Why did some very rich business men put up so much money to get a leave vote what’s in it for them i’m not convinced that they did it for the benefit of ordinary people in britain. – quora gas konigsforst


Everyone votes and supports their own self interest. This is true for both Remain and Leave. This is the beauty of democracy and capitalist society. Everyone votes in their own self interest (even socialists who say/pretend they don’t) and by voting in self interest and subsequently capitalising on that self interest, it benefits the whole of society.

The entrepreneurs voted for their benefit and feel that leaving the EU will help them. This is exactly the same as what the rich/richer corporate multinationals that supported Remain did. The multinationals promoted that their employees vote Remain as it was in self interest.

Entrepreneurs don’t like regulation and protectionism as it creates a barriers to entry that massively favours the status quo. Entrepreneurs look to disrupt and change markets. Big multinationals love regulation and protectionism. It means they can have more protection to stop anyone from disrupting their leading position in the status quo.

For example. Nikon would have loved to regulate the digitised imaging market and HMV or Tower Records would have loved to regulate the online sale of music. Entrepreneurs came along and changed this market. The status quo was massively upset.

One recent example would be Vaping (smoking alternative). The big multinationals completely missed the start of this market. The Tobacco and Pharma markets who sold “giving up” products saw their leading status quo position at risk. Rather than try to outcompete the entrepreneurs on product, they pushed for regulation. They pushed that Vaping comes under Medicines and Tobacco regulation. The competitive advantage for these big corporates in these markets is understanding regulation. The big corporates pushed for this regulation so that now before you manufacture a product you need an army of lawyers and a few million in the bank. Then you need another army of lawyers and more money to make sure you stay compliant.

The big corporations used the EU to push regulation. They just needed to lobby one place to get 28 governments to listen. This is great for them. Just one government to lobby and 28 listen! With vaping, many manufacturers have now left the market and the big pharma and tobacco firms are market leaders. Status quo returned.

This is just one example. I’m pretty sure high powered vacuum cleaners, bans on gas fracking, wind vs solar regulation etc has as much to do with protectionism as protecting consumers. All pushed by big corporates. There will be many other examples.

Under EU laws a big multinational can HQ in any EU country. This is the law that allows Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks etc divert all their profits from the local country such as the U.K. back to a HQ in Ireland or Luxembourg. The U.K. is powerless to stop this. It’s EU law. This is a key reason multinationals support Remain. Tax avoidance by big corporations will be easier to stop after Brexit.

In summary, everyone votes in self interest. It seems that for some reason Remain voters on here believe big multinationals supported Remain for altruistic reasons while entrepreneurs did it for immoral reasons. Seems a bit naive. In general I would trust entrepreneurs to support the free market, which massively benefits consumers (normal people) rather than the large multinationals.

Brexit could very well be the start of something bigger. Is it too clichéd to talk about a domino effect? The rest of Europe has been a target as well — for longer than most people think about. We know this from the editorials we see in newspapers and amongst the attitudes of anti-government/ EU groups, parties and leaders.

Competition for natural resources is fierce in an over-populated world. Larger corporations are fighting for profits. People need to survive. It’s a shame to think we’ve come closer and closer to pitting these interests right up against one another — instead of finding fulfilling compromises for all. (How idealistic, right?)

Survival of the fittest? This seems to be what’s happening on a personal, national and global scale at an accelerated pace these days. Population overgrowth, food and water shortages, refugee crises, war and environmental factors are pushing the crises.

Europe, as a block, genuinely seems more competitively self-protective on a global stage – than individual countries do. The alliance between Britain and the rest of the EU was supposed to generate collaborate problem-solving strategies and polices as well as optimal defense and trade deals . Other alliances throughout the world formed blocks that Europe as a whole could compete with

For some entities – that influenced Brexit – and are purposely trying to break up the EU – negotiating trade and defense as well as monetary and environmental policy, may seem easier to navigate with individual countries. For example, it’s safe to guess that some people, business entities and partners / entities want less strict environmental laws and regulations across Britain and Europe for pollution, mining, drilling and oil pipe laying purposes, for example.

Water and food scarcity is driving many countries’ decisions right now. When it’s not—it should be. In Britain’s case perhaps there advantages to breaking off. For example, a solitary Britain can better protect its ports and water supply – especially if it desalinates its ocean water. It can charge for these resources.

Do the risks of Brexit outweigh the advantages for individuals? My knee jerk reaction says yes- based on all the above There are many considerations and I cannot imagine all of them – where I sit but much if it depends on the prevailing British government. Does it want to protect peoples’ Interests? Will they unilaterally forge good alliances? Can they unilaterally protect their peoples’ interests in world affairs? Do they know how to protect and ration or extend their natural resources- with and without outside help?

All we can do is imagine how we will protect ourselves and it communities — on an individual level. So—as far as individual interests are concerned — when people respect the rule of law and seek to shape it to their collective advantage by using democracy – they can conceivably create more optimal conditions for themselves. (I’m not saying this lightly.)

Any way we look at it, ordinary people need to educate themselves about civics and become more informed about their candidates, local conditions, news and the policies that could positively impact peoples’ lifestyles. They need to vote, run for office and weigh-in on political decisions as much as possible. Democratic societies, in many forms, allow people more or less latitude — especially if they defend and use these rights.

I trust that people with similar interests can work together to create conditions for peace, prosperity, personal satisfaction and happiness. What choice do most people have? Certainly the masses can achieve more through democracy than a handful of wealthy investors with less generous motives can.