May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

I'm afraid its quite wrong to say we can't know the results of Brexit...

 

Because of the part in bold, investors will be(& already are) nervous about investing in the UK as investors want known quantities/variables, investors want to be able to see an almost guaranteed return(on their investment) on paper as part of a 5 year projection/plan. 

 

Do you know what happens to economies when investors are scared to invest because of uncertainty?

 

This is not a prediction or opinion, this is simply how business/investment works ....which is why the arse fell out of the £££ the day after the referendum result.

 

 

The greatest wealth is created in turbulent times by the people with a long view of the situation.  To try and predict what investors will or will not do is just that -- another useless prediction.  

 

 

[jimmybkk]

3 hours ago, Loeilad said:

More good news.....at least by K. Han's new definition of the word

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38324146

 

 

 

10 years eh...? That's actually not bad by EU trade negotiation standards.

 

Conversely the US, which is not tied up with all that EU red tape, takes on average only 18 months to finalize negotiations on a trade agreement. 

 

The European Commission stated in a press release dated 25 March 2013 that: "Over the next two years, 90% of world demand will be generated outside the EU."

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-282_en.htm

 

Strangely, they issued a very similar press release in October of the same year only this time the "two" had been removed and the prediction was now being accredited to the IMF: "According to IMF estimates, over the next years, 90% of world demand will be generated outside the EU."

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-915_en.htm

 

Now, assuming either or both the EC and the IMF to be correct, wouldn't it be a huge benefit to be able to actually negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU where 90% of global demand comes from without all that EU red tape delaying things, the way that, say, the US does for example...?

[onthesoi]

3 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The greatest wealth is created in turbulent times by the people with a long view of the situation.  To try and predict what investors will or will not do is just that -- another useless prediction. 

 

Nonsense post....

[onthesoi]

5 minutes ago, jimmybkk said:

Now, assuming either or both the EC and the IMF to be correct, wouldn't it be a huge benefit to be able to actually negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU where 90% of global demand comes from without all that EU red tape delaying things, the way that, say, the US does for example...?

 

Can you give concrete ,real world examples where the UK has it's hands tied by EU red tape when it comes to making trade deals with countries outside the EU?

 

& can you explain why, comparatively, the German economy is booming ..within the EU?

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by onthesoi

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

Nonsense post....

What -- no factual rebuttal?  

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

Can you give concrete ,real world examples where the UK has it's hands tied by EU red tape when it comes to making trade deals with countries outside the EU?

 

& can you explain why, comparatively, the German economy is booming ..within the EU?

 

German economy?  really???  You need to look at the US$  Euro rates over the years

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Yes they are; but only because they are in the EEA.

 

The UK is also in the EEA at present because we are in the EU. If we leave the EU we also leave the EEA unless, as I said earlier, we negotiate an agreement to remain members post Brexit.

 

In which case we would be subject to the EEA Agreement, the main conditions of which I quoted earlier.

 

its a wee bit more complicated than that

 

there is no room for countries in EEA without they being member of EFTA or EU

 

UK leaving EU means UK would have to enter EFTA, again, in order to become a EEA signatory.   Off hand I am not certain that UK entering EFTA would even ensure UK a possibility to become a signatory to EEA.  The EEA treaty is one huge heap of extremely complex treaty stuff, its really one of a kind (you have Swittzerland today, EFTA member but not accessory to EEA)

 

(anyway, can hardly see EFTA/EEA as a way forward for UK, don't think UK would be welcome in EFTA/EEA)

 

EEA is not a free wheeling club, its a club for EFTA and EU signatories

 

(the Swiss model is probably not a good option either, doubt very much that the EC would look favourably to that,  the Swiss way of doing things is extremely time and labour intensive, having yet another country going down the same  road would not leave sufficient time left for developing cucumber-shape directives,

 joke aside; the Swiss way is very costly in terms of manhours and elapsed time, has pissed the EC off for years)

 

[jadee]

38 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

Can you give concrete ,real world examples where the UK has it's hands tied by EU red tape when it comes to making trade deals with countries outside the EU?

 

& can you explain why, comparatively, the German economy is booming ..within the EU?

 

Yes, the UK is bound by CCP (Common Commercial Policy) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prevents member states from jeopardising the EU's trade policy. The UK cannot enter into trade agreements while still a member of the EU because of the TFEU: it would alter the way the customs union works.
 

[melvinmelvin]

52 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

Can you give concrete ,real world examples where the UK has it's hands tied by EU red tape when it comes to making trade deals with countries outside the EU?

