tomacht8

Trump, the Clown has used for the first time, after 2 years as 45, the word: Teamwork?
 

20 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Again an assumption that we go from a market of 500 million to a market of 65 million once we leave the EU. We will have the economic tools and ability to become more competitive globally (including with EU member states) once we are outside the EU. It is wrong to suggest that we'll suddenly only be selling goods domestically after we leave.

 

Many goods from the UK are cheaper now due to the weaker pound. If (as the doom mongers suggest) the pound falls even further, those goods will be even more attractive, even with tariffs. 

 

Also, that market of 500 million people includes millions of people from relatively poor countries who don't buy many imported goods anyway. So that number, although accurate doesn't paint the whole picture. If the 27 member states were all like Germany economically, that would be different. 

 

 

Only two thoughts:
1. The UK is not a resource rich land (mineral resources).
If a producer then has to shop globally with a weak Pound for production materials, that will increase the cost per part.
2. If the sales market builds additional barriers, - and the EU protects itself against e.g. cheap products from China -, a mass producer (here the big food companies, car, pharmacy or chemistry) - price technology can not keep up.
As for the producers in the UK in particular: Whether Airbus, a car manufacturer or who always wants to sell physical products in the EU will be charged with additional quotas and duties. Furthermore, the administrative burden in the European Economic Area is increasing.
Again, there are price increase effects. If the UK believes that all products can then be sold at manufacturing cost, aka no profit for the market players, that certainly does not help the producing UK substance.

33 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

not funny

 

I am sorry.
But if your income situation is bad you have to move and look for something new or find alternative sources of income. To hope that politicians will improve your own income situation brings nothing. 

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

No not today. When they were building the Jubilee Line 40 years ago they got at least 70 quid a day tax paid. That was great money back then. They were getting 350 quid a week for 5 days and more if they worked 7 days which they often did as it had to be built as quickly as possible.

 

People work for 50 /80 quid a day all over the UK but not building underground tunnels. 80 quid a day is 400 quid a week and if it's in your hand it's not bad money. 250 quid a week is not to be sneezed at especially if you're skint and can't get anything better. You could not afford to have holidays in Thailand on it but it's better than a kick in the arse.

 

I'd imagine a tunneler today could possibly be looking at 1,000 quid a week but as far as I know no tunnels are being built at present in London which is where you normally get the highest wages in the UK.

If you only get 50 pounds a day, you have to stop pushing a wheelbarrow and learn how to drive an excavator (bagger).

47 minutes ago, Joinaman said:

it seems a lot of people keep saying how much we will lose, how we will be much poorer, but never fully explain how they know this and never give us the figures to prove it either

Think of a producer.
You have a good product.
But your product can easily be copied by others.
Consumers are price sensitive.
In order to have a competitive price you need large quantities, which leads to a decrease of your costs per part (Fixed costs degression effect).
You get even more discounts, the more you buy from your suppliers (variable costs decrease per piece).
Furthermore, the higher the production quantities are in your production, the less learning effects costs you have (error-free production reduction cost effect).
Less waste in the production and full utilization of the machines.
That's production theory.
If you look at the market now, you need a big market to sell your products.
But if the market is limited from over 500 million to 65 million buyers, many companies can no longer realize these cost benefits of mass production.
And if you then add in tariffs and quotas (WTO), your product will be more expensive in global competition.

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Yvette Cooper,wife of Ed Ball, ex-Labour  cabinet member.

 Cooper is the M.P for Normanton +Castleford, Yorkshire, a constituency in which the electorate Democratically  voted 70% in favour to leave the E.u.

 Yet like so many Labour M.P’s she considers her constituents to be uneducated and ignorant of the true intentions of the Bureaucrats inBrussels. In other words She’s Completely out of touch with her electorate, same as many so called Labour politicians, whose only experience of life, was gained drinking wine in Hempstead.

And now people wonder why it’s the people versus Parliament. Thus proving, that the only honorable Yorkshireman to enter Westminster was Guy Fawkes. 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you not move to Switzerland?
There are actually binding referendums at cantonal level.

