Amused by the "billions of cuts" that will be need after brexit - the billions of cuts that osbo should have made by now if he is to get the budget to balance asap? I see no downside these cuts must come & the idiot should have made them already.
Zero the damn foreign aid budget so we only give out in disaster cases & other genuine need not to support 3rd world dictators or countries that don't need it. Otherwise its barely disguised bribery.
Does anyone have a link to the Treasury report. It doesn't seem to be on their website. Afraid of scrutiny I suppose.
This is the product of this government learning from the last - how to dominate the news grid.
The attempt is being made to put the punch in, then move the story on before the report is actually available - thereby sucking the oxygen out of it while the Treasury is on top.
George Osborne and the Treasury already have a record of lying on EU matters with the claim they halved the bill. Why should anyone trust them now?
Please elaborate with detail. I think you have a fact worth quoting.
They said they would only pay £850m of the EU prosperity charge. They actually paid the full £1.7bn. It was a bald faced lie by Osborne to defuse the crisis, and our EU media let them get away with it. Cameron and Osborne are snakes over the EU, and it is only because most conservatives allow loyalty to blind them that they get away with it.
I wonder what the assumptions are for immigration numbers in these "gdp impacts"? Are we talking about total gdp change or GDP per capita changes. Even then, is Osborne's Treasury keeping to the ONS forecasts for population change?
Fraser Nelson ✔ @FraserNelson It seems Osborne has STILL not published Treasury Brexit document,leaving journalists unable to test whether his claims reflect its analysis 15m
Predictably the Treasury forecast has been rubbished by the Leavers.
I think the problem Leave have is that there is a regular flow of negatives for the consequences of Leave - Treasury forecast today, IMF, Obama, Catholic Church, BOE, G20, and on it goes.
Individually none of these matter and there are grounds to attack the credibility of any of them. However it is a constant drip it all in the same direction. There is practically nothing serious coming in the opposite direction so the diehard Leavers by and large just make fatuous jokes and hurl abuse at anyone that voices a criticism of Brexit.
That's fine for the diehards but all this is aimed at DKs and the waverers.
This is precisely why I and others advocated taking an EEA/EFTA approach to leaving the EU - getting out first, then looking at the longer term solution via the proper liberalisation of global trade governance.
You might not get all you want in the first few years, but the handcuffs come off immediately politically so that you can then go out into the world with your own voice and start to shape the position you actually want to achieve.
Vote Leave really need to try and make the headlines themselves and start talking about this, and a positive vision of British success in 2030, rather than defensively reacting to the latest scare story.
It won't be easy - and the BBC won't help - but they must try and set the agenda, or HM Government will do it for them.
My view is that the benefits of inputting into single market rules are not worth the restrictions that EU membership imposes, both politically and economically, and that our ability to influence will deterioate further over time as the eurozone federates.
At the same time I think control over our commercial, trade and regulatory policies will help us take much better advantage of global opportunities in the future.
I understand that you think differently, and respect that.
The Adam Smith Institute have published this fascinating article on how global regulators are making the EU increasingly irrelevant:
• One major argument for Britain remaining in the EU is that outside the bloc it would still be subject to single market standards, rules and regulations, but without a seat at the EU negotiating table, it would have no say over these.
• In fact, an increasing number of EU regulations are made at the global level and not by the EU bureaucracy, which mainly performs a ‘wholesaler’ role, enforcing rules without creating them anew. The UK often does not have a full voice at the global level because of the EU’s need for a ‘common position’.
• The UK does not need the EU to perform the wholesaler role for the majority of Single Market regulation that now falls within the ambit of global organisations and through Brexit, can also shorten the chain of accountability between UK government and global market governance.
• Outside the EU, Britain would have a much louder ‘say’ on regulation, standards and rules that affected it—our voice is often muffled, distorted, and ignored when heard via the EU, which is increasingly becoming just another player in a multilateral world. The UK can be a powerful player in its own right.
• Less than 8% of genuinely EU-originated law reaches countries like Norway, who are in the European Economic Area, which has free trade with the EU without the increasing political union.
So now we are all someone going to be £4300 poorer by magic by leaving the EU. Jokers - what a load of crap. Where do they get this from? Made up nonsense
BUT - and this is why Remain will win as it stands - there is no coherent rebuttal story from "Leave", no alternative narrative whereby we retain the benefits (or even admit they exist) but lose the bad bits of EU membership.
A once in a lifetime opportunity for Leave, and they are making a mess of it. Where is the vision? The Leadership? The hope, the story, the alternative future?
Bah
".
Howccess?
Oh a lot of neg some input into them?
will help us take much better advantage of global opportunities in the future.
I understand that you think differently, and respect that.
Likewise, and I think those lines are, or should be, how the debate develops more broadly in the country.
I doubt it will, sadly.
Can I just ask Topping, out of curiosity, are there any circumstances under which you could see yourself supporting a Leave vote either now or in the future?
This is not a trick question. I'm interested in exploring the basis of your views.
I have moved from out-waverer to in-waverer to in. As an out-waverer I disliked the manner and content of EU diktats and blanched when, for example, the fiscal compact was introduced (since rescinded/ignored?) and the storm that Dave got for not signing it. A Lab govt would probably have signed it, funnily enough although not, I think, Gordon Brown.
I think the biggest problem, therefore, and what continues to make me think twice, is the thought that a future Labour govt would sign up to any old bolleaux from the EU. As many have pointed out, we will at some stage get another Lab govt, and the EU will at some point have a bright idea of ECU.
My second derivative concern, however, is that unless we are out-out (ie non-EEA/EFTA), Lab is likely to sign any bonkers EU initiative into EEA law. So whereas I could live with EEA, I really don't think out-out is a good idea. Being in the EEA, however, might deliver the same result, with Lab in charge, as being in the EU, but with none of the influence of being in the EU, but this latter is saying why I want to stay in, and is not answering your question of what it would take for me to want to leave.
Given the evidence that we are 'shackled by Europe' seems thin on the ground, the view that we will suddenly discover entrepreneurial and innovative zeal having left the EU seems charmingly optimistic. Especially if one of our major entrepreneurial and innovative sectors - financial services runs the risk of being shut out of the EU.....
Yawn.
A huge part of financial services - insurance, for instance - finds the EU a massive hindrance and not a significant business opportunity. Robert Hiscox, for instance, told me the other day that his business has been much more success in the US - despite the complexities and state-by-state regulation - than in the EU where they have been dragging their feet over the single market.
