Brexit discussion thread III

Nody · 21-03-2018 03:00PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

All good points, but it still makes no sense to me. In an environment where the 'wisdom' suggests that the UK economy is in for some major negative impacts why would companies be increasing their cost bases?

Because they are running out of candidates to choose among as the Europeans (and UK citizens) are leaving; multiple companies have stated they got problem filling advanced roles which makes poaching the temporary stop fix which drives cost.

Why would growth be continuing?

Pounds down; growth has slowed compared to Europe for quite a while now so why would they not continue to grow as long as they got free export to faster growing (EU) countries?

I am not dismissing the replies, I really don't understand it. Surely the economy should already be contracting, given that even the best scenarios paint a fairly negative picture.

It's like the dotcom crash etc.; everyone tends to look the other way until the crash starts and then get out at the last minute or simply play the ostrich and stick the head in the sand "It will be grand; they will come to their senses" etc. attitude. It is not a UK thing either; look at the new EU data laws and most companies (inc. the big once) are woefully behind on implementing the requirements in their systems etc. to be legally compliant. About the only time I think companies were on track with things was the Y2K fixes and that was because software and hardware companies saw a great opportunity to sell in new stuff and spent years telling horror stories about it which drove the alignment to fix it.

If I was one of those people getting pay rises/new job, then it would be hard for me to see where all this negativity to Brexit is coming from. From my POV this seems like a non brainer.

Except when you get laid off a year later as the company is leaving due to Brexit; it's pissing in trousers moment. Feels wam in the short term but cold in the long term.

Zubeneschamali · 21-03-2018 03:37PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

If I was one of those people getting pay rises/new job, then it would be hard for me to see where all this negativity to Brexit is coming from.

Several times in this thread, I have seen boardsies say they have spoken to people in business in the UK who are ignoring brexit and assuming it will sort itself out somehow.

These numbers suggest UK business as a whole is treating Brexit as no big deal. If it turns out that they are wrong and it is a big deal, this means the impact will be a sudden shock rather than a gradual drop in growth.

(Spoiler: if it ever happens, it will be a really big deal).

Skedaddle · 21-03-2018 03:43PM

There are properly conducted surveys showing most businesses are ignoring it and assuming it will be "alright on the night".

Sam Russell · 21-03-2018 03:51PM

Anyway, there has been a real increase in employment in the Dept for Exiting the EU. They have been recruiting like there is no tomorrow - perhaps they know there is no tomorrow. I think they are up to 10,000 and growing.

mickoneill31 · 21-03-2018 03:53PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Several times in this thread, I have seen boardsies say they have spoken to people in business in the UK who are ignoring brexit and assuming it will sort itself out somehow.

These numbers suggest UK business as a whole is treating Brexit as no big deal. If it turns out that they are wrong and it is a big deal, this means the impact will be a sudden shock rather than a gradual drop in growth.

(Spoiler: if it ever happens, it will be a really big deal).

It reminds me of radio programs I was listening to in 2007. Their pundits were all talking about our "soft landing". How'd that work out?

Zubeneschamali · 21-03-2018 03:55PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Anyway, there has been a real increase in employment in the Dept for Exiting the EU. They have been recruiting like there is no tomorrow - perhaps they know there is no tomorrow. I think they are up to 10,000 and growing.

Holy crap! The entire dead weight of Brussels Eurocrats busily straightening our bananas only comes to 50,000 people.

Sam Russell · 21-03-2018 04:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Anyway, there has been a real increase in employment in the Dept for Exiting the EU. They have been recruiting like there is no tomorrow - perhaps they know there is no tomorrow. I think they are up to 10,000 and growing.

Holy crap! The entire dead weight of Brussels Eurocrats busily straightening our bananas only comes to 50,000 people.

Well at least they are Loyal Civil Servants, not faceless unelected Eurocrats.

Harika · 21-03-2018 04:25PM

While you have the uncertainty of Brexit looming over the UK that might cause negative effects, you have also players like the Bank of England, that is supporting the UK economy and mitigating the negative impacts. While the plummeting pound hurts importing businesses, it helps exports. Also businesses are usually adaptable and are able to avoid crisis early on.
If you really want to see the impact of Brexit check back in 100 years and read some academic papers about that, until then everything might be a bit biased.

