The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:
	Good news, there's more land for the government to sell off than we thought. Hooray!

Isn't it all owned b the Queen?

	Quote:	Phos
	Isn't it all owned b the Queen?

No, that's just the swans. It's easy to mix up...

	Quote:	Phos
	Isn't it all owned b the Queen?

May as well be. Most land is STILL owned by fat fingered land owners whose ancestors were buddies of William the Conqueror. Land ownership in the UK is so backward, and unfortunately leaving the Common Agricultural Policy won't even come close to solving it. Sickening to think that after 1,000 years most wealth and land in the country is still in the hands of its conquerors.

The late Duke of Westminster summed it up the best:

	Quote:
	An FT reporter, working through a standard set of questions, once asked him what advice he’d give to young entrepreneurs keen to emulate his success. “Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror,” he replied.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	May as well be. Most land is STILL owned by fat fingered land owners whose ancestors were buddies of William the Conqueror. Land ownership in the UK is so backward, and unfortunately leaving the Common Agricultural Policy won't even come close to solving it. Sickening to think that after 1,000 years most wealth and land in the country is still in the hands of its conquerors. The late Duke of Westminster summed it up the best:

To be fair, it is almost impossible to find someone not related to William the Conqueror in Europe, that's just maths.

Completely right on land ownership. The Duke of Westminster can get tae f. He managed to get best part of £10bn without paying any tax on it, bully for him.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	StirB
	The Duke of Westminster can get tae f. He managed to get best part of £10bn without paying any tax on it, bully for him.

Current or late? Just asking as Loz's quote came from Gerald. My mum knew him personally and wouldn't have a word said against him. Family friends also have a farm on the Cheshire estate and were fiercely loyal to him.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Current or late? Just asking as Loz's quote came from Gerald. My mum knew him personally and wouldn't have a word said against him. Family friends also have a farm on the Cheshire estate and were fiercely loyal to him.

This fella:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_G...of_Westminster

Given he is the 7th in line and the amount his family has accumulated, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that none of them have paid much IHT.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that none of them have paid much IHT.

I'm sure that would be a matter of public record if you decided to look for it. All I know of the lad is he lost his dad and came into his inheritance at a relatively young age, and for most of his teens, his mum was suffering from cancer. From the conversations his dad had with my mum, he took his mum's illness very badly.

Please don't stop seeing people as people just because of what they were born into.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	A spokesman for the Grosvenor Estate said the family trust paid inheritance tax of 6 per cent on the value of its assets every ten years. That was done to keep continuity of ownership rather than to avoid the levy. He said: “The idea that the Duke doesn’t pay any inheritance tax is completely wrong.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7998246.html

How many members do the Conservatives have left? Unlike Labour, the Tories do not publish an official figure. But John Strafford of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy (a kind of Tory Jon Lansman) estimates that party membership is now a mere 70,000. That compares unfavourably to Labour's 570,000 (making it one of the largest parties in Europe) and to the Tories' 1997 level of 400,000.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-ripe-entryism

	Quote:
	How many members do the Conservatives have left? Unlike Labour, the Tories do not publish an official figure. But John Strafford of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy (a kind of Tory Jon Lansman) estimates that party membership is now a mere 70,000. That compares unfavourably to Labour's 570,000 (making it one of the largest parties in Europe) and to the Tories' 1997 level of 400,000.

That’s because anyone could join Labour for 3 quid. And they did, which is why Jeremy Corbyn is now leader. There’s probably more Tories as signed up members of the Labour Party than in the Conservatives.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7998246.html

I will try that when my parents croak. Sorry, you can have 6% every 10 years, I'm sure they'll be happy enough with that. That's about a third of the rate of inflation, so presumably even with moderate investment he's making more in interest than he'd ever have to pay in Trust Tax.

No chance he'll be paying that either, as you get relief on properties and agricultural land.

His company pays 11%, instead of the usual 20% (19% more recently) corporate tax.

He's diddling us and we're doffing our caps. No surprises there.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	His company pays 11%, instead of the usual 20% (19% more recently) corporate tax. He's diddling us and we're doffing our caps. No surprises there.

The system is diddling 'us', and if we are the state, the state is diddling itself. Also, I've never had a cap to doff. If you want to do something to change the financial laws and systems of the UK, then fine, crack on with it.

People have a peculiar view of wealth accumulation, and I never see anyone saying that they want to work 40hrs a week to be skint and stay skint for the rest of their lives. As a society, we congratulate those who improve their lot in life through hard work, but how many generations can a family build upon that wealth before society sees it as something they're not entitled to?

	Quote:	Blueangel
	The system is diddling 'us', and if we are the state, the state is diddling itself. Also, I've never had a cap to doff. If you want to do something to change the financial laws and systems of the UK, then fine, crack on with it. People have a peculiar view of wealth accumulation, and I never see anyone saying that they want to work 40hrs a week to be skint and stay skint for the rest of their lives. As a society, we congratulate those who improve their lot in life through hard work, but how many generations can a family build upon that wealth before society sees it as something they're not entitled to?

Fine, the system, run by people like him is diddling us, there isn't really too much difference. The guy owns half of London.

I know you have personal investment in this guy, but surely even you can admit this disparity of wealth cannot be right?

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	I know you have personal investment in this guy, but surely even you can admit this disparity of wealth cannot be right?

I don't have personal investment in him at all, but I've always been fascinated by how a socialist society could / should deal with the issue of inherited wealth. I also refuse to apportion any perceived fault and blame on a 26yr old kid whose only role is to maintain, manage and improve upon, what is essentially, the family business, and who has also inherited the responsibility for the livelihood and security of hundreds of people.

It's human nature to bequeath your accumulated assets to your offspring, but how many generations down the line does this become 'unfair'? It's a conundrum.

[Uncle Max]

Definitive proof, if ever it were needed, that we are being controlled by a bunch of wankers...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...since-election

[Blueangel]

Not defending them in the slightest, but I'm guilty of accidentally accessing porn in the workplace. Before the days when booking.com became the behemoth that it is now, our prefered search site for independent hotels was this... https://www.smoothhound.co.uk/ If you accidentally omitted one of the 'h's, it used to take you to a site full of intimately shaven people doing intimate things to each other.

Of course the obvious solution would be to spend less. But they won't. Because it's the EU.

Juncker calls on EU countries to make up Brexit hole in its budget

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Not defending them in the slightest, but I'm guilty of accidentally accessing porn in the workplace. Before the days when booking.com became the behemoth that it is now, our prefered search site for independent hotels was this... https://www.smoothhound.co.uk/ If you accidentally omitted one of the 'h's, it used to take you to a site full of intimately shaven people doing intimate things to each other.

Accidental exposure too- had birds in the garden, called mésanges à tête noire- but could not remember the name in English- so googled 'black tits' - it wasw bit of shock

[marton]

A UN-backed committee has confirmed it is considering a complaint from Friends of the Earth that the government’s EU withdrawal bill breached the Aarhus convention, which requires public consultation on any new environmental law.

Michael Mason, associate professor at the London School of Economics, says the government remains legally bound by the Aarhus convention after withdrawal from the EU, and by abolishing laws relating to Aarhus provisions the UK would be in breach of the treaty.

He says: “The UK would not be able to cherry-pick provisions in the convention: the UK is either fully in or would have to pull out from the treaty. To stay in, the UK government will have to retain all EU-derived law implementing Aarhus obligations.

Source

Rolling shambles.....