May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, CharlieK said:

 did you watch Paxman on Trump and Clinton?  

I'm with Churchill when he said 

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." 

 

I agree with that totally and completely.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Johnyo said:

 

 

The chief executive of the bankers association has some news for you

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/22/leading-banks-set-to-pull-out-of-brexit-uk?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

Very worrying. Confirmed by Reuters

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN12M0U7?client=safari

 

[Grouse]

30 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/uk-trade-deficit-hits-new-record-of-24bn-pounds-eu-referendum-brexit

 

Figures from the ONS showed that Europe is gradually becoming a less important destination for UK companies. In 2000, 60% of exports went to other EU countries, but the percentage fell to 58% in 2005, 54% in 2010 and 47% in 2015.

                                                            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The UK doesn't need the EU to be successful. The EU will implode. A hard brexit is better than allowing negotiations to drag on and on. It is not what T May wants, it is what the EU will allow the UK. The arrogance of people like Junker is enough to walk away from the table now.

 

I am sure the EU think the UK will come cap in hand begging for a trade deal. Pull the rug from under their feet and leave as soon as article 50 is enacted. no negotiating. For the UK to get a good deal they need the threaten the survival of the EU.

 

That's rather irresponsible.

 

The EU is still growing albeit at only 1.8% per annum. Our exports of products are falling because we don't make enough of what people actually want. Our services exports have held up since 2000, largely financial services. Right now we face a situation where our financial services could be mortally damaged by withdrawal of passporting rights. Manufactured exports are likely to be hit by tariffs and non tariff barriers. 

 

But hey! Think of the sovereignty!

 

Did you see the video of that young chap at the start of this thread? Have a look! 

[SheungWan]

54 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/uk-trade-deficit-hits-new-record-of-24bn-pounds-eu-referendum-brexit

 

Figures from the ONS showed that Europe is gradually becoming a less important destination for UK companies. In 2000, 60% of exports went to other EU countries, but the percentage fell to 58% in 2005, 54% in 2010 and 47% in 2015.

                                                            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The UK doesn't need the EU to be successful. The EU will implode. A hard brexit is better than allowing negotiations to drag on and on. It is not what T May wants, it is what the EU will allow the UK. The arrogance of people like Junker is enough to walk away from the table now.

 

I am sure the EU think the UK will come cap in hand begging for a trade deal. Pull the rug from under their feet and leave as soon as article 50 is enacted. no negotiating. For the UK to get a good deal they need the threaten the survival of the EU.

 

If risking a percentage figure of 47% in a threatening bluff becomes the Conservative Government line then sterling is going down even more. If anybody thinks that the above has a high risk reality then they should significantly hedge out of sterling now. PS nutty argument big font is a bit of a giveaway.

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, Johnyo said:

 

 

The chief executive of the bankers association has some news for you

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/22/leading-banks-set-to-pull-out-of-brexit-uk?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

Well, he doesn't have much actual news, but.....

 

I'm not going to brush this off with a facetious comment like 'come back to us when they've actually gone', in the way that Sgt Rock's important updates on Deutsche Bank are dismissed.

 

This has to be a worry for the UK. Not a worst case scenario, but a bad case one. Anthony Browne has stated that many banks are putting contingency plans in place to move some operations in the event of a hard brexit. And why wouldn't they? They have voiced concerns that an 'equivalence' deal is too limited.

 

One thing we've learned from how PM May's government operates is that it doesn't give running commentaries. I tend to like this way, but one of the downsides is that it can leave important entities feeling left out. I would be astonished if the government don't have a strategy in place for the banks, just as they did with the foreign-owned car industry. And I expect they will call the banks in soon enough, just as they are doing with the car industry, to discuss this strategy.

 

I see this story as a shot across the bows of the government by the banking industry. It wouldn't surprise me if the story quietly dies in the coming weeks. If it grows legs, then there are fairly big problems on the horizon.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Khun Han

[cumgranosalum]

"This has to be a worry for the UK. Not a worst case scenario, but a bad case one.' - there wouldn't be this scenario if we had ignored the referendum - it was clearly not in the national interest - there has been months of uncertainty now and no sign of any kind of improvement whatsoever...yet Brexiteers keep refusing to admit what a blunder it has been.