Zubeneschamali · 21-03-2018 04:29PM

Harika wrote: »

If you really want to see the impact of Brexit check back in 100 years and read some academic papers about that, until then everything might be a bit biased.

Oh, I think we are going to see some pretty obvious impact a lot sooner than that.

But expect the Brexiteers to say it could have happened anyway, would have been worse if they were in the EU, is just alleged facts from so-called experts, and hurry up with the gold leaf on my castle moat island duck house.

J Mysterio · 21-03-2018 05:12PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Anyway, there has been a real increase in employment in the Dept for Exiting the EU. They have been recruiting like there is no tomorrow - perhaps they know there is no tomorrow. I think they are up to 10,000 and growing.

So... what? A country with an enormous public service? Doesn't remind me of anywhere...

listermint · 21-03-2018 09:43PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

So... what? A country with an enormous public service? Doesn't remind me of anywhere...

Clearly you missed the point.

This team is solely for brexit.

Sand · 21-03-2018 09:45PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

To call Brexit anything other than Underpants Economics is delusion, plain and simple.

Agreed. Brexit is clearly against the advice of all serious economic thought. Moriarty made the point earlier that the Remain vote was a vote for the known. It was a continuation of what is already occurring. Remain voters lived in this scenarios, and they wanted more of the same.

Leave voters also lived in this scenario. They decided to take a very risky vote against more of the same. You might disagree with it. You might resent it. You might think they are going to suffer for it. But this doesn't change what Brexit was: no more of the same, even if there are risks and costs to bear.

Critics say democracy is voters going for the easy option, for whatever is in their immediate interest. No big picture or vision beyond where their next handout is coming from. We know pollution is killing the planet, but we just want more anyway. I just find the criticism of Brexit, given it was a vote for an idea* greater than where the next handout is coming from to be fascinating in that context.

I know I'm talking to a wall on this point. Brexit voters are idiots. There is nothing to learn. Ignore the vote. More of the same. Okay.

*I don't agree with the idea.

Enzokk wrote: »

That is an interesting way to frame this. Yes there would be years that immigration was higher in that period, but there would be years it was lower as well. So highlighting that some years had higher immigration than the average is weird, unless you state there were years of lower immigration which is redundant because you are talking about an average.

Yes, maybe I didn't phrase that correctly. The point I wanted to make was this was not a gentle rise to a new average. It shot up under New Labour, very quickly. Massively over the decade that had preceded it. And its climbed even higher since. Over 1.2 million immigrants over 2014-15 alone.

The takeaway is that the last 20 years of mass immigration to the UK are abnormal. You put a society under that sort of stress, you get revolutions like Brexit.

Sand · 21-03-2018 09:52PM

mickoneill31 wrote: »

It reminds me of radio programs I was listening to in 2007. Their pundits were all talking about our "soft landing". How'd that work out?

Yes, its more of the same 'green jersey' thinking from that era. Unfortunately, there is a incredible level of complacency amongst the middle and upper class English who tend to make the decisions. Probably more justified complacency than what existed in Ireland 2007, but complacency all the same.

There is some extremely clever and insightful analysis by English bloggers (who are Brexiteers, but who want to 'win' within the rules of reality) regarding the challenges the UK faces, but the UK political, media and business classes are by and large asleep at the wheel. They simply cant wrap their minds around what being a third country means in EU terms, let alone the reality of trading under WTO terms. It's incredibly damming that May has not been deposed by someone more competent, but the simple reality is there is no one more competent.

J Mysterio · 21-03-2018 09:57PM

listermint wrote: »

Clearly you missed the point.

This team is solely for brexit.

I was being facetious. Half the people in the North work in the Public Sector.

Leroy42 · 21-03-2018 09:57PM

IMO Brexit voters are not idiots for voting for the idea. They are wrong in that they ignored the facts that were in front of them, facts that pointed that the idea itself was unworkable.