And that is not even taking into account the fact that the EU tried to close down his Latin American business because it didn't conform to what the Spanish wanted.
George Osborne and the Treasury already have a record of lying on EU matters with the claim they halved the bill. Why should anyone trust them now?
They shouldn't.
To be honest, it's not Osborne people trust; it's Cameron.
Someone who claims there will be migrant camps across the English countryside if we leave. Another disgraceful liar.
Cameron panicked because the prudent, sensible arguments for leaving were gaining traction. That is why he lied about migrant camps. That is why he lied about Norway having to fulfil 75% of EU laws. That is why he rigged the referendum by borrowing on the national credit card to double the spending for Remain. He is an unprincipled charlatan just like his hero Tony Blair.
the current discontent is largely a rectifying mechanism to remind those at the top that they're meant to drag the rest of society along with them.
I think the word 'drag' here may have a shade of the Alan Duncan's to it, and probably doesn't best reflect what you actually intended.
May I suggest reversing the subject and object and using 'carried along on the tide of our sweat' in place of 'drag'. (Innocent face).
Suggesting that the bricklayer standing out in the sun labouring hard is being carried along by the "sweat" of a manicured white collar worker sitting in his air conditioned office might be a courageous comparison!
So in 2030 our GDP could be 6% lower out of the EU than inside it according to the Treasury mandarins who had their boss holding a gun to their heads while they wrote the report. Any prediction of GDP that far into the future is not worth anything, if Leave were saying we'd be better of by some amount in 2030 then it would also be complete bullshit. .....
In another life I sat over a function forecasting turnover from multiple business units totalling hundreds of £ millions and we would aim to get within 2% for the year end, at the halfway point in the year. We achieved it two years running and the Finance Director relied on our numbers rather than his multiple business unit finance managers. Quite how the Treasury numbers can talk with such assurance 16 years in advance is just plain daft.
Hhhmmm .... I wasn't sure whether to post the following but after a chat this morning with the chap principally involved I thought I would add the sobering story to the mix. So here we go :
PART 1
Early last week Mrs Jack W and I had lunch with the son and wife of a dear family friend who passed away a few years ago. The son (I'll call him Simon) I've known boy and man and he's a tremendous credit to his late parents.
Simon and his wife "Jill" took over the family firm more than a decade ago. It's a medium sized employer with around 30 staff that has coped with 90's recessions and the more recent crash and has in recent years gradually taken on more employees. Most of their work is home and EU based. They pay well with a profit sharing scheme and have excellent staff retention - even the cleaner/driver/handy man has been with the firm more than twenty five years. They are an example of good business practice and I'm sure not unlike many companies of their type and size nationwide.
Simon and Jill I'd say were both pragmatic mildly eurosceptics politically but not really given to the cut and thrust of the EU referendum or politics generally. That situation has changed markedly. Several weeks ago a contract with an overseas EU firm, Company A, up for renewal was almost lost. This was a shock. They had traded together for decades successfully. Company A stated the uncertainty over Britain's EU status was a severe stumbling block and with growing competition in the sector Company A felt it was a risk they didn't need to take. Simon managed to head off the loss of the contract until after the June vote.
Simon and Jill then decided to contact overseas suppliers and end clients and were severely taken aback by their conversations. Company B advised them that they had already been frozen out of bidding for a long term contract. Simon had thought that their recent foray into this sphere had counted against them but Company B stated that whilst this had been discussed Simon's company would have been allowed to tender but Company B decided that they had plenty of willing suitors not encumbered by the difficulties following BREXIT. Company B would also review Simon's core business contracts as they ended.
Company C stated that BREXIT would see them draw back their business with Simon until a more stable situation prevailed. Other clients took a longer view and were more willing to see how the whole process played out. Still others stated BREXIT would have little or no effect.
Immediately Simon and Jill decided to not only hold off the hiring of two further staff and their first apprentice but contemplate the loss of five employees. Late on Friday they held one of their regular full staff meetings including calling in two long distance team members. Previously this move had presaged very good news. Not this time.
The mood of the meeting turned from cheery expectation to gloom in seconds. Disbelief turned to barely concealed shock and then silence. The tears came. However worse was to come. Simon and Jill announced that they had also started to plan for a company move within the EU.
Clearly this is only one smallish company and within the context of wider economic arguments is simply a splash in the ocean. Indeed there may be other companies who are chaffing at the bit to be out of the EU with endless positive implications. However what cannot be denied is that the uncertainty over BREXIT is causing some short term damage.
Further within our discussions on PB it's all to easy to forget that for some the referendum isn't just a debating contest, cut and paste battle or betting extravaganza but a very real intrusion into their daily life here and now.
I wonder what the assumptions are for immigration numbers in these "gdp impacts"? Are we talking about total gdp change or GDP per capita changes. Even then, is Osborne's Treasury keeping to the ONS forecasts for population change?
Fraser Nelson ✔ @FraserNelson It seems Osborne has STILL not published Treasury Brexit document,leaving journalists unable to test whether his claims reflect its analysis 15m
I think that would be too basic an error to make. One can't talk about per household losses without taking into account probably population growth.
@Runnymede I certainly don't take economic forecasting too seriously. That's a different thing from discounting it completely simply because it is inconvenient.
Many Leave campaigners complain that Remain spends a lot of time arguing by appeals to authority, and there is quite a bit of truth in that. However, in response Leavers have started arguing against authority, seeking to discredit evidence simply because it comes from people who they disapprove of. How many times, for example, have careful arguments been dismissed with "didn't they support the UK joining the Euro?" (whether or not it's true, incidentally). You're indulging in that yourself when you say that the Treasury forecast is simply a propaganda effort. It's more than that and you have to do better than that.
But then what do you expect ?
Since the bulk of "authority" is controlled by remain to accept "authority's" view is to slit your own throat. So why would they do that ?
As for the Treasury well let's just say Osborne's recent record on forecasting has inspired confidence.
I'll put you down for "la la la I'm not listening".
It simply isn't good enough to say that long range forecasts are fraught with uncertainty. Of course they are. But they provide a useful pointer as to the general direction that we might expect and the public are entitled to weigh them in the balance.
Leave are going to have to do better than offer an alternative vision of unicorns frolicking in sunlight dewy meadows simply because it's more congenial to them. They're going to have to have some answer as to why the more gloomy view is likely to be overdone.