 

& can you explain why, comparatively, the German economy is booming ..within the EU?

 

 

since long it has been firm, very firm, EU policy that any trade related stuff vis a vis 3rd parties is to be handled by the commission and not by the members

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

since long it has been firm, very firm, EU policy that any trade related stuff vis a vis 3rd parties is to be handled by the commission and not by the members

Tell that to the Bavarians... 

[dick dasterdly]

17 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

They also predicted an immediate and sustained contraction in the UK economy, but they were wrong: the economy grew. And their subsequent predictions about the UK economy have also been wrong so far. Their predictions have, in actuality, been quite hopeless.

Not sure whether this link to a thread before the referendum will work - but if it does, its worth checking out the comments from a couple of days before the referendum to see posters views (and how badly they got it wrong) immediately before the vote.

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/921908-new-brexit-polls-suggest-shift-in-favour-of-leaving-the-eu

 

[dick dasterdly]

7 hours ago, sandyf said:

Predictions are exactly that - predictions, based on a scenario that may or may not come to pass. Five months down the line reality it beginning to kick in but many are determined to keep their head in the sand.

 

Philip Hammond has admitted that the Brexit vote’s blow to the economy would force the government to borrow £122bn more than hoped as he pushed back government plans to balance the books in his autumn statement.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/23/philip-hammond-brexit-vote-borrowing-autumn-statement

 

We are now starting to see the knock on effect of Mr Hammond's "Prediction"

 

Plans to allow English local authorities to raise council tax bills by an extra 6% over the next two years to pay for social care will be unveiled later by the Government.

http://news.sky.com/story/ministers-approve-6-hike-in-council-tax-bills-to-help-fund-social-care-10695537

 

School budgets are facing a real-terms cut of £3bn over the next four years, a report has warned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/government-schools-budget-cuts-3bn-nao-a7473186.html

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg, only the delusional can think that nobody has been or will be made to suffer in one way or another by brexit.

Not sure how local authorities raising council tax to pay for social care or school budget cuts have anything to do with brexit?

 

Admittedly, I only read the 'local authorities to raise council tax bills' link - but it was blaming the increase on social care funding falling over the previous FIVE years.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Not sure how local authorities raising council tax to pay for social care or school budget cuts have anything to do with brexit?

 

Admittedly, I only read the 'local authorities to raise council tax bills' link - but it was blaming the increase on social care funding falling over the previous FIVE years.

The seeds of this were sown many years ago, but nowadays *everything* bad is Brexit's fault...... 

[Grouse]

13 hours ago, jpinx said:

Nicely put, but the vote was specifically for leaving the EU, *NOT* the EFTA. 

 

Did you understand this, Gravy?

 

Leave WU but remain in EFTA? (EEA?)

[bkkcanuck8]

15 hours ago, jpinx said:

Nicely put, but the vote was specifically for leaving the EU, *NOT* the EFTA. 

 

You cannot vote to leave something you are not a member of.....

 

It would require the approval of both the EU and the current members of the EFTA to become a member and Norway (as well as others) is not to eager to allow the UK (which dwarfs any of the EFTA members) to join.  

 

The Norway option would in the end give the UK what it has now but with absolutely no say in the matter -- which makes no sense. 

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, onthesoi said:

Vertical? You must need your eyes testing!

 

Your poor eyesight means you also failed to notice every other country has the same drop  ...for Australia the drop is even more pronounced. 

 

You also failed to notice the downward trend applies to all countries, including those outside the EU: Australia, America, Japan, a downward trend which started decades before the UK joined the EU.

 

& you missed the part where other EU countries were able to increase their trade with NZ in the same period.

 

Are you really so deluded as to deny the information in the graph?

 

 

 

Somebody  needs glasses, but it aint me. Anyway:

 

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/overseas-trade-policy/page-4

[jimmybkk]

6 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

Can you give concrete ,real world examples where the UK has it's hands tied by EU red tape when it comes to making trade deals with countries outside the EU?

 

& can you explain why, comparatively, the German economy is booming ..within the EU?

 

 

When was the last time the UK made a trade deal with anyone? Therein lies the answer to your first question.

 

Not sure about the answer to your 2nd question but if I had to make a guess I would say it might be because they had 10 years of not spending on their military after WWII. The same goes for Japan. Is it merely a coincidence that the 2 countries who suffered a defeat in 1945 and were subsequently banned from military spending for 9 or 10 years went on to become 2 of the strongest global economies?

 

Or maybe it's because they make good cars.

[jimmybkk]

7 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

I'm afraid its quite wrong to say we can't know the results of Brexit...