If they knew the costs and were fine with that then we wouldn't be seeing this constant complaining about how badly the evil EU are treating them. How they are being forced to make a divorce payment, how fisheries policy will continue during a transition etc etc.

The voted for an idea, without eve actually examining the reality of that idea. Getting rid of EU bureaucrats (but happy to have more in the UK and happy to keep the house of Lords). Getting rid of immigration, even though the EU made up only a small portion of it. Getting told what to do by Brussels, when it was their own governments that signed them up to things.

I understand, or at least I think I do, the motivation behind the brexit vote. I share many of the issues with the EU that were talked about. But this is not a solution to that, it is merely running away from that problem but into far greater ones.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-03-2018 10:28PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well at least they are Loyal Civil Servants, not faceless unelected Eurocrats.

Yes minister.

Capt'n Midnight · 21-03-2018 10:51PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Wage growth is long overdue in the UK, unemployment figures are masking precarious employment and may be based on lower end employment.

There's been some good news but it's a mixed bag. The lost ground still hasn't been made up.

Any gains for consumers by reducing tariffs on imports has already been cancelled out by the fall in sterling.

The UK is a nation of shopkeepers, but if you add services too then
consumer spending accounts for about 60% of UK economic activity.

As the latest Resolution Foundation report, The Living Standards Outlook, revealed, the last decade has seen the most anaemic rates of wage growth for 200 years.

UK consumer confidence is still low.

unemployment rate ticked lower to 4.3% from 4.4%. ... the number of unemployment benefit claimants rose by 9,200 to 838,000 in February, that's the highest level in more than three years.

Sand · 21-03-2018 10:52PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

If they knew the costs and were fine with that then we wouldn't be seeing this constant complaining about how badly the evil EU are treating them. How they are being forced to make a divorce payment, how fisheries policy will continue during a transition etc etc.

I agree with your post, I would just finesse this point. I think Brexiteer politicians who promised magical unicorns, rainbows and three wishes for everyone are constantly complaining. They are afraid of being found out for what they are - frauds.

Brexit voters are a different population. We have to distinguish the two: if Cameron had any concept of the wide support for Brexit, he would never, ever have called the referendum. The support for Brexit remains stubbornly high, despite it being very, very clear it is not a get rich quick scheme. This is the sort of grim determination to achieve an objective that environmentalists dream would suddenly grip the population when it came to emission targets. At any cost, at any price.

I recall talking to some English work colleagues in June 2016, before the vote. The topic of Brexit came up (being a multi-national work environment, politics never usually comes up). What I was struck by was these lads (who were nice, but like most English dim - think Golden Labradors clever enough to hold down an office job) didn't object when I said that Brexit would be an economic cost. They knew that, they wanted whatever Brexit represented to them over and beyond the hit to national GDP. At the same time I spoke to other English colleagues immediately after the vote who were almost disbelieving of the result. The same people, from the same country, working in the same environment (i.e. abroad in Ireland) but utterly different views. The UK really needs proportional representation to better represent peoples views. This sort of refusal to accept the Brexit vote is very telling in my view. It simply does not compute for those who felt they could ignore the 'permanently aggrieved'. And the latter do not entirely live on a council estate.

Leroy42 · 21-03-2018 11:11PM

There is this constant refrain from Brexiteers that the Remainers wull2nor accept the vote.

Nobody is claiming the vote is invalid. What remainers are claiming is that the vote does not give a blank cheque to the government to do whatever it wants. It cannot simply ignore the 48% that voted to remain or assume that every leave vote was on the basis of whatever the cost.

It is a trite line trotted out by the like of IDS and JRM to avoid having to deal with the genuine concerns that are being raised.

And when did democracy stop? My understanding is that a vote doesn't mean the losing side needs to shut up and accept whatever happens. It is the job of MPs to continue to serve their constituents and if that means raising doubts over Brexit then so be it.

This campaign to shut down any opposition is the worst aspect of all this. For a country that seemingly wanted to take back control there seems to be many that believes that means control only to them.