The simple fact is that the Treasury will have taken the worst of all possible base case assumptions and headlined the worst possible scenario that result. That's the nature of a one sided paper that is designed to make a political point. It may be effective (although I have my doubts because I think it lacks credibility as it is too extreme)
Most independent analysis seems to be clustering around 1-2% downside near term, but rapidly recovering to being pretty much even stevens with the "remain" case. That feels about right to me. This really shouldn't be about economics on a macro level - we will do just fine whatever happens.
@Runnymede I certainly don't take economic forecasting too seriously. That's a different thing from discounting it completely simply because it is inconvenient.
Many Leave campaignyou have to do better than that.
But then what do you expect ?
Since the bulk of "authority" is controlled by remain to accept "authority's" view is to slit your own throat. So why would they do that ?
As for the Treasury well let's just say Osborne's recent record on forecasting has inspired confidence.
I'll put you y to be overdone.
Not at all Alistair, I do look at what they say and take a view. I'm on the record for example as saying there will be a disruption cost but I'm quite prepared to pay it as I believe we as a nation will recover it and more over the medium to long term.
However as I pointed out yesterday, what is making PB so tedious atm is the constant yadda yadda from both sides.
It would probably help if we could lay of the remainer scare stories as most of the audience on here manage businesses, aren't stupid and risk management is a daily part of their job. They are comfortable with risk and quite prepared to call it their own way - often that's how they make money.
Likewise the only sensible post I've seen over the weeked from a remainer has been Mr Topping who quite happily accepts the world won't fall off a cliff and that all we're debating is the rate of growth. I happen to agree with him.
Equally I can accept that for yourself who is dependent on financial services and overseas clients that voting remain makes perfect sense - it's in your interest. But equally as a manufacturer I can assess what out suits me best so why shouldn't I vote in my own best interest ?
So for remainers maybe you should try a different approach, the one where you put forward why we'll be better off in 2026 by staying in and leave the scare stories to one side. They achieve nothing but bad humour all round.
Of course you should vote in your own interests but are you aware of any credible surveys of medium sized manufacturers (is that a fair description of your own businesses?) of whether they favour one side or the other?
Agree with you about the tedium at present but that is inevitable (and why for the moment I post infrequently except episodically e.g. when Casino incurs my righteous wrath). Like TSE, l may now provide some help for the Remain campaign post May 5th local elections, which I had been planning to sit out, prompted by some of the pb leavers (not your good self I might add).
Amazing that the PM's "negotiatioons" were so significant that a failure to secure the goodies would have overridden the (we now find, each fresh revelatory day) the horrific costs of brexit, Amazing ... and I never realised the EU was such an engine of growth ...
Dear me, the Leave side are rattled, reduced to answering every single point by trying to shoot the messenger.
From one point of view, it's not surprising they are rattled. The daily drip-drip of Project Doubt (which is what it is, not 'Project Fear') is bound to have a cumulative effect. It will of course continue every day until June 23rd.
But what on earth did they expect? Has it really come as a complete surprise to them that the utter failure to prepare an alternative plan, or put in place some at least vaguely plausible answers to the doubts, might be a problem?
Immediately Simon and Jill decided to not only hold off the hiring of two further staff and their first apprentice but contemplate the loss of five employees. Late on Friday they held one of their regular full staff meetings including calling in two long distance team members. Previously this move had presaged very good news. Not this time.
The mood of the meeting turned from cheery expectation to gloom in seconds. Disbelief turned to barely concealed shock and then silence. The tears came. However worse was to come. Simon and Jill announced that they had also started to plan for a company move within the EU.
Clearly this is only one smallish company and within the context of wider economic arguments is simply a splash in the ocean. Indeed there may be other companies who are chaffing at the bit to be out of the EU with endless positive implications. However what cannot be denied is that the uncertainty over BREXIT is causing some short term damage.
Further within our discussions on PB it's all to easy to forget that for some the referendum isn't just a debating contest, cut and paste battle or betting extravaganza but a very real intrusion into their daily life here and now.
Some will gain, some will not.
Doom mongering by HMG isn't helping. Perhaps Cameron should throttle back the scare stories?
Hhhmmm .... I wasn't sure whether to post the following but after a chat this morning with the chap principally involved I thought I would add the sobering story to the mix. So here we go :
PART 1
Early last week Mrs Jack W and I had lunch with the son and wife of a dear family friend who passed away a few years ago. The son (I'll call him Simon) I've known boy and man and he's a tremendous credit to his late parents.
Simon and his wife "Jill" took over the family firm more than a decade ago. It's a medium sized employer with around 30 staff that has coped with 90's recessions and the more recent crash and has in recent years gradually taken on more employees. Most of their work is home and EU based. They pay well with a profit sharing scheme and have excellent staff retention - even the cleaner/driver/handy man has been with the firm more than twenty five years. They are an example of good business practice and I'm sure not unlike many companies of their type and size nationwide.
Simon and Jill I'd say were both pragmatic mildly eurosceptics politically but not really given to the cut and thrust of the EU referendum or politics generally. That situation has changed markedly. Several weeks ago a contract with an overseas EU firm, Company A, up for renewal was almost lost. This was a shock. They had traded together for decades successfully. Company A stated the uncertainty over Britain's EU status was a severe stumbling block and with growing competition in the sector Company A felt it was a risk they didn't need to take. Simon managed to head off the loss of the contract until after the June vote.
Simon and Jill then decided to contact overseas suppliers and end clients and were severely taken aback by their conversations. Company B advised them that they had already been frozen out of bidding for a long term contract. Simon had thought that their recent foray into this sphere had counted against them but Company B stated that whilst this had been discussed Simon's company would have been allowed to tender but Company B decided that they had plenty of willing suitors not encumbered by the difficulties following BREXIT. Company B would also review Simon's core business contracts as they ended.
Company C stated that BREXIT would see them draw back their business with Simon until a more stable situation prevailed. Other clients took a longer view and were more willing to see how the whole process played out. Still others stated BREXIT would have little or no effect.
PART 2 to follow.
I see, we are reduced to unsourced anecdotes and fairy stories now. That's a good sign for LEAVE.
So now we are all someone going to be £4300 poorer by magic by leaving the EU. Jokers - what a load of crap. Where do they get this from? Made up nonsense
BUT
Bah
".
Howccess?
Oh a lot of neg some input into them?
will help us take much better advantage of global opportunities in the future.
I understand that you think differently, and respect that.
Likewise, and I think those lines are, or should be, how the debate develops more broadly in the country.