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

This is worth listening to particularly for those Brexiters who still don't understand

Interesting, as he describes the economic self-castration of the UK.
But I'm afraid that most Brexit advocates will drop it under the folder: Project Fear - unreflected.

54 minutes ago, Grouse said:

May should go for option 3 and have decision ratified by referendum but resign before the result.

To put it a bit exaggerated:
In the end, the UK can be grateful that the unpopular European Court clearly gave the UK the opportunity to cancel the dismissal (§50).

 

23 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 Well tell us how you'd start a wheelbarrow up then if you're so smart.

That is a super relevant contribution to the Brexit theme. I think with the right solution of driving a wheelbarrow, the UK could achieve global competitive advantages in global competition. Bravo for this intellectual challenge.

5 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Sorry I made a mistake.

 

 

It's actually over 8.6M.

You could have easily have found it yourself if you'd have tried.

I hope you don't ask me to wipe your a**e for you as well.

 

Economic inactivity - Office for National Statistics

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/economic-and.../economic-inactivity.pdf

1.  
2.  

by D Leaker - ‎Cited by 17 - ‎Related articles

The economically inactive are defined as people who are not in employment or unemployed. There are many reasons why an individual may be inactive, for example, they might be studying, looking after family or long-term sick.

You read your last Paragraph?

Studying?

Looking after family?

Long term sick?

How is the break down on numbers here?

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

You disprove it.

 

Take a university wallah and see how he gets on working on a building site or a job that requires practicality and see for yourself.

 

You'll give him a shovel or a wheel barrow and he'll spend the next twenty minutes looking for the starter button!

Doing simple tasks like digging holes with a shovel, picking cucumbers, cleaning rooms in hotels, washing cars, Hamburger making by mc donalds, lawn mowing, etc.

I did not know that the brexiters are so keen on these jobs. 

Great wealth is not there to be expected.

This is where research, knowledge, new processes, new technologies and new products are much more economically important for a location in a globalized world. Ask Vacuum Cleaner Dyson why he builds his new technology center in Singapore.

Furthermore, in order for the new products to be competitive in the long term, a company needs large quantities in order to achieve cost-reduction effects. In turn, you need access to a large market. 

So far, British researchers have been highly successful in competing for funding. The European Commission's EU research program Horizon 2020 alone has received 4.6 billion euros since 2014, according to the authors of the analysis. And the UK has coordinated more projects under Horizon 2020 than any other country. With 3515 projects, the British are ahead of Spain with 2358 and ahead of Germany with 2106 projects. "In the case of a no-deal Brexit, Britain loses around 45 percent of its research grants," says Mike Galsworthy, director of the "Scientists for the EU" campaign. That would be according to his calculations, almost 580 million euros per year.

But it has always been like that, some must digging and the others let digging.

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

This "shitty" deal, so rapidly approved by the EU. keeps the money coming in! So the main and immediate reason for desperation just disappears. 

That's ridiculous. The benefit that the UK derives from its EU membership in the form of gdp percentage points is many times higher than the eu payment contribution of 1.2% from the uk gdp.

The orange clown, together with his thief gang of straw men, has invested heavily in stocks and options in us steel factories. Otherwise one can not explain this dementia stubbornness.

The whole thing is really worrying.

Trump is ill. He suffers from frontotemporal dementia.

Some people with frontotemporal dementia are restless,  aggressive and easily irritable. Others retire, become dull and indifferent to friends and relatives, and find nothing to enjoy. Those affected often misjudge everyday situations. For example, they make inappropriate or embarrassing remarks that they would not have heard before. Some joke loudly about strangers in the bus, others start to steal. When addressed, people with Frontotemporal Dementia are baffled or outraged - their self-criticism has suffered severely. Other possible symptoms are cravings and "tics": many sufferers just repeat what they have heard like an echo.

Plus the whole thing combined with his personality shaped over time of his life:

addicted to being the center of attention all the time, prone to megalomania and billionaire's posture.