 

"I would be astonished if the government don't have a strategy in place for the banks, just as they did with the foreign-owned car industry. And I expect they will call the banks in soon enough, just as they are doing with the car industry, to discuss this strategy.' there is no policy for the motor industry they are just trying to stop it from leaving as they will have to do with most businesses vver the next 2 years if they continue with Brexit.

- the point is they had NO strategy for any of these industries before Brexit, they are just running round like headless chickens reacting to stuff they were warned about BEFORE the referendum

 

 

i think the main problem with Brexiteers is they aren't even a loosely tied grouping they have agendas tat are completely opposing to other brexiteers - agendas but no policies and any policies (e.g. soft or hard) can't be agreed on when they are belatedly put forward.....it is a mess and a mess created by Brexiteers.

[cumgranosalum]

9 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

On that note:

 

"The pound has found some support as traders recognize that its depreciation has benefits for a nation that’s struggling to boost exports and needs to fund a record current-account deficit. Sterling traders were also encouraged by U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond’s suggestion this week that the government wants to keep all options open as it leaves the EU. Still, most of the pound’s moves in recent months have been downward -- and there’s little suggestion that this is set to change. Pound forecasters polled by Bloomberg are more bearish than ever on the U.K. currency’s prospects.  And though the $1.25 median year-end prediction is now stronger than the exchange rate, that reflects how difficult it’s been for strategists to keep pace with sterling’s slide, rather than optimism about a bounce. “What we should expect now is a certain amount of quiet before the next lurch lower,” said SocGen’s Juckes.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-22/pound-s-uncomfortable-truce-can-t-mask-the-risk-of-abrupt-swings

 

"as traders recognize that its depreciation has benefits for a nation that’s struggling"

not really the traders just recognise a dead cat bounce when they see it.

 

as for benefits -10% of the economy relies on exports - not a big slice and they would hae to double that now to compensate forloss of importing buying poer - e.g raw materials food etc which is just going to go up in price.

Edited October 23, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

She's about as ready as a rheumatic tortoise trying to cross a motorway in front of a fleet of 100mph turbo-charged road-rollers drive by Ted Nugent and his family.

 

"don't worry, I'm wearing a shell!"

Edited October 23, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[Grouse]

Another H L Mencken pearl:

 

"Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance"

Edited October 23, 2016 by Grouse

[Khun Han]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Another H L Mencken pearl:

 

"Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance"

What d'you reckon then? Dictatorship? A PAD-style 'academy' of 'democrats'?

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

What d'you reckon then? Dictatorship? A PAD-style 'academy' of 'democrats'?

 

The man died 60 years ago

 

However, parliamentary democracy trumps plebiscites for obvious reasons IMHO.

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

The man died 60 years ago

 

However, parliamentary democracy trumps plebiscites for obvious reasons IMHO.

 

I'm of the view that they can complement each other. It can stop elected officials from getting too far ahead of themselves.

[Grouse]

10 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I'm of the view that they can complement each other. It can stop elected officials from getting too far ahead of themselves.

 

Correct! 

 

The reverse is also true: parliament can reverse bonkers decisions from the masses to avoid mortal danger to the country.

[cumgranosalum]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

I'm of the view that they can complement each other. It can stop elected officials from getting too far ahead of themselves.

In a country like UK they are a tool for single issue crusaders - not for democracy......they merely reflect the whim of those who voted on one particular day.

in fact they usually slow the process of government in the long run and prove to work against real democratic principles - a simple majority is not democracy, it is mob rule.

[chiang mai]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

He cannot help but be confrontional,it's the result of arrogance, this being one of the reasons, no female will stay with him.

 

Here's your personal link to the forum rules, you seem to think they don't apply to you:

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/terms/

[Grouse]

20 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

 

Here's your personal link to the forum rules, you seem to think they don't apply to you:

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/terms/

 

Thank you gentlemen.

[metisdead]

An offensive troll post has been removed as well as the replies.  The Report button is at the top of each post, please use the report button only for posts in blatant violation of the forum rules. 

