campbrll go on about elites? I thought only UKIP used that word. It's meaningless of course, what is the elite? Politicians? Even if they're working class and have not had a private education? Business people? Even those that founded ethical ventures? The word doesn't mean anything, but if UKIP use the word they need to make sure they are never up to whatever it is they consider elitist. And anyone else can let their conscience guide them.

JCB and any company can earn as much money as they like as far as I'm concerned, as long as, preferably, it doesn't harm the environment or is unethical.

JCB backed leave, maybe it's because they were fined 40 million Euros for violating anti-trust laws by the EU a while back? They are not doing it because they think it's good for the UK...

IP/00/1526
Brussels, 21 December 2000
Commission fines JCB for unlawful distribution agreements and practices
The European Commission has adopted a decision finding that JC Bamford Group (JCB) of Britain, a leading manufacturer of construction, farm and industrial handling equipment, has violated European Union antitrust law. Since the late 80s, JCB has put in place distribution agreements and other practices which have the effect of severely restricting out of territory sales of JCB's products both within certain national territories and across national borders, as well as interfering with the freedom to set resale prices. For these very serious violations of article 81 of the EC treaty JCB was fined a total 39.6 million euros.
This decision is addressed to JCB Service, the parent company of the UK-based JC Bamford Group, the world's fifth largest manufacturer of construction and earthmoving machines.
The antitrust procedure concerns the restrictive agreements and concerted practices implemented by JCB and its network of independent authorised distributors. The proceedings were prompted by a complaint from a French distributor, Central Parts SA, in February 1996.
The infringements affect the market for construction and earthmoving machines, which is worth approximately €7.8 billion a year in Europe. JCB's sales account for 13% of Europe's total. This figure does not, however, reflect JCB's important position in relation to its flagship product, the backhoe loader, which was developed in the late forties by Mr JC Bamford, and where its European market share has remained stable at around 45% for the last 25 years.
During surprise inspections in November 1996, the Commission found evidence of the illegal agreements implemented by various companies of the JCB Group and, in particular, the JCB Sales organisation in the UK, JCB SA (France) and JCB Spa (Italy), all controlled by JCB Service. These illegal agreements or practices have been implemented in isolation or in combination between 1988 and 1998, according to evidence.
The restrictive agreements or practices between JCB and its distributors consist of:
•
• Restrictions on sales outside allotted territories;

• Restrictions on purchases of machines between authorised distributors in different EU states;

• Bonuses and fees systems which disadvantaged out of territory sales;
Occasional joint fixing of resale prices and discounts across different territories.
There is evidence that the restrictions have been put in place in at least the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Ireland.
Each of these measures and, a fortiori, their combination, run contrary to the ban on restrictive agreements under article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. As a result, import and export purchases and sales of JCB's products have been severely restricted in the Member States more directly concerned and, consequently, within the European Community as a whole. Through such restrictions purchasers of JCB machines are illegally deprived of the opportunity to take advantage of substantial price differences for the same equipment in different Member States.
As a result, the Commission orders JCB to lift the above measures and to bring its agreements and practices in line with EC competition rules applicable to distribution.
JCB's infringements are comparable to those verified in the Volkswagen case, where a fine of €102 millions was imposed in 1998, subsequently reduced to €90 millions by the Court of First Instance. The case is also similar to a recent case involving Opel Netherlands, for which a fine of €43 millions was decided(1).
Pursuant to the Commission guidelines on antitrust fines(2), JCB's infringements were considered very serious. Given their long duration and the fact that JCB imposed financial penalties on one distributor who did not conform to the restrictive agreements an aggravating circumstance -- the penalty was set at €39.6 millions.
Commenting on the decision, Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said: "It is shocking that important companies present in all Member States still jeopardise the most fundamental principles of the internal market to the detriment of distributors and, ultimately, consumers" .

Isn't it sweet? JCB want to be able to sell you their stuff for more, unhindered by fair trading laws.

There's a 0% import tariff on construction machinery anyway, what do JCB care about EU membership?

Are import tariffs fixed for all time? Is it possible that suddenly Bamford will find himself with a 10% import tariff? Not just from EU countries but elsewhere? I wonder if he will be philosophical then, or whether he will start bellyaching about how unfair it is?

