Why are "Leavers" so angry?

Urmstongran
Yes, a big bug bear of mine - in work benefits. Not that I begrudge those that need them being paid.
Its that they should not be needed. Employers should be made to pay reasonable living wages. The tax payer should not be supporting business this way.

But not always WWmk2 The biggest factor is the revenue to the exchequer that is generated ..... if the taxpayer is topping up the low wages by providing necessary benefits for a decent wage that must surely cancel out some of the revenue to the exchequer.

MaizieD
Have you heard of remittances?
Where diaspora send most of their earnings home?
It is what many overseas workers do.
Where whole families relocate to the EU, then yes some of the earnings do go back into the economy, however do the taxes in equal or better the benefit out?

I hope you didn’t infer that was my position Elegran

I totally admire gillybob and her husband. They are indeed morally admirable and care deeply for the well being of their ‘lads’.

I’m sure juggling all the concepts of running a business is hard. I for one couldn’t do it (I’d be too anxious of it failing for starters - I’m no entrepreneur). But they manage it and huge kudos to them.

My earlier point was more focussed on small business owners who try to capitalise on loopholes and don’t treat their employees as fairly as the gillybobs

They are the ones I think ‘ought you to have a business then dear?’ Especially if the State (us taxpayers) pick up the slack from their tight-fistedness over wages!!

The biggest factor is the revenue to the exchequer that is generated.

Olaudah Equiano was owned by a quaker. Wilberforce said that if he was the father of abolition, Equiano was the grandfather.
There are some really good documentaries about him online, particularly one made by the OU.
The quakers also refused to allow Thomas Paine to be buried in a quaker cemetary.
I think in the UK they did more good than harm but they have a very mixed history particularly in the US.

^ No problem with that, but when workers from other countries are allowed the same benefits, I don’t see how that benefits the British economy^

It benefits the British economy because it is, on the whole, spent into the British economy. Benefits don't just disappear into a big lack hole; they are spent into the economy.

It would be interesting to have figures on what percentage of non-British workers' wages are sent abroad (I can see that objection coming, 'but they send their earnings back to their own country'). It is something done by more than just EU workers.

Aprilrose re your post 9.22 - the difference between the two referenda is the size of the majority - large in 1975 and small in 2016. Since we joined the EEC there have been eurosceptics and that is one of the reasons Cameron suggested a referendum, in order (he hoped) to silence the disaffected in the Tory party.

Whilst there are regions that have suffered, especially over the last 10 years of Tory austerity, it is not the fault of the EU.

Yet many Quakers went into banking, trisher. Interesting choice for a sect which eschewed debt.

One of the reasons Quaker businesses thrived was because they never expanded using debt. Usury was a sin and anyone who became bankrupt had to leave the meetings.
Quaker women led the boycott of sugar and other sslave related goods.

Yes. Quakerism is a topic I have carefully studied, as the concept of Paternalism fascinated me. I also had a friend and neighbour who was a Quaker and the daughter of one of the most famous Quaker family business. No lolollol from me.

Replying to earlier comments.

Comment by growstuff regarding my earlier post ‘Immigration figures for 1918? I didn't realise that the UK was in the EU in 1918.’ You’re right, of course. My mistake, the year should have been 2018. It just feels that long!

Regarding workers receiving benefits. If people work a certain number of hours, their wage is made up by a series of benefits, tax credits, housing benefit, etc. I think it’s now called Universal Credit. This makes a considerable difference in payment to workers who are lower paid. Many workers take advantage of this benefit by only working the necessary hours in order to claim the benefit. No problem with that, but when workers from other countries are allowed the same benefits, I don’t see how that benefits the British economy

Jura2 ‘There are currently very dark forces at work- the likes of which this country has never seen - Cummings, Farage and many others are in charge and hold the dark cards- for dangerous ends. Hyperbole - for sure not.’
I agree – there are indeed dark forces at work! A parliament of remain voting MPs who do not recognise that in the 2016 referendum more voters decided to leave the EU than remain; who have done everything in their power to halt the process.

The original poster asks why Leave voters are angry, then follows with a patronising post suggesting that leave voters must be some kind of sub-species who know nothing. A very superior, deprecating post.
I will sum up why I and most other Leave voters are angry. First of all, we are reasonable, well-informed people who were asked to cast our vote regarding the EU. In belief that the result would be carried out, we have seen a series of efforts from MPs who decided that they know better than us, doing everything in their power to stop the process.

We have seen parliament at its worst, led by speaker, John Bercow (who is supposed to be impartial) do everything in his power to allow ‘remain’ voting MPs have the upper hand. Impartial! He is anything but impartial! His belligerent, bellowing Shakespearean tones ring out across the Commons.

MPs such as Emma Thornberry also make me angry. When asked what she would do about leaving the EU, she said that she would negotiate a deal with the EU, bring it back to parliament, then vote to remain! What a deal that would be!

Jo Swinson makes me angry. She would just ignore democracy and revoke Article 50, disregarding that 17.4 million people voted to leave. The Lib Dems also sent a letter to the president of the EU begging that they refuse to allow us to leave. How liberal! How democratic!

John Major, who brought a charge to stop BJ proroguing parliament, something Major did himself when in office. What a hypocrite!

Most of us who voted to leave the EU are not tub-thumping, racist, ignorant people who spend time protesting outside parliament, holding banners. We held a referendum in which leave received the highest vote, and hoped that MPs would respect that.

Were you aware that many of the early Quakers owned plantations in America and the Caribbean and were involved in the slave trade?

Admittedly, Quakers were amongst the first to call for the abolition of slavery, but they didn't refuse the compensation payments which the government made to slave owners.

I agree MaizieD with Smith’s analysis.Revolution usually arrives in countries where the division becomes just too great.

Did you indeed.lololol.

Slightly changing the angle of this discussion, but some time ago I decided to try to read Adam Smith, the 18th C economist who has been influential ever since. He is very prolix, so it's quite hard to wade through and he is very much of his time in his view of the social hierarchy, , but this passage struck me:

No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the far greater part of its members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share in the produce of their labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged

I am well aware that the 'greater part' of our society is not 'poor and miserable' but a very significant number are. . I'm also aware that we aspire to be more than just 'tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged'...

Smith is not quite the hardheaded economist that he has been made out to be. He has a moral aspect to his analysis which I think is interesting and lacking in many of our contemporary views of the relationship between wealth and the wealth creators when it comes to the division of 'profit' and entitlement to monetary reward.

Willian Penn lived centuries ago, and 20th century and 21st century Quakerism has moved with the times.
I can think of no better ideal in business than a successful firm providing well for it’s workforce.

Lolololol I bet I've read more about Quakerism than you ever have. I even wrote part of a thesis about it.

jura I've studied local literature relating to Quaker businesses. It's true that few of the workers experienced real poverty, but that was so they were good workers and made more money for the Quaker employers.

Interestingly, a number of them made money from brewing, while they themselves were teetotal.

The heads of Quaker businesses were well known for both good business ethics, good business sense and care for their workers.
growstuff you need to do some reading on this subject.

Good business sense ( making money) are not dirty words, indeed if businesses fail then workers lose their jobs.

Actually Joelsnan I have. I live in a town, which was very strongly influenced by Quakerism. To this day, we still benefit from Quaker philanthropy and we have a well-attended Friends' Meeting House.

Quaker business ethics involved honesty and reliability, which meant people wanted to trade with them at a time when contract law was not always enforced. Quakers discouraged "covetousness" and taking on debts which couldn't be repaid.

Nevertheless, the Quakers didn't believe their workers should be paid more than they needed for basic living. True, some of them built housing for their workers, but that was so they could be healthier and more efficient.

The famous Quaker William Penn described covetousnesss as:

"A disease as epidemical, as killing: it creeps into all stations and ranks of men; the poorest often exceeding their ability to indulge their appetite; and the rich frequently wallowing in those things that please the lusts of their eye and flesh, and the pride of life…’

The Quakers believed very much that workers should be kept in their place and should work hard and live within their means.

yes, joelsnan. Including infirmaries, schools, land to grow food, etc.

Quakers were not allowed to go to Universities which were run on official religious lines- and it was thus their duty to use their brains to create businesses to provide safe work, and a good decent lifestyle for its workers. Yes, they did very well out of it, for sure - but their workers were well looked after.

Also James Reckitt, of Reckitt and Coleman, who was a Quaker philanthropist in Hull.

growstuff
Maybe you could do a bit if research on the Quaker business ethic.
Think Rowntree, Cadbury, Salt et al

Just as important as their business ethics and values was their vision that the purpose of wealth creation was for the benefit of the workers, the local community, society at large - as well as for the entrepreneurs – ie themselves.

I remember someone (Gillybob?) posting about the (very) small business that she and her husband run. They pay their seven staff well, and have all the other costs that go with being an employer, which nearly doubles the actual wage bill. They pay themselves far less than any of their employers, and can't even afford a pension plan for themselves. Their house is mortgaged to the eybrows to support the business. They are squeezed by customers on the one hand, big businesses who want the lowest price possible and can shift to other suppliers if they don't get it, competitors who have the assets to borrow money so as to make bulk savings and meet the low prices demanded, and suppliers whose costs are rising all the time and being passed on. They didn't know how much longer they could hold out without folding and leaving seven families out of work.

One of the replies ws to the same effect as some here - that t5hey shouldn't be in business, then, and they'd have to just "get a job".

What job? when you are too old for most employers and will reach retiring age in a few years?

What about the other seven people who would be added to the jobless queue? That queue would be swelled by eight - and that is only one of the small businesses facing increasing pressure from all sides.

There is a lot of talk of business and profits in the same breath. BIG business makes profits, small and micro businesses make enough for the owners to take a small wage. Over 60% of working people in this country are employed by small or medium sized businesses. If more and more of them go bust, then more and more people will become dependent on state benefits, and face all the despair and mental turmoil that goes with being chucked on the scrapheap.