 

Because of the part in bold, investors will be(& already are) nervous about investing in the UK as investors want known quantities/variables, investors want to be able to see an almost guaranteed return(on their investment) on paper as part of a 5 year projection/plan. 

 

Do you know what happens to economies when investors are scared to invest because of uncertainty?

 

This is not a prediction or opinion, this is simply how business/investment works ....which is why the arse fell out of the £££ the day after the referendum result.

 

 

It hasn't prevented Facebook, Google and IBM all confirming their commitment to a post-brexit UK.

 

Anyone with a handle on how businesses operate will immediately realize that these public statements being made by some large corporations about making plans to move their European HQ's to the continent after the Brexit vote are nothing more than posturing. For most big companies 2 of their largest overheads are staff costs and office space, and as a major tenant of an office building how do you get a better deal on your office space rental? Simple - you give your landlord the impression that you are ready to walk out the door to find yourself a better deal elsewhere... But you gotta make it convincing, and that ain't always easy... The landlords of these office buildings aren't stupid and they know that fitting out new office space is an expensive exercise... They know that you're unlikely to move just because you can save £10 per sq. ft. if you move to that new building down the street... And then... Hallelujah...! Along comes Brexit... Quick! Get your Corporate Communications department to release a statement that you're planning on relocating your HQ to the continent because of uncertainties surrounding Brexit... That's sure to get your landlord's attention... And sure enough he's fallen for the hype and less than 24 hours after releasing the statement he's on the phone offering you a sweetheart deal to renew and extend your lease... Bingo...!

 

Just think what a logistical nightmare (not to mention the huge expense involved) it would be for a large corporate with 5,000 employees at it's existing UK headquarters to up sticks and move to new location in continental Europe. They say that the employees are a company's greatest asset, so how many of the company's greatest assets will be lost (potentially to their competitors) when they announce that they are moving the HQ offices to another country where they speak a different language? I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's at least 20% on average... So now the company needs to find 1,000 new employees, which normally wouldn't be a problem because the HR Director is extremely capable and efficient... only he/she is one of those that didn't want to make the move... along with a couple of the company's top sales managers... So the company hires new talent locally... And so now 20% of the CEO's management team are non-native English speakers, which creates a few unwanted headaches... and the legal department is now having to deal with corporate legislation in a foreign language that requires translating... more headaches... and no doubt redundancy payments would be required to those employees that didn't want to make the move... more expense... more headaches... etc. etc. etc... Forget it. It ain't gonna happen. All this talk of a mass exodus is all just opportunistic hype and posturing by those firms who have realized that Brexit can be used as a tool to negotiate better terms, be that with their landlord, the UK government or whoever.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, jpinx said:

You (7by7) answer your own point when you say that ".....we negotiate an agreement to remain members (of EEA) post Brexit..."

 

What I actually said was

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The UK is also in the EEA at present because we are in the EU. If we leave the EU we also leave the EEA unless, as I said earlier, we negotiate an agreement to remain members post Brexit.

 

In which case we would be subject to the EEA Agreement, the main conditions of which I quoted earlier.

 

8 hours ago, jpinx said:

Now you know why there is so little information coming out about Brexit.  Everyone is preparing their negotiating position and not telling. 

 

Indeed, and, with respect, it is not something I have just realised.  I have been saying just that right from the beginning of this and similar topics.

 

Revealing one's negotiating position, one's aims, what concessions one is prepared to make etc. before the negotiations have even been scheduled, let alone actually begun, would be foolhardy in the extreme.

[bkkcanuck8]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

What I actually said was

 

 

Indeed, and, with respect, it is not something I have just realised.  I have been saying just that right from the beginning of this and similar topics.

 

Revealing one's negotiating position, one's aims, what concessions one is prepared to make etc. before the negotiations have even been scheduled, let alone actually begun, would be foolhardy in the extreme.

I would say half-right.  Revealing ones aims and goals (what one wants in the negotiations) is not going to disadvantage negotiations.... but revealing what concessions are possible to get the best deal would be revealing ones hands.  Think of it as a game of Texas Hold'em.... what you want is sort of like the cards that are up on the table, what concessions you are willing to give up are your hold cards.

[Khun Han]

29 minutes ago, jimmybkk said:

It hasn't prevented Facebook, Google and IBM all confirming their commitment to a post-brexit UK.