To be clear, I meant that the EU's WTO import tariff for construction equipment imported from outside the EU is 0%. JCB therefore have nothing to lose in EU trade if we're outside the EU, and everything to gain from the potential lowering of barriers to trade with other countries once we're out.

Oh, and 'JCB Service', the parent company named above, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Transmission & Engineering Services Netherlands BV.

Sorry Rondo so much more exciting than the doorbell - a 24 hour blood pressure monitoring! I do apologise for my life getting in the way of your thread.

Someone pointed out that there seems to be a split in the generations; I was trying to point out that in my family, the split is that the older ones, my Mum (76), my dh (55) and I (50) have voted out, and that ds(21) voted to remain. For my generation, this is perhaps our one and only chance to have our say on our EU membership, and I voted out as I have been wanting to do if I ever got the opportunity.

Your parents are presumably consenting and capable adults who voted as they thought best, as did I. I saw no possibility of the EU being open to change; and if it wasn't willing to change when one of the net contributing member states was going to vote to leave, then what would make it happen?

I am not bothered how my ds feels about how I voted, as it was my vote, not his. He has always known that I am vehemently opposed to the EU in its current form and that I was livid when Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty, so our vote came as no surprise to him.

It is not simple to go and work in non EU countries by any means, especially if you do not have the particular skills that the country you want to live and work in require, and sometimes even if you do. That also applies to EU member states, as in Belgium where I currently live and Italy where friends of mine have just moved back from. There are barriers in place wherever you are, within or without the EU. Those barriers may be obvious in non EU countries, but don't kid yourself they don't exist within the EU. I also don't see why you would want to limit yourself to the EU member states as places to live and work...there are many more countries out there than that, and it seems short sighted to just concentrate on those 27. I fully expect ds to disappear off to the US or Canada once he hits the world of work, and good for him if he does.

What happened pre EU is not irrelevant, as it demonstrates that it is possible to live and work in mainland Europe, and that mechanisms were in place to allow this.

No, we don't know what terms we will get on exit, but we didn't know what terms we would get if we stayed in, as it is all changing rapidly, and no remain voter has been able to tell me where the EU would be in 10 years time. I think it will have folded by then, and the dominoes are all set to come crashing down, possibly beginning with Italy this coming weekend.

Fawful Where do you get the UK only engages where it thinks it is necessary? We are engaged in the UN, we are heavily engaged in NATO, we are engaged in the G7 and the G20. Why does any country 'engage' with others? Normally because it is the interest of that particular country to do so. It is in the self interest of the EU member states to be adult about Brexit, otherwise they may find that cooperation in other areas such as intelligence sharing and defence fades away, especially given the parlous (and practically non existent) state of many EU member states defence spending, given their NATO obligations.

The point about refugees/economic migrants is not really germane seeing the billions we are pouring into the camps in Jordan and Lebanon. There are different ways to help, and funding the camps, and taking people directly from them is surely the best way as it shuts out the traffickers.

We also don't live in an ideal world. If you want to go and live abroad or travel, the opportunities will still be there, but why shouldn't any country be able to decide who is able to live there or not? Australia, NZ, Canada and the US for example already make that determination...why shouldn't we? The four mentioned are not the only ones who make that sort of decision either.

As for your bit of virtue signalling at the end - do get over yourself. People are allowed to hold different opinions to you, even if you don't like that fact. I have friends who voted leave and remain, and I'm meeting up with one of the remainers next week for coffee; we don't like each others positions on the referendum, but as adults we respect each others right to hold those views, without making moral judgements.

Well Oxfam (and 50 leading refugee charities) dont think the uk government's response to refugees is adequate, so I don't know about the billions in aid (to countries that have millions of refugees).
By 'the uk only engages when necessary' I meant the uk will only 'welcome' immigrants if there's a dire skill shortage. I don't call that welcoming. In my view it will turn off the 'brightest and best' migrants you want, if they are a bit idealistic about the kind of country they want to give their skills to.
Re: 'it's my vote, not his', well at least there's no pretence that your vote had his future at heart...