I doubt it will, sadly.
Can I just ask Topping, out of curiosity, are there any circumstances under which you could see yourself supporting a Leave vote either now or in the future?
This is not a trick question. I'm interested in exploring the basis of your views.
I have moved from out-waverer to in-waverer to in. As an out-waverer I disliked the manner and content of EU diktats and blanched when, for example, the fiscal compact was introduced (since rescinded/ignored?) and the storm that Dave got for not signing it. A Lab govt would probably have signed it, funnily enough although not, I think, Gordon Brown.
I think the biggest problem, therefore, and what continues to make me think twice, is the thought that a future Labour govt would sign up to any old bolleaux from the EU. As many have pointed out, we will at some stage get another Lab govt, and the EU will at some point have a bright idea of ECU.
My second derivative concern, however, is that unless we are out-out (ie non-EEA/EFTA), Lab is likely to sign any bonkers EU initiative into EEA law. So whereas I could live with EEA, I really don't think out-out is a good idea. Being in the EEA, however, might deliver the same result, with Lab in charge, as being in the EU, but with none of the influence of being in the EU, but this latter is saying why I want to stay in, and is not answering your question of what it would take for me to want to leave.
Thanks Topping, that's very honest of you and I appreciate your explanation. It sounds to me that in the absence of believing any sovereignty we'd have would be meaningfully real, you reluctantly conclude that we are better off to continue pooling it.
Whilst I disagree with that, and I'm frustrated we haven't been able to convince you this time, I respect your position and hope we might be able to win you over again in future.
George Osborne and the Treasury already have a record of lying on EU matters with the claim they halved the bill. Why should anyone trust them now?
They shouldn't.
To be honest, it's not Osborne people trust; it's Cameron.
Someone who claims there will be migrant camps across the English countryside if we leave. Another disgraceful liar.
Cameron panicked because the prudent, sensible arguments for leaving were gaining traction. That is why he lied about migrant camps. That is why he lied about Norway having to fulfil 75% of EU laws. That is why he rigged the referendum by borrowing on the national credit card to double the spending for Remain. He is an unprincipled charlatan just like his hero Tony Blair.
A brutal rant, but sadly with elements of truth. The effect of this spin and response is to drive down Cameron's ratings and the ratings of the party. It also harms how we all look at politicians.
@Runnymede I certainly don't take economic forecasting too seriously. That's a different thing from discounting it completely simply because it is inconvenient.
Many Leave campaignyou have to do better than that.
But then what do you expect ?
Since the bulk of "authority" is controlled by remain to accept "authority's" view is to slit your own throat. So why would they do that ?
As for the Treasury well let's just say Osborne's recent record on forecasting has inspired confidence.
I'll put you y to be overdone.
Not at all Alistair, I do look at what they say and take a view. I'm on the record for example as saying there will be a disruption cost but I'm quite prepared to pay it as I believe we as a nation will recover it and more over the medium to long term.
However as I pointed out yesterday, what is making PB so tedious atm is the constant yadda yadda from both sides.
It would probably help if we could lay of the remainer scare stories as most of the audience on here manage businesses, aren't stupid and risk management is a daily part of their job. They are comfortable with risk and quite prepared to call it their own way - often that's how they make money.
Likewise the only sensible post I've seen over the weeked from a remainer has been Mr Topping who quite happily accepts the world won't fall off a cliff and that all we're debating is the rate of growth. I happen to agree with him.
Equally I can accept that for yourself who is dependent on financial services and overseas clients that voting remain makes perfect sense - it's in your interest. But equally as a manufacturer I can assess what out suits me best so why shouldn't I vote in my own best interest ?
So for remainers maybe you should try a different approach, the one where you put forward why we'll be better off in 2026 by staying in and leave the scare stories to one side. They achieve nothing but bad humour all round.
Of course you should vote in your own interests but are you aware of any credible surveys of medium sized manufacturers (is that a fair description of your own businesses?) of whether they favour one side or the other?
Agree with you about the tedium at present but that is inevitable (and why for the moment I post infrequently except episodically e.g. when Casino incurs my righteous wrath). Like TSE, l may now provide some help for the Remain campaign post May 5th local elections, which I had been planning to sit out, prompted by some of the pb leavers (not your good self I might add).
The closest I've seen is the FSB which splits 47 -41 remain. So not far off current polling. Though this is all businesses not just manufacturing.
In actual, boring fact, the EU, apart from operating wholly unnoticed by 95% of the UK population, makes things easier in several industrial sectors by harmonising standards.
Are you watching a different evening news to everyone else ? Greek Financial Crisis ? Merkel's willkommenskultur ? Angry young men pulling down barricades ? Rather more Eastern Europeans around ? Prisoner's Votes ? I think most people have noticed the EU's operation by now.
I thought Prisoners' votes was an ECHR issue.
Something we set up and joined long before the EU.
It is, but the problem is we have incorporated the ECHR into UK law. I understood that it is complex to reassert the supremacy of parliament formally while we are a member of the EU (because, I believe, full ECHR membership is a requirement of EU membership)
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
Mr. Runnymede, I do think it's credible (perhaps even near certain) that short term uncertainty over a potential exit will lead to some problems economically.
I don't think that's a reason to embrace ever closer union or remain part of a club that seems to vary between being disinterested in the UK's perspective or actively wishing us economic harm (thankfully the Tobin tax came to nothing).
It is only 10:25am and my blood pressure is already on the rise. I've just watched Simon Danczuk on the Victoria Derbyshire show. It was the usual guff about he is now "in a better place and he has stop drinking" etc. (No - he hasn't paid the £11,000 back yet that he claimed for his children). She then led him nicely into the John Whittingdale story, "why did he think the press didn't publish that story initially but published his. He then proceeded to put the boot into JW and imply like a lot of his colleagues that he hasn't implemented the second-half of Levenson because !!!!!!!!! WHAT AN ODIOUS TOAD THIS MAN IS. Perhaps he had been put up to it by Labour, as it will help them in their decision to kick him out or not but - UGH!
Thanks for that JackW. I'd argue that all of this could have been avoided with referenda held at every point at which we have ceded sovereignty to Brussels.
In actual, boring fact, the EU, apart from operating wholly unnoticed by 95% of the UK population, makes things easier in several industrial sectors by harmonising standards.