 

Anyone with a handle on how businesses operate will immediately realize that these public statements being made by some large corporations about making plans to move their European HQ's to the continent after the Brexit vote are nothing more than posturing. For most big companies 2 of their largest overheads are staff costs and office space, and as a major tenant of an office building how do you get a better deal on your office space rental? Simple - you give your landlord the impression that you are ready to walk out the door to find yourself a better deal elsewhere... But you gotta make it convincing, and that ain't always easy... The landlords of these office buildings aren't stupid and they know that fitting out new office space is an expensive exercise... They know that you're unlikely to move just because you can save £10 per sq. ft. if you move to that new building down the street... And then... Hallelujah...! Along comes Brexit... Quick! Get your Corporate Communications department to release a statement that you're planning on relocating your HQ to the continent because of uncertainties surrounding Brexit... That's sure to get your landlord's attention... And sure enough he's fallen for the hype and less than 24 hours after releasing the statement he's on the phone offering you a sweetheart deal to renew and extend your lease... Bingo...!

 

Just think what a logistical nightmare (not to mention the huge expense involved) it would be for a large corporate with 5,000 employees at it's existing UK headquarters to up sticks and move to new location in continental Europe. They say that the employees are a company's greatest asset, so how many of the company's greatest assets will be lost (potentially to their competitors) when they announce that they are moving the HQ offices to another country where they speak a different language? I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's at least 20% on average... So now the company needs to find 1,000 new employees, which normally wouldn't be a problem because the HR Director is extremely capable and efficient... only he/she is one of those that didn't want to make the move... along with a couple of the company's top sales managers... So the company hires new talent locally... And so now 20% of the CEO's management team are non-native English speakers, which creates a few unwanted headaches... and the legal department is now having to deal with corporate legislation in a foreign language that requires translating... more headaches... and no doubt redundancy payments would be required to those employees that didn't want to make the move... more expense... more headaches... etc. etc. etc... Forget it. It ain't gonna happen. All this talk of a mass exodus is all just opportunistic hype and posturing by those firms who have realized that Brexit can be used as a tool to negotiate better terms, be that with their landlord, the UK government or whoever.

 

There will be no substantial movement of businesses out of the UK because of brexit. Mark my words.

[bkkcanuck8]

34 minutes ago, jimmybkk said:

It hasn't prevented Facebook, Google and IBM all confirming their commitment to a post-brexit UK.

 

Anyone with a handle on how businesses operate will immediately realize that these public statements being made by some large corporations about making plans to move their European HQ's to the continent after the Brexit vote are nothing more than posturing. For most big companies 2 of their largest overheads are staff costs and office space, and as a major tenant of an office building how do you get a better deal on your office space rental? Simple - you give your landlord the impression that you are ready to walk out the door to find yourself a better deal elsewhere... But you gotta make it convincing, and that ain't always easy... The landlords of these office buildings aren't stupid and they know that fitting out new office space is an expensive exercise... They know that you're unlikely to move just because you can save £10 per sq. ft. if you move to that new building down the street... And then... Hallelujah...! Along comes Brexit... Quick! Get your Corporate Communications department to release a statement that you're planning on relocating your HQ to the continent because of uncertainties surrounding Brexit... That's sure to get your landlord's attention... And sure enough he's fallen for the hype and less than 24 hours after releasing the statement he's on the phone offering you a sweetheart deal to renew and extend your lease... Bingo...!

 

Just think what a logistical nightmare (not to mention the huge expense involved) it would be for a large corporate with 5,000 employees at it's existing UK headquarters to up sticks and move to new location in continental Europe. They say that the employees are a company's greatest asset, so how many of the company's greatest assets will be lost (potentially to their competitors) when they announce that they are moving the HQ offices to another country where they speak a different language? I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's at least 20% on average... So now the company needs to find 1,000 new employees, which normally wouldn't be a problem because the HR Director is extremely capable and efficient... only he/she is one of those that didn't want to make the move... along with a couple of the company's top sales managers... So the company hires new talent locally... And so now 20% of the CEO's management team are non-native English speakers, which creates a few unwanted headaches... and the legal department is now having to deal with corporate legislation in a foreign language that requires translating... more headaches... and no doubt redundancy payments would be required to those employees that didn't want to make the move... more expense... more headaches... etc. etc. etc... Forget it. It ain't gonna happen. All this talk of a mass exodus is all just opportunistic hype and posturing by those firms who have realized that Brexit can be used as a tool to negotiate better terms, be that with their landlord, the UK government or whoever.

 

Not many companies can currently use Brexit as negotiating position for their office-space.... those are usually on the order of 10 year contracts.... and if you give up the office space you basically have to sublease to another tenant.