Sand · 21-03-2018 11:36PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nobody is claiming the vote is invalid. What remainers are claiming is that the vote does not give a blank cheque to the government to do whatever it wants. It cannot simply ignore the 48% that voted to remain or assume that every leave vote was on the basis of whatever the cost.

Well, I agree and disagree. Firstly there is the line taken by Demfad (whose work on this thread I highly respect, this is not a criticism) that the vote was ultimately a fraud, hence invalid. Secondly there is the line taken by others like Moriarty, that the vote is ultimately idiots who dont know whats good for them, hence invalid. There is a very, very strong line of thinking that the Brexit vote must be somehow reversed or denounced as illegitimate.

But I do really, very strongly agree with the latter part. The current Tory government has taken the Brexit vote not as an opportunity to reflect on the UK specific reasons its exists (mass immigration, FPTP voting, disconnect between parties and voters) but as a moment of 'creative destuction' to establish the Singapore-On-Thames the fringe Tory think tanks have always dreamt of.

Again, we really have to distinguish between [BoJo, Gove, Fox, Davis] and the average Brexit voter.

Professor Moriarty · 21-03-2018 11:56PM

Sand wrote: »

Well, I agree and disagree. Firstly there is the line taken by Demfad (whose work on this thread I highly respect, this is not a criticism) that the vote was ultimately a fraud, hence invalid. Secondly there is the line taken by others like Moriarty, that the vote is ultimately idiots who dont know whats good for them, hence invalid. There is a very, very strong line of thinking that the Brexit vote must be somehow reversed or denounced as illegitimate.

But I do really, very strongly agree with the latter part. The current Tory government has taken the Brexit vote not as an opportunity to reflect on the UK specific reasons its exists (mass immigration, FPTP voting, disconnect between parties and voters) but as a moment of 'creative destuction' to establish the Singapore-On-Thames the fringe Tory think tanks have always dreamt of.

Again, we really have to distinguish between [BoJo, Gove, Fox, Davis] and the average Brexit voter.

You tried to put words in my mouth on this topic the last time you posted on this thread and you're doing it again. Stop. You're better than that.

ArmaniJeanss · 22-03-2018 12:04AM

Sand wrote: »

The current Tory government has taken the Brexit vote not as an opportunity to reflect on the UK specific reasons its exists (mass immigration, FPTP voting, disconnect between parties and voters) but as a moment of 'creative destuction' to establish the Singapore-On-Thames the fringe Tory think tanks have always dreamt of.

It's been described before as being the equivalent of if Remain had won, and it had been subsequently taken to mean a 'Hard Remain' vote for joining Schengen, the Euro, driving on the right etc.

Peregrinus · 22-03-2018 02:17AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I think we are going to see some pretty obvious impact a lot sooner than that.

I'm thinking the impact is going to be slow, steady, and sustained. Not a massive and sudden crash, but a persistent underperformance by the UK economy with a substantial cumulative effect over time.

When people produce models that project a negative impact from Brexit of X% of GDP, they are not saying that GDP will drop by X%. They are saying that GDP growth will be X% lower than it otherwise would have been, but for Brexit.

Of course, we'll never get to run history a second time, so we will never observe what GDP growth would have been, but for Brexit. We can model this, but not observe it. Which means that those for whom it is an article of faith that Brexit will not be harmful will never be compelled by the evidence to accept that it has, in fact, been harmful. They can simply dismiss the models of what would have happened, but for Brexit, as unreliable. They are in fact already doing that, to a large degree.

What we can do, of course, is compare the UK's economic performance with that of comparable countries which have not embarked on a project analogous to Brexit. Since the Brexit referendum, the UK's real economic growth has been falling, contary to the trend both of the OECD as a whole and of the EU-27, both of which have rising growth. The pound has slumped and not recovered, inflation has risen and real wage growth is still close to zero. The share prices of UK-oriented businesses have substantially underperformed. the market. All of this tends to suggest that the pessimistic models of the economic impact of Brexit are, basically, correct.

Nody · 22-03-2018 09:14AM

Looks like those Freedom Passports will be printed in Europe by a French/Dutch company which of course have the Brexiteers up in arms (and showing their cluelessness to EU regulation and law requirements on open tenders etc.).

Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, chairman of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, branded such a move “completely wrong and unnecessary”.

Sir Bill said: “I think it is incongruous to say the least. It is completely unnecessary and it is symbolically completely wrong.

“Whatever the conditions which led to the decision in terms of pricing, the fact is that this is a symbolic event.”

Former cabinet minister Priti Patel told The Sun: “This should be a moment that we should be celebrating. The return of our iconic blue passport will re-establish the British identity.

“But to be putting the job in the hands of the French is simply astonishing. It is a national humiliation.

“I would urge Amber Rudd and the Government to look again at the powers they have to see what they can do.”

Bold added by me to highlight the stupidity...

VinLieger · 22-03-2018 09:44AM

Nody wrote: »

Looks like those Freedom Passports will be printed in Europe by a French/Dutch company which of course have the Brexiteers up in arms (and showing their cluelessness to EU regulation and law requirements on open tenders etc.).

Bold added by me to highlight the stupidity...

I also love the fact that they could have had blue passports all along without leaving the EU.

pixelburp · 22-03-2018 09:53AM

Nody wrote: »

Looks like those Freedom Passports will be printed in Europe by a French/Dutch company which of course have the Brexiteers up in arms (and showing their cluelessness to EU regulation and law requirements on open tenders etc.).

Bold added by me to highlight the stupidity...

The most telling portion of that quote is, to me, "... putting the job in the hands of the French", emphasis mine.

Not 'a French company', or 'printed in France', hell not even 'a foreign company', which'd be bad but still ambiguous all the same - but 'The French'; I could practically hear the 'dun dun dunnnnn...' in the background. It positively reeks of that English sense of superiority and resting disdain towards their own nextdoor neighbours. 'The French'. God save Britain from the Sir Cashs of this world; little England really has won this war, and it's happily waving Union Flags from 1945.

seamus · 22-03-2018 09:59AM

Nody wrote: »

Bold added by me to highlight the stupidity...

Comments about British identity and "national humiliation", from a child of Indian immigrants.

You literally couldn't make this up. In my eyes, she is British. But from the point of view of many Brexiteers, she is exactly what they voted Leave to avoid - "dilution of Britishness", foreign immigrants tainting the British gene and cultural pools, and yet here she is making comments in its defence.

Madness.

josip · 22-03-2018 10:26AM

Nody wrote: »

Looks like those Freedom Passports will be printed in Europe by a French/Dutch company which of course have the Brexiteers up in arms (and showing their cluelessness to EU regulation and law requirements on open tenders etc.).

If it had to be an open tender then is this statement in the article incorrect?

Sutherland acknowledged that his firm had been beaten on price in an open competition, but he said that was unfair. He said that in France, as a foreign-based firm, De La Rue would be barred from bidding to produce the French passport

Nody · 22-03-2018 10:34AM

josip wrote: »

If it had to be an open tender then is this statement in the article incorrect?

Depends on the legislation; for example if France has a legal requirement of them being done in France for security reasons (it's then open for any company but the production has to be done in France) or similar that's in play. The standard rule is however that any government contracts have to be advertised EU wide for tenders. The tender has to have clear criteria for selection and the limitations can also be challenged (for example "Can only hire UK citizens" would most likely not be a legal requirement as it goes against freedom of movement etc.).

Found the above potentially confirmed in the Telegraph article:

He said the company is not allowed to compete for passport contracts in France - thought to be because of national security protections

josip · 22-03-2018 10:43AM

Nody wrote: »

Depends on the legislation; for example if France has a legal requirement of them being done in France for security reasons (it's then open for any company but the production has to be done in France) or similar that's in play. The standard rule is however that any government contracts have to be advertised EU wide for tenders. The tender has to have clear criteria for selection and the limitations can also be challenged (for example "Can only hire UK citizens" would most likely not be a legal requirement as it goes against freedom of movement etc.).

Found the above potentially confirmed in the Telegraph article:

That sound like protectionism by another name, especially if not all EU countries apply this principle.