Unfit as president.

Anna demonstrates here that beauty and intelligence often do not go hand in hand.

41 minutes ago, l4ml4m said:

Koh phangan is dead also.

 

I can confirm that.
The lowest peak season I have experienced here since 20 years.

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

As I said, you are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope.

 

It is absurd for the 92% of British companies, who account for the 87% of the UK economy to waste time and money complying with regulations they don't need and don't use. This is surely self-evident.

 

If you're still not getting the point, then do some research: calculate the number of UK companies in the 92%, multiply by a notional annual cost for unnecessary EU compliance, factor that into the project fear "forecasts" (because none of the project fear forecasters have done so) and send your results to the New York Times. You will be adding to the debate.

 

That is abstruse one-dimensional.
That's rubbish.
SME are Micro, small and medium sized.
In the UK 89,3 % from all enterprises are micro sized. These are, for example, all hairdressers, small craftsmen, tax consultants and all small self-employed. And 8.8% are small enterprises.
These company size classes are not at all affected by EU regulations.

The situation is different for the medium (1,5%) and large (0,4%) size classes.

Inform your self how many people are employed in the respective company size classes.

Then you would better understand the scope of Brexit with regard to the number of employees affected.
 

And ur number" account for the 87% of the UK economy" is absolutly wrong.

Alone the Large Enterprises bring in Value from 41,4 %. ( micro 21,8%)

(small 18,6%) (medium 18,2%)

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But a lot of votes for Brexit came from areas where the Tories have drastically cut services. And for some reason those locals blamed the EU. If a hard Brexit happens, and what ensues is really bad, the anger that follows could bet Labour voted into power.

Who knows, Pat Caddell may even be amongst them.

The British are usually super-friendly, reserved and more rationalists with a cool head. Which emotional enemy image has led to this tragedy? Was probably the EU, the tricky red bus and the Polish plumbers.

On 12/17/2018 at 10:46 PM, Naam said:

bus or no bus the £350mm per week (£18.2bb) was a blatant lie. here's the beef from Uk's "Office for National Statistics":

https://www.ons.gov.uk/.../theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

 

no more palaver please.

 

 

In 2016, the UK government spent £814.6 billion. The uk net contribution to the EU was around 8-9 billion. That's around one percent.

Meanwhile, the British pound has lost a purchasing power of 150 billion ( only money base M2) on the world stage in 2018.

A country that can afford such an economic stupidity,

This country is doing too well.

9 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

I was under the impression that the rental market was dominated by people renting out a second home, they were no longer using.

People such as ex-pats living in Thailand, who are living on the rental income of their U.K house. This I have no problem with.

 However I now know that most rental accommodation is owed, as part of a portfolio. Many of these private portfolios consist of 60-70 houses, with one person owning 500+ properties. And these people are only interested in obtaining the highest amount on their investment, without any concern for the renters. They regularly increase the rent, in the knowledge that the majority of renter will be on a low wage. This then forces the renter to apply for housing benifits that, ultimately is payed for by the Tax payers.

 Others are owed by large financial institutions, one such company in the north east, owns 11,000 private rental accommodation.

 

Regarding corruption,Some times when a property comes on the market, the seller is persuaded by the agent to sell to one of these property portfolio owners, quite often at a lower amount than they could obtain from a sale to an individual. The reason why the Estate Agent takes care of the portfolio owners, is that, they the agent, more often than not, managers  the properties on behalf of the owners, at a charge of 10% of the rent. So the agent has quite an incentive to look after the portfolio owner, who may own 70 rental properties, for which the agent can cream off 10% .

  

This system also discriminates against, any young couple who may wish to get on the housing market, The continually fail to buy a property,due to the above, even though they may have worked hard to save up the necessary deposit. Therefore they have no alternative than to rent at a much larger %of their income, rather than paying off a mortgage.

 

  

 

You should vote socialist next time. Social, public housing has not taken place in the UK for a long time. But tax gifts for the rich, yes. These are all internal problems of the uk and have nothing to do with the EU at all.