 

The people that are too valuable to lose.... they would usually keep in a branch office even if they moved their HQ....  In your case some divisions would move first as part of HQ relocation, some departments would be left and people would be moved around or allowed to commute (sales people type people that you don't want to lose) for meetings or work in the branch office.  It is not necessarily an all or nothing thing -- not at the beginning.... 

Edited December 15, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[notmyself]

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 3:02 AM, onthesoi said:

 

Currency markets and global investors are "pro EU 'tards." .....Really?!?!?!

 

Audit? ...I don't even understand your question!

 

Sorry. I assumed you spoke English and that is against forum rules.

 

The EU (a conglomerate of peoples who consider statehood to have some meaning) have scant regard for those who they represent. Monies are given by said statehoods give into a central pot which is distributed along and according to rules set up by the body.... the EU. This body (EU) needs to show where the money has gone... how it has been used. When was the last time this data has been to a point where anyone can see it?

Edited December 15, 2016 by notmyself

[notmyself]

  a formal examination of an organization's or individual's accounts or financial situation

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/audit

[bkkcanuck8]

30 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

This body (EU) needs to show where the money has gone... how it has been used. When was the last time this data has been to a point where anyone can see it?

 

The budget is published beforehand and the monies have to be used in accordance to that budget.  Just like in the UK the budget is available at a high level.  There are all sorts of formulas approved on how this is to be spent.  There is a court of auditors.... made up of professional auditors ... each member state has to appoint one who is independent and is a professional auditor above reproach.   Just like any country, company, the EU budget has to be audited regularly to make sure the money has been spent accordingly.... and if any fraud is detected the information forwarded to relevant states for prosecution.

[notmyself]

Audit.

[jpinx]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

What I actually said was

 

 

Indeed, and, with respect, it is not something I have just realised.  I have been saying just that right from the beginning of this and similar topics.

 

Revealing one's negotiating position, one's aims, what concessions one is prepared to make etc. before the negotiations have even been scheduled, let alone actually begun, would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Yes -- you are one of the few posters with whom a debate is actually enjoyable. 

 

The negotiations are about *everything*.  It would be foolish to go into that with self-imposed restrictions.  The Swiss managed to pull off some non-standard EEA/EFTA concessions I believe, so why not UK?  

 

Also - some terminology might benefit from being "cleaned up".  Free movement needs to apply to *labour*, not people.  There is plenty of room for negotiating the details around how Labour is defined and how far does Labour's family extend, etc, etc. 

[Loeilad]

More gospel according to Han...

 

Brexit: London’s 328-year old Lloyd’s insurance market to establish EU base in 2017

[Loeilad]

24 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Yes -- you are one of the few posters with whom a debate is actually enjoyable. 

 

The negotiations are about *everything*.  It would be foolish to go into that with self-imposed restrictions.  The Swiss managed to pull off some non-standard EEA/EFTA concessions I believe, so why not UK?  

 

Also - some terminology might benefit from being "cleaned up".  Free movement needs to apply to *labour*, not people.  There is plenty of room for negotiating the details around how Labour is defined and how far does Labour's family extend, etc, etc. 

"The negotiations are about *everything*.  It would be foolish to go into that with self-imposed restrictions.  The Swiss managed to pull off some non-standard EEA/EFTA concessions I believe, so why not UK?  " - because we are not Switzerland! Why do Brexiteers keep rolling out Switzerland as some kind of excuse - if you just look at the nations history as a NEUTRAL nation at all costs, you will see that they wren't even ALLOWED to join the EU - they just did the best they could without joining.

Austria too had similar problems but managed to achieve constitutional changes to join - neither of these countries wanted to EXIT...they wanted to JOIN

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Loeilad

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, jimmybkk said:

 

Are you seriously suggesting that these ills have been brought about by the vote for Brexit? Gimme a break Sandy. It is years of mismanagement that has caused this, and if you want to point the finger of blame it should be aimed squarely at Cameron and Osborne, who incidentally would still be at the helm and would still be sailing the good ship "UK" directly towards the rocks had the vote gone the way of the Remainers.

 

Only the delusional will fail to understand that every piece of bad news relating to the UK's economy will be blamed on Brexit, by politicians on both sides. The Brexit vote is a politician's dream come true - a genuine scapegoat to absolve them of their sins...

Whether you see the indirect relationship or not is immaterial. The increase in public borrowing due to brexit has put a block on the governments ability to increase funding to essential services.

Last night I watched Question time from Maidenhead and members of the audience were suggesting increases in income tax and corporation tax to help ease the pressure on the NHS and social care.