Are you watching a different evening news to everyone else ? Greek Financial Crisis ? Merkel's willkommenskultur ? Angry young men pulling down barricades ? Rather more Eastern Europeans around ? Prisoner's Votes ? I think most people have noticed the EU's operation by now.
I thought Prisoners' votes was an ECHR issue.
Something we set up and joined long before the EU.
It is, but the problem is we have incorporated the ECHR into UK law. I understood that it is complex to reassert the supremacy of parliament formally while we are a member of the EU (because, I believe, full ECHR membership is a requirement of EU membership)
Article 6(3) of The Lisbon Treaty:
3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law.
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
This referendum is exposing those who govern us for who they really are. It's the most remarkable political event in a generation, and whatever the result the ramifications will be large and long lasting.
Euro Guido @EuroGuido Osborne "can't export to single market without paying EU for access". Japanese exports to EU: €55 billion,contribution to EU budget: €0.00
Immediately Simon and Jill decided to not only hold off the hiring of two further staff and their first apprentice but contemplate the loss of five employees. Late on Friday they held one of their regular full staff meetings including calling in two long distance team members. Previously this move had presaged very good news. Not this time.
The mood of the meeting turned from cheery expectation to gloom in seconds. Disbelief turned to barely concealed shock and then silence. The tears came. However worse was to come. Simon and Jill announced that they had also started to plan for a company move within the EU.
Clearly this is only one smallish company and within the context of wider economic arguments is simply a splash in the ocean. Indeed there may be other companies who are chaffing at the bit to be out of the EU with endless positive implications. However what cannot be denied is that the uncertainty over BREXIT is causing some short term damage.
Further within our discussions on PB it's all to easy to forget that for some the referendum isn't just a debating contest, cut and paste battle or betting extravaganza but a very real intrusion into their daily life here and now.
Fortunately, we are not in that situation. What Brexit will do for us is slow down our plans to grow. That will have an impact on income and will affect investment, hiring and salary increase decisions. We'll probably devote more resources to building our Asian business out of our Hong Kong office, so good news for our former colony's Chinese workforce :-)
Amazing that the PM's "negotiatioons" were so significant that a failure to secure the goodies would have overridden the (we now find, each fresh revelatory day) the horrific costs of brexit, Amazing ... and I never realised the EU was such an engine of growth ...
To anyone who has been following the debate Cameron's credibility is shot. Even most remainers must find Cameron's volte-face (from "could leave" to doom-monger) and his deal hard to support.
Hhhmmm .... I wasn't sure whether to post the following but after a chat this morning with the chap principally involved I thought I would add the sobering story to the mix. So here we go :
PART 1
Early last week Mrs Jack W and I had lunch with the son and wife of a dear family friend who passed away a few years ago. The son (I'll call him Simon) I've known boy and man and he's a tremendous credit to his late parents.
Simon and his wife "Jill" took over the family firm more than a decade ago. It's a medium sized employer with around 30 staff that has coped with 90's recessions and the more recent crash and has in recent years gradually taken on more employees. Most of their work is home and EU based. They pay well with a profit sharing scheme and have excellent staff retention - even the cleaner/driver/handy man has been with the firm more than twenty five years. They are an example of good business practice and I'm sure not unlike many companies of their type and size nationwide.
Simon and Jill I'd say were both pragmatic mildly eurosceptics politically but not really given to the cut and thrust of the EU referendum or politics generally. That situation has changed markedly. Several weeks ago a contract with an overseas EU firm, Company A, up for renewal was almost lost. This was a shock. They had traded together for decades successfully. Company A stated the uncertainty over Britain's EU status was a severe stumbling block and with growing competition in the sector Company A felt it was a risk they didn't need to take. Simon managed to head off the loss of the contract until after the June vote.
Simon and Jill then decided to contact overseas suppliers and end clients and were severely taken aback by their conversations. Company B advised them that they had already been frozen out of bidding for a long term contract. Simon had thought that their recent foray into this sphere had counted against them but Company B stated that whilst this had been discussed Simon's company would have been allowed to tender but Company B decided that they had plenty of willing suitors not encumbered by the difficulties following BREXIT. Company B would also review Simon's core business contracts as they ended.
Company C stated that BREXIT would see them draw back their business with Simon until a more stable situation prevailed. Other clients took a longer view and were more willing to see how the whole process played out. Still others stated BREXIT would have little or no effect.
PART 2 to follow.
I see, we are reduced to unsourced anecdotes and fairy stories now. That's a good sign for LEAVE.
Perhaps you should read PART 2 and also consider that uncertainty over BREXIT is hardly likely to be a driver of employment in the short term whatever the merits are longer term.
So now we are all someone going to be £4300 poorer by magic by leaving the EU. Jokers - what a load of crap. Where do they get this from? Made up nonsense
BUT
Bah
".
Howccess?
Oh a lot of neg some input into them?
will help us take much better advantage of global opportunities in the future.
I understand that you think differently, and respect that.
Likewise, and I think those lines are, or should be, how the debate develops more broadly in the country.
I doubt it will, sadly.
Can I just ask Topping, out of curiosity, are there any circumstances under which you could see yourself supporting a Leave vote either now or in the future?
This is not a trick question. I'm interested in exploring the basis of your views.
I have moved from out-waverer to in-waverer to in. As an out-waverer I disliked the manner and content of EU diktats and blanched when, for example, the fiscal compact wad is not answering your question of what it would take for me to want to leave.
Thanks Topping, that's very honest of you and I appreciate your explanation. It sounds to me that in the absence of believing any sovereignty we'd have would be meaningfully real, you reluctantly conclude that we are better off to continue pooling it.
Whilst I disagree with that, and I'm frustrated we haven't been able to convince you this time, I respect your position and hope we might be able to win you over again in future.
On the sovereignty issue yes, I don't trust the Labour Party. I don't trust them with my tax dollars, or with the economy. And I don't trust them to understand the nuances of bad vs ok EU initiatives.
If we are out of the EU and in EEA then Lab I suspect will be keen to sign in every EU law into EEA law (and we will of course be the elephant in the EEA). So my hedge against this is to stay in, so we get some influence over the regs before we sign them up.
(I really, really don't think that being out-out is a good idea.)
Immediately Simon and Jill decided to not only hold off the hiring of two further staff and their first apprentice but contemplate the loss of five employees. Late on Friday they held one of their regular full staff meetings including calling in two long distance team members. Previously this move had presaged very good news. Not this time.
