The more sinister side of Brexit

[OwlHoot]

I'm pretty sure that executing our own Monarch and having a Civil war in the middle ages was pretty damn unnecessary too. But the problem is the poor don't really care about economics and our comfort and want a change. ...

It wasn't the poor who started the civil war in the 1640s, assuming that's what you were referring to, or any previous civil wars (besides the Peasant's Revolt, which wasn't a war as such).

It was mainly King Charles struggling to obtain funds to fight the Dutch, who were muscling in on our trade here there and everywhere, and prosperous MPs refusing to vote the funds.

No doubt that is a gross over-simplification, and it's true King Charles was chronically insensitive, unreliable, and lacking in judgement in his dealings with parliament.

But it's true that people who have no stake in society, in the form of property ownership, feel they have little to lose and maybe something to gain by "shaking the tree" as it were.

So, as well as obviously increasing inequality, reducing rates of home ownership increases potential social instability.

[original PM]

Barriers won't work, you have to compete in global markets. In any case businesses don't simply pay the lowest wage they can get away with. There are numerous academic studies to show that simply isn't the case.

One thing I can guarantee is that the people who voted Brexit because they thought foreigners were stealing their jobs will be a lot worse off.

As Norman Tebbit says they need to get off their fat backsides, get themselves some training and get a decent job instead whining. Margaret Thatcher would have called them moaning minnies.

So a global market.

So I should be able to contact any company in the world and buy their product without interference then?