To ask Remainers ...

[ScreamingLadySutch]

Your views?

Brexiteers were asked their reasons the other day. So I would like to ask Remainers

• what do you think will happen, and what are you so afraid of?

It's extremely worrying. Despite the fact Trump has backtracked, in reality the NHS is a gift for the US ... I'll just leave this here...

Commonwealth fund report... UK healthcare (NHS) No1 (overall), USA healthcare no11 (out of 11) USA spend per patient 3x that of the UK.

I agree Trump may have helped Remainers, altho clearly the deeply brainwashed will stay in denial.

I think the NHS is the one issue where there is hope that older voters who have drunk the Farage cool aid might start to have some doubts. While many will have private insurance, they still rely on the NHS as their first port of call.

Good point.

Health insurance for the elderly is very expensive. My mother’s alone costs 6 grand a year. My fathers’s is presumably similar.

So for many, even wealthy pensioners, health insurance doesn’t pay.

If other MN threads on NHS privitisation are anything to go by I wouldn't hold up much hope of a change of opinion. Alot seem to have swallowed the wastage/too expensive/bash the poor/never happen narrative of the right wing press.

I think the NHS is the one issue where there is hope that older voters who have drunk the Farage cool aid might start to have some doubts. While many will have private insurance, they still rely on the NHS as their first port of call.

My mum is entirely dependent on the NHS for survival as she only has her state pension and is diabetic, with various other illnesses. She won't see the light until the Daily Mail tells her to.

But Leavers won't get the "freedom" they long for. I know that many leavers don't care about the damage to the economy, as they see sovereignty as being worth more than money. I can sympathise with that viewpoint, but don't they realise that being dictated to by the US (and possibly the other superpowers as well) makes us less free?

We have no say in the US regulations we'll be forced to adopt. Because on our own, we're very weak and vulnerable and have little bargaining power.

From Ross Clark: " There has been rather less discussion of the benefits of Brexit – what Britain will be able to do in the future which it can’t do as a member of the EU. It was this, after all, which won the 2016 referendum for Leave, so why have leavers been so shy about continuing to make the case for Brexit?

This week, though, comes one positive contribution in the shape of a paper on the financial services industry by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). Resulting from a series of round table meetings with members of the industry it has produced a list of suggestions as to how Britain can benefit, post-Brexit, by changing the regulatory regime which is currently imposed through the second directive on markets and financial instruments (MiFID II). Its conclusion? That well-meaning directives which were supposed to protect the consumer have had the perverse effect of increasing charges, reducing choice – while at the same time making it more difficult for small companies to raise capital through stock markets. Come Brexit, there is no reason why UK firms should be bound by such regulation except where they are offering services to clients within the EU.

One of the rules introduced by MiFID II, for example, has been to stop broking firms and financial advisers recouping the costs of research from trading fees. Instead, retail investors must now be charged for such research separately. There was perfectly reasonable logic behind the ban – there was a fear that brokers had an incentive to persuade their clients to trade too frequently, rather than hanging onto investments. But the unintended consequence has been to discourage investors from investing in individual companies and to steer them towards funds instead – where charges are higher and often hidden. It has led to a reduction in the amount of research being carried out on smaller firms, making it harder for retail investors to obtain the information they need and making it harder for small companies to raise capital. One company worth £750 million, for example, previously had its performance regularly assessed by 15 analysts – but now there are just three of them keeping an eye on it.

As with so much regulation, MiFID II favours larger operators over smaller ones. Small stockbroking firms and financial advisers face proportionally far higher costs in meeting their regulatory requirements. Previously, for example, EU directives required the collection of 24 pieces of data for every transaction in regulated markets. Now it is 65 pieces of data. Such vast quantities of data do not ultimately help the consumer – they merely create a fog of data which helps no-one.

Then there is the matter of bankers’ bonuses, which the EU has restricted to 100 per cent of salary, or up to 200 per cent with shareholder approval. The limit was supposed to make bankers more responsible, by forcing them to look to the long term rather than to their next bonus. But there was an obvious loophole – what if bankers simply increased their salaries to make up for lost bonuses? In practice, this is exactly what has happened – salaries have been jacked up threefold. For the banks themselves this has created a problem by increasing their fixed costs. Whereas in the past if they suffered a lean year they could slash bonuses, now there are still inflated salaries to pay.