The mood of the meeting turned from cheery expectation to gloom in seconds. Disbelief turned to barely concealed shock and then silence. The tears came. However worse was to come. Simon and Jill announced that they had also started to plan for a company move within the EU.
Clearly this is only one smallish company and within the context of wider economic arguments is simply a splash in the ocean. Indeed there may be other companies who are chaffing at the bit to be out of the EU with endless positive implications. However what cannot be denied is that the uncertainty over BREXIT is causing some short term damage.
Further within our discussions on PB it's all to easy to forget that for some the referendum isn't just a debating contest, cut and paste battle or betting extravaganza but a very real intrusion into their daily life here and now.
Re prisoners' voting it is quite complex but my understanding is:
1. It is legally ambiguous as to whether we have to remain a party to ECHR while in the EU 2. Rgardless of ECHR the ECJ exercises oversight through the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.
As it happens, they upheld this particular law from France. But that does not mean they would uphold the UK's stricter law.
When europhiles sneer that eurosceptics don't understand the difference between ECHR and ECJ and so are ignorant about matters such as prisoners' voting they miss two important points: firstly, it is a weakness of the institutions that they are poorly understood, that is not a reason to recommend our involvement; secondly, as shown above, the ECJ is involved in prisoner voting rights, and therefore the sneering europhiles are themselves wrong.
For the sake of clarity, not all europhiles are like this. But I've lost count of the number of times in conversation a europhile will say 'oh, but people don't understand that it is Strasbourg, not Luxembourg, which rules on prisoner voting', or similar
Immediately Simon and Jill decided to not only hold off the hiring of two further staff and their first apprentice but contemplate the loss of five employees. Late on Friday they held one of their regular full staff meetings including calling in two long distance team members. Previously this move had presaged very good news. Not this time.
The mood of the meeting turned from cheery expectation to gloom in seconds. Disbelief turned to barely concealed shock and then silence. The tears came. However worse was to come. Simon and Jill announced that they had also started to plan for a company move within the EU.
Clearly this is only one smallish company and within the context of wider economic arguments is simply a splash in the ocean. Indeed there may be other companies who are chaffing at the bit to be out of the EU with endless positive implications. However what cannot be denied is that the uncertainty over BREXIT is causing some short term damage.
Further within our discussions on PB it's all to easy to forget that for some the referendum isn't just a debating contest, cut and paste battle or betting extravaganza but a very real intrusion into their daily life here and now.
It sounds like a fairly atypical example, though.
FWIW, our family company, which employs close to 500 now, sees mainly benefits from BREXIT. That's despite being in a sector which several people claim will be devastated by leaving the EU. But equally, we always do well in times of uncertainty - the family stands behind the business, and our pledge carries weight in the eyes of customers.
As an aside, I was reading through some archives the other day and came across a note made by one of my cousins in the 1930s which I thought was very nice: God has been very good to our family. We have been asked to play a role in which we can serve the public, in a manner that is pleasant, and is not unrewarded in worldly terms
In actual, boring fact, the EU, apart from operating wholly unnoticed by 95% of the UK population, makes things easier in several industrial sectors by harmonising standards.
Are you watching a different evening news to everyone else ? Greek Financial Crisis ? Merkel's willkommenskultur ? Angry young men pulling down barricades ? Rather more Eastern Europeans around ? Prisoner's Votes ? I think most people have noticed the EU's operation by now.
I thought Prisoners' votes was an ECHR issue.
Something we set up and joined long before the EU.
It is, but the problem is we have incorporated the ECHR into UK law. I understood that it is complex to reassert the supremacy of parliament formally while we are a member of the EU (because, I believe, full ECHR membership is a requirement of EU membership)
Leaving the EU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights would stop the ECJ being able to rule on matters relating to Human Rights in the UK through our EU treaty obligations.
Repealing the HRA, writing a British Bill of Rights and then making the UK Supreme Court the arbiter would then set boundaries on interpretations of rulings from the ECtHR through our signature to the ECHR.
Most independent analysis seems to be clustering around 1-2% downside near term, but rapidly recovering to being pretty much even stevens with the "remain" case. That feels about right to me. This really shouldn't be about economics on a macro level - we will do just fine whatever happens.
No, most independent analyses are showing around a 0.5% to 1.5% reduction in growth per year for several years, depending on the deal. A few examples:
The Treasury figures sound pretty mainstream; 6% cumulative reducton in GDP in a deal without full access to the Single Market (i.e. a Canada-style deal) sounds about right.
Hhhmmm .... I wasn't sure whether to post the following but after a chat this morning with the chap principally involved I thought I would add the sobering story to the mix. So here we go :
PART 1
Early last week Mrs Jack W and I had lunch with the son and wife of a dear family friend who passed away a few years ago. The son (I'll call him Simon) I've known boy and man and he's a tremendous credit to his late parents.
Simon and his wife "Jill" twere more willing to see how the whole process played out. Still others stated BREXIT would have little or no effect.
PART 2 to follow.
I see, we are reduced to unsourced anecdotes and fairy stories now. That's a good sign for LEAVE.
Perhaps you should read PART 2 and also consider that uncertainty over BREXIT is hardly likely to be a driver of employment in the short term whatever the merits are longer term.
which of course means the one notable economic success of this government they are in the process of wrecking ?
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
There is some truth in that. However the fact of the referendum is the prime mover of the uncertainty. I'm not a fan!!
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
There is some truth in that. However the fact of the referendum is the prime mover of the uncertainty. I'm not a fan!!
Mr. 80, the EU institutions are bloody labyrinthine. I'm not the most politically involved person here by a long shot, but this is a political forum, I've been here for a while now and still don't know that much about how the perverse and complicated EU (and related) structures work.
Also, welcome to the site (I know it's not your first post, but one of the first).
Not sure of the effect of BORDER. The UK has very few borders - obviously the treasury have never heard of ships (physical goods) or teleconferencing/ electronic sending of money (financial services).
So now we are all someone going to be £4300 poorer by magic by leaving the EU. Jokers - what a load of crap. Where do they get this from? Made up nonsense
BUT
Bah
".
Howccess?
Oh a lot of neg some input into them?
will help us take much better advantage of global opportunities in the future.
I understand that you think differently, and respect that.
Likewise, and I think those lines are, or should be, how the debate develops more broadly in the country.
I doubt it will, sadly.
Can I just ask Topping, out of curiosity, are there any circumstances under which you could see yourself supporting a Leave vote either now or in the future?
This is not a trick question. I'm interested in exploring the basis of your views.