 

Other nonsense posts are about to disappear.

[Xircal]

19 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

If Schengen borders were secure, I don't think there is a major problem. But in the current febrile environment there are problems in several northern EU states which require attention. How to deal with the specific UK issue is a bit different. Maybe the collapsing pound will produce its own solution.

 

What do Schengen borders have to do with the free movement of people? Britain isn't part of the Schengen agreement but still has to allow freedom of movement while it remains a part of the EU.

 

And what do you mean by "problems in several northern EU states which require attention"? It sounds like you're confusing free movement of EU-migrants with those from other countries which has caused Denmark, Germany and Austria to introduce border controls. Merkel created the problem by inviting Syrian refugees to Germany but was overwhelmed by the numbers that took the invitation at face value. That problem has been compounded by gangs smuggling economic migrants looking for a better life in Europe.

 

Border controls have now been introduced to stem the flow. But that has nothing to do with EU-migrants who are entitled to live and work in any of the 28 (soon to be 27 when the UK leaves) member states. For example, Danish citizens can move to and work in Germany or the Netherlands. Italians can go work in Austria or Hungary. But Moroccans or Turks are considered economic migrants and cannot move or work in any EU member state because neither Morocco or Turkey is a member of the EU.

 

As for the UK, it looks like bankers aren't going to hang around until March next year and will be making arrangements to move to an EU location sooner rather than later: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37743700

 

[MJP]

3 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

What do Schengen borders have to do with the free movement of people? Britain isn't part of the Schengen agreement but still has to allow freedom of movement while it remains a part of the EU.

 

And what do you mean by "problems in several northern EU states which require attention"? It sounds like you're confusing free movement of EU-migrants with those from other countries which has caused Denmark, Germany and Austria to introduce border controls. Merkel created the problem by inviting Syrian refugees to Germany but was overwhelmed by the numbers that took the invitation at face value. That problem has been compounded by gangs smuggling economic migrants looking for a better life in Europe.

 

Border controls have now been introduced to stem the flow. But that has nothing to do with EU-migrants who are entitled to live and work in any of the 28 (soon to be 27 when the UK leaves) member states. For example, Danish citizens can move to and work in Germany or the Netherlands. Italians can go work in Austria or Hungary. But Moroccans or Turks are considered economic migrants and cannot move or work in any EU member state because neither Morocco or Turkey is a member of the EU.

 

As for the UK, it looks like bankers aren't going to hang around until March next year and will be making arrangements to move to an EU location sooner rather than later: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37743700

 

 

If the banks leave, do we get to do an Iceland and put the rest in prison?

[Grouse]

You are absolutely correct. I certainly have no problem with free movement within the EU except when economic conditions mean that very large numbers have to be accommodated over a short period. One of the points that came up with Brexit was not so much the level of migration  but the rate of migration. I believe some kind of regulation of flow must be possible. Sadly, many confuse the the refugee problem and the economic migrant problem with the free flow within Europe. EU countries with which I am very familiar have been severely affected by immigrant flows and this does affect the judgement of the population. What to do ?

[Xircal]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

You are absolutely correct. I certainly have no problem with free movement within the EU except when economic conditions mean that very large numbers have to be accommodated over a short period. One of the points that came up with Brexit was not so much the level of migration  but the rate of migration. I believe some kind of regulation of flow must be possible. Sadly, many confuse the the refugee problem and the economic migrant problem with the free flow within Europe. EU countries with which I am very familiar have been severely affected by immigrant flows and this does affect the judgement of the population. What to do ?

 

Rate of migration? Why does it matter if migrants are contributing to the country's economy? The more people in work the more revenue for the Exchequer. It would be perplexing if a country were to curb immigration purely to reduce numbers while there's still a need for workers in many industries which can't be fulfilled by the local population.

 

Also many of immigrants set up their own businesses and become employers themselves. Look at all the Polish delicatessens which have sprung up around the UK for example. Are they a bad thing d'you think and if so, why?

 

[Grouse]

I'm just explaining what was observed during the referendum.

 

Take a town like Boston in Lincolnshire. The percentage of migrants was not excessive but the number had increased rapidly over a short period. That seemed to turn the local population against migrants more than some other areas with a much higher immigrant population. I understand your logic but that is what happened.

[Xircal]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

I'm just explaining what was observed during the referendum.

 

Take a town like Boston in Lincolnshire. The percentage of migrants was not excessive but the number had increased rapidly over a short period. That seemed to turn the local population against migrants more than some other areas with a much higher immigrant population. I understand your logic but that is what happened.

 

I don't think it's the actual number of migrants, but rather that they're foreigners as opposed to Englishmen (an women). According to this BBC report, local residents object to living next door to migrants from another country even though the city has prospered from the influx: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541

 

I think that's called xenophobia isn't it?

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

I don't think it's the actual number of migrants, but rather that they're foreigners as opposed to Englishmen (an women). According to this BBC report, local residents object to living next door to migrants from another country even though the city has prospered from the influx: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541

 

I think that's called xenophobia isn't it?

 

Sadly, I have no answer to that ?

[chiang mai]

6 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

I don't think it's the actual number of migrants, but rather that they're foreigners as opposed to Englishmen (an women). According to this BBC report, local residents object to living next door to migrants from another country even though the city has prospered from the influx: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36258541

 

I think that's called xenophobia isn't it?

 

We complain about xenophobia in Thailand but I do think it's equally if not worse in the UK in many respects, goodness, just look at the North South divide to understand that. And if the impact on regional economy as a result is not obvious here's a prime example: last week I sent a request for quotes for legal work to two firms, one in the Hants. and one in E. Yorks., two pieces of work and identical specifications. The quotes came back, GBP 785 vs 199, and 6,400 vs1980, the first number of the pair being the one from the South - the price of lack of investment spurred by xenophobia perhaps!

 

It's not dissimilar to the NIMBY's who don't want new houses constructed in their villages/towns/near by. There we have a desperate need to build new houses because there's a chronic shortage, yet residents of candidate areas repeatedly and loudly shout no, not in my back yard. Ditto immigrants, the country its businesses and the economy desperately need immigrant labour but can they be housed next door, of course not, all of a sudden protection of "my space" becomes far more important than the common good or even any national imperative. What is to be done? In both cases government must be able to say sorry, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and push ahead with the initiative and even set aside areas specially for immigrants, they could call it, Bradford perhaps!

 

But you see the problem: for example, the use of Indian and Asian labour in the textile industry in the North of England in the post war years was a good idea, sadly though the process was started and then left to run without being managed. The good people of the Shires didn't have to live next door to those workers so it wasn't an issue that they needed to care or even think about and perhaps that's the answer - perhaps the NIMBY's need to be made to live next door to immigrants in order for any immigrant program to work successfully, distribute them (as a requirement if necessary) and make every town and village take an immigrant quota and don't let them cluster - the sad fact is that we probably need more immigrants rather then less, but we need to do a much better job of managing and integrating them.

Edited October 24, 2016 by chiang mai

[Grouse]

This is a good piece about xenophobia possibly being stoked by the Tory party

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-partly-to-blame-for-rising-hate-crime-the-liberal-democrat-leader-tim-farron-will-a7376726.html%3famp?client=safari

[Grouse]

And here we have the truth. The Tories may be "forced" to slash corporation tax to 10% because of Brexit negotiations! Hello numpties? Still think May's good for you? This is even more cynical than I had supposed. I thought driving the pound down was enough, but no, the Tories will now go for massive corporation tax cuts. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-business-corporation-tax-eu-referendum-article-50-a7376816.html%3famp?client=safari

Edited October 24, 2016 by Grouse

[Grouse]

Why don't we just make corporation tax 0%? I know, let's PAY Nissan to keep manufacturing in the U.K.! At least we have our sovereignty!

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Why don't we just make corporation tax 0%? I know, let's PAY Nissan to keep manufacturing in the U.K.! At least we have our sovereignty!

 

Yeah, great idea, I'll buy into that, will it work like the EU paying our farmers for not farming?

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

Yeah, great idea, I'll buy into that, will it work like the EU paying our farmers for not farming?

 

Nice deflection! Well done!