There must be plenty of other industries which could benefit by being regulated in a smarter, more effective way than EU directives currently allow. "

"There must be plenty of other industries which could benefit by being regulated in a smarter, more effective way than EU directives currently allow. ""

I'm sure there are positives to having bespoke regulation but if you want to trade internationally, your standards need to comply with local markets. Given that our biggest local market is ..... the EU, rather odd not to want any say in applicable regulations. Be a rule taker not a rule maker.

a paper on the financial services industry by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA)

Ah yes, the IEA. Perhaps you can enlighten us about who funds their research?

My mum is entirely dependent on the NHS for survival as she only has her state pension and is diabetic, with various other illnesses. She won't see the light until the Daily Mail tells her to.

Sadly looking at today's online DM it seems to have been glossed over. (Disclaimer just looked out of curiosity to see how they reported this and then rinsed my eyes out)

ScreamingLadySutch
That is all very well but you are missing the CRUCIAL point.
The UK had 'loads of money' as it's GDP ranking it 5th nut the Government refused to spend this wealth on looking after the NHS, cities outside London/South East and so on.
EU has bugger all to do with this wealth distribution, it is ENTIRELY down to the Government(s).
They would not spend over the last 40 Years, and they won't start now.

Bankers bonuses? That's the big Brexit positive?

There must be plenty of other industries which could benefit by being regulated in a smarter, more effective way than EU directives currently allow

There is nothing nor was there any restriction on how the UK regulates the banking industry.

Since being IN the EU we've managed to sell off and regulate many different industries, privatise and renationalise rail (in part) regulate energy, healthcare etc block or allow mergers

All that will happen moving forward is any international regulation made, wont have any input from the UK.

When are people finally going to get it into their heads that, generally speaking, the EU does not have this all encompassing control over our lives, for the UK outside of so many of the integration projects, its still predominately a trading bloc.

Ffs bankers? Cos those guys really deserve a fucking payday.
Deregulation of banking benefits people like Rees-Mogg because that's who they work for.
It means washing dirty money for criminals and helping people evade tax.

Bankers bonuses? That's the big Brexit positive?

It is when you’re funding the IEA’s “research” and pushing a particular Brexit narrative.

hear hear Jas.

the reality is its still predominately a trading bloc.

It is a lucrative trading bloc that we used to help lead until we opted out.

The reality is we delegated a few things related to trade. I have previously posted the list of some topic areas below to show how very little was shared.

The things we delegated acting jointly as part the EU were only trade related spin offs.

• Shared with the EU -** we agreed to jointly operate some rules regarding food, agriculture, environment and worker's rights..This was in return for vastly beneficial trade.

• unilaterally UK controlled The U.K. govt retained complete autonomy over the vast majority of matters.

We controlled crime and punishment, health, education, voting and electoral system, pensions, highways, transport, local government, devolution and matters with Wales,Scotland and NI, administrative and public law, banking and finance, commercial law, constitutional law, planning and construction law , contract law ,corporation law , most employment matters ,energy and resources , family law including marriage, divorce, adoption, financial law,film and entertainment law, insolvency rules, banking and debt recovery , succession, wills and estates, law of torts , (compensation for wrongful acts e.g. negligence, nuisance), defamation, libel, slander, trespass ,personal injury and medical ,Property , Sports law and Taxation -income tax, capital gains, inheritance tax etc. We manage domestic violence guardianship ,emergency protection, divorce property, spousal maintenance, adoption, mental capacity, probate, elderly care,benefits,housing ,pensions, policing, defence , fiscal policy etc.etc

That's why the whole ' control' rhetoric was such a con. The people may want more control vis a vis our own government but that's nothing to do with the EU at all.

Climate change is the biggest threat facing us. I believe that we can better deal with it collectively as part of Europe. We need to be making and implementing the laws necessary to curb emissions and protect our environment If Europe fragments into individualistic me first populism then there's not a hope in hell of us tackling this urgent crisis.

The puppet masters behind Brexit are disaster capitalists who just want to asset strip Britain, they don't give a f**k about anything else.

Yep Lonely, it is a crying shame what we doing to this country.

Climate change can be far better dealt with collectively as you so correctly state tenred

Nobody will care less what the UK thinks or wants, we are a small nation, just look at what Ford etc are doing, where are the European plant closures if its such a international issue?

I voted Remain. I have been prepared to accept WA. Would I ever accept No Deal? Never.
I would rather we Remain than No Deal. I would accept a sensible version of Leave such as WA. That's apparently dead in the water. If it's a binary choice-Remain or Leave with No Deal. I would want Remain.

The majority want remain rather than any type of brexit, let alone no deal