I have moved from out-waverer to in-waverer to in. As an out-waverer I disliked the manner and content of EU diktats and blanched when, for example, the fiscal compact wad is not answering your question of what it would take for me to want to leave.
Thanks Topping, that's very honest of you and I appreciate your explanation. It sounds to me that in the absence of believing any sovereignty we'd have would be meaningfully real, you reluctantly conclude that we are better off to continue pooling it.
Whilst I disagree with that, and I'm frustrated we haven't been able to convince you this time, I respect your position and hope we might be able to win you over again in future.
On the sovereignty issue yes, I don't trust the Labour Party. I don't trust them with my tax dollars, or with the economy. And I don't trust them to understand the nuances of bad vs ok EU initiatives.
If we are out of the EU and in EEA then Lab I suspect will be keen to sign in every EU law into EEA law (and we will of course be the elephant in the EEA). So my hedge against this is to stay in, so we get some influence over the regs before we sign them up.
(I really, really don't think that being out-out is a good idea.)
That is a fair point and one that troubles me also. But there is also a risk in staying in because a future Labour government could give up the opt outs we currently have so even if on balance you think it best to stay in, even unenthusiastically, don't these two issues more or less cancel each other out?
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
This referendum is exposing those who govern us for who they really are. It's the most remarkable political event in a generation, and whatever the result the ramifications will be large and long lasting.
Business as usual? I don't think so.
You have a good point there. We have people at the top of Govt, at the top of the main opposition and the 4th party (LDs) all with Leaders with poor ratings, advocating a position, which if they win, could blow up in their faces due to the inherent untackled problems of the EU.
Most independent analysis seems to be clustering around 1-2% downside near term, but rapidly recovering to being pretty much even stevens with the "remain" case. That feels about right to me. This really shouldn't be about economics on a macro level - we will do just fine whatever happens.
No, most independent analyses are showing around a 0.5% to 1.5% reduction in growth per year for several years, depending on the deal. A few examples:
The Treasury figures sound pretty mainstream; 6% cumulative reducton in GDP in a deal without full access to the Single Market (i.e. a Canada-style deal) sounds about right.
Given the evidence that we are 'shackled by Europe' seems thin on the ground, the view that we will suddenly discover entrepreneurial and innovative zeal having left the EU seems charmingly optimistic. Especially if one of our major entrepreneurial and innovative sectors - financial services runs the risk of being shut out of the EU.....
Yawn.
A huge part of financial services - insurance, for instance - finds the EU a massive hindrance and not a significant business opportunity. Robert Hiscox, for instance, told me the other day that his business has been much more success in the US - despite the complexities and state-by-state regulation - than in the EU where they have been dragging their feet over the single market.
And that is not even taking into account the fact that the EU tried to close down his Latin American business because it didn't conform to what the Spanish wanted.
A large part of the financial services industry would also be very unhappy if passporting were to end. The curtailment of free movement of capital to and from the EU, combined with an end to passporting, as part of a Brexit negotiation looks like an obvious and pretty pain-free EU quid pro quo for restrictions to the free movement of people.
Not sure of the effect of BORDER. The UK has very few borders - obviously the treasury have never heard of ships (physical goods) or teleconferencing/ electronic sending of money (financial services).
Oh look - just what I said
'Let's chuck in whatever negative factors we cant think p[
If we are out of the EU and in EEA then Lab I suspect will be keen to sign in every EU law into EEA law (and we will of course be the elephant in the EEA). So my hedge against this is to stay in, so we get some influence over the regs before we sign them up.
But it will be Labour influence in those circumstances... might make things worse!
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
This referendum is exposing those who govern us for who they really are. It's the most remarkable political event in a generation, and whatever the result the ramifications will be large and long lasting.
Business as usual? I don't think so.
You have a good point there. We have people at the top of Govt, at the top of the main opposition and the 4th party (LDs) all with Leaders with poor ratings, advocating a position, which if they win, could blow up in their faces due to the inherent untackled problems of the EU.
Whether there is a self regarding, self preserving global elite or not, remain are doing a pretty good job of convincing people there is.
Not sure of the effect of BORDER. The UK has very few borders - obviously the treasury have never heard of ships (physical goods) or teleconferencing/ electronic sending of money (financial services).
Not sure of the effect of BORDER. The UK has very few borders - obviously the treasury have never heard of ships (physical goods) or teleconferencing/ electronic sending of money (financial services).
Oh look - just what I said
'Let's chuck in whatever negative factors we cant think p[
Immediately Simon and Jill decided to not only hold off the hiring of two further staff and their first apprentice but contemplate the loss of five employees. Late on Friday they held one of their regular full staff meetings including calling in two long distance team members. Previously this move had presaged very good news. Not this time.
The mood of the meeting turned from cheery expectation to gloom in seconds. Disbelief turned to barely concealed shock and then silence. The tears came. However worse was to come. Simon and Jill announced that they had also started to plan for a company move within the EU.
Clearly this is only one smallish company and within the context of wider economic arguments is simply a splash in the ocean. Indeed there may be other companies who are chaffing at the bit to be out of the EU with endless positive implications. However what cannot be denied is that the uncertainty over BREXIT is causing some short term damage.
Further within our discussions on PB it's all to easy to forget that for some the referendum isn't just a debating contest, cut and paste battle or betting extravaganza but a very real intrusion into their daily life here and now.
It sounds like a fairly atypical example, though.
FWIW, our family company, which employs close to 500 now, sees mainly benefits from BREXIT. That's despite being in a sector which several people claim will be devastated by leaving the EU. But equally, we always do well in times of uncertainty - the family stands behind the business, and our pledge carries weight in the eyes of customers.
As an aside, I was reading through some archives the other day and came across a note made by one of my cousins in the 1930s which I thought was very nice: God has been very good to our family. We have been asked to play a role in which we can serve the public, in a manner that is pleasant, and is not unrewarded in worldly terms
As has been noted some will gain and some will lose. Whether it's "fairly atypical" or not I don't know but my belief in that uncertainty is not normally a positive for most businesses in the short term.
What struck me was the upheaval that had already been caused to "Simon" and his firm and the impact that has already had on the lives of those who had no sense of what was coming. Normal folk embroiled in the heady waters of this huge decision. I feel for them, the more so as they have been familiar faces in passing over the decades.
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
There is some truth in that. However the fact of the referendum is the prime mover of the uncertainty. I'm not a fan!!
Not sure of the effect of BORDER. The UK has very few borders - obviously the treasury have never heard of ships (physical goods) or teleconferencing/ electronic sending of money (financial services).
Oh look - just what I said
'Let's chuck in whatever negative factors we cant think p[
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
There is some truth in that. However the fact of the referendum is the prime mover of the uncertainty. I'm not a fan!!
Not sure of the effect of BORDER. The UK has very few borders - obviously the treasury have never heard of ships (physical goods) or teleconferencing/ electronic sending of money (financial services).
Oh look - just what I said
'Let's chuck in whatever negative factors we cant think p[
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
How many BrExit plans do you want people to post before you read one ?
Charles sent you a 200 pager.
There is a long one on VLTC's website
And I know this will come as a shock, but not one on this forum is "Leave" so we are unlikely to be coming up with a plan!
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
How many BrExit plans do you want people to post before you read one ?
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
This referendum is exposing those who govern us for who they really are. It's the most remarkable political event in a generation, and whatever the result the ramifications will be large and long lasting.
Business as usual? I don't think so.
You have a good point there. We have people at the top of Govt, at the top of the main opposition and the 4th party (LDs) all with Leaders with poor ratings, advocating a position, which if they win, could blow up in their faces due to the inherent untackled problems of the EU.
Whether there is a self regarding, self preserving global elite or not, remain are doing a pretty good job of convincing people there is.
On the sovereignty issue yes, I don't trust the Labour Party. I don't trust them with my tax dollars, or with the economy. And I don't trust them to understand the nuances of bad vs ok EU initiatives.
If we are out of the EU and in EEA then Lab I suspect will be keen to sign in every EU law into EEA law (and we will of course be the elephant in the EEA). So my hedge against this is to stay in, so we get some influence over the regs before we sign them up.
(I really, really don't think that being out-out is a good idea.)
Sorry Topping but this reveals a shocking lack of understanding of how the EEA works.
No matter how big the UK is they cannot change what laws are applied under the EFTA agreement that controls non EU membership of the EEA. Not only do all decisions by the EFTA Council have to be unanimous (none of that stupid QMV stuff) but the terms of the EEA Agreement are defined by treaty. A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement. So basically it is the Single Market rules.
A Labour run UK could unilaterally adopt some EU social policy if it wanted to but it would not be binding on any future Government in the way current EU rules are. It would be like any other Westminster derived law and could be changed or repealed by future UK Governments without in any way affecting UK membership of EFTA and the EEA.
Immediately Simon and Jill decided to not only hold off the hiring of two further staff and their first apprentice but contemplate the loss of five employees. Late on Friday they held one of their regular full staff meetings including calling in two long distance team members. Previously this move had presaged very good news. Not this time.
The mood of the meeting turned from cheery expectation to gloom in seconds. Disbelief turned to barely concealed shock and then silence. The tears came. However worse was to come. Simon and Jill announced that they had also started to plan for a company move within the EU.
Clearly this is only one smallish company and within the context of wider economic arguments is simply a splash in the ocean. Indeed there may be other companies who are chaffing at the bit to be out of the EU with endless positive implications. However what cannot be denied is that the uncertainty over BREXIT is causing some short term damage.
Further within our discussions on PB it's all to easy to forget that for some the referendum isn't just a debating contest, cut and paste battle or betting extravaganza but a very real intrusion into their daily life here and now.
FWIW, our family company, which employs close to 500 now, sees mainly benefits from BREXIT. That's despite being in a sector which several people claim will be devastated by leaving the EU. But equally, we always do well in times of uncertainty - the family stands behind the business, and our pledge carries weight in the eyes of customers.
As an aside, I was reading through some archives the other day and came across a note made by one of my cousins in the 1930s which I thought was very nice: God has been very good to our family. We have been asked to play a role in which we can serve the public, in a manner that is pleasant, and is not unrewarded in worldly terms
As has been noted some will gain and some will lose. Whether it's "fairly atypical" or not I don't know but my belief in that uncertainty is not normally a positive for most businesses in the short term.
What struck me was the upheaval that had already been caused to "Simon" and his firm and the impact that has already had on the lives of those who had no sense of what was coming. Normal folk embroiled in the heady waters of this huge decision. I feel for them, the more so as they have been familiar faces in passing over the decades.
HMG has spent months telling the rest of the world that Britain is weak and feeble, and wholly incapable of surviving outside the safety net of EU membership.
Did they not think that there would be consequences to this negativity?
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
If the Remain side had put 10% of the effort into prepraing positive reasons to stay in instead of inventing tales to scare small children they'd be in a much better position.
You see Richard we can all do this , it adds nothing to cumulative wisdom of PB and simply results in bad humoured posting, what do you say we give it a rest for bit ?
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
How many BrExit plans do you want people to post before you read one ?
Charles sent you a 200 pager.
There is a long one on VLTC's website
Oh, there are zillions.
That's the problem.
Oh for fucks sake. When Leave get appointed as the government of the UK perhaps they will make a detailed plan. This dishonest argument passes tedium. VLTC will advocate the divorce. Cameron can chose whatever new wife he thinks the electorate will accept, and for that matter whatever relationship with the ex.
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
How many BrExit plans do you want people to post before you read one ?
TOPPING Having 1 vote in 28 does not equate to stopping bad stuff from the EU.
Never said it did but having 1 vote in 28 is better IMO than having 0 votes in 28.
Well currently we have 1/28th of a vote for decisions made at the WTO, the ILO, the UNECE and dozens of other International bodies where we have ceded control and voting rights to the EU. I would much rather we had our own voice and our own vote.
So if you take a variable out of an econometric model it changes the result. Big deal.
Seems pretty reasonable to have a variable in the model determining if a country speaks English or not - obviously that has an impact on the ease of trade.
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
How many BrExit plans do you want people to post before you read one ?
Charles sent you a 200 pager.
There is a long one on VLTC's website
Oh, there are zillions.
That's the problem.
The same could be said for Remain. They have not even bothered to try and address what the EU will look like within a few years of a Remain vote. Where are your definitive plans for how things will look a few years after a Remain vote?
So now we are all someone going to be £4300 poorer by magic by leaving the EU. Jokers - what a load of crap. Where do they get this from? Made up nonsense
BUT
Bah
".
Howccess?
Oh a lot of neg some input into them?
will help us take much better advantage of global opportunities in the future.
I understand that you think differently, and respect that.
Likewise, and I think those lines are, or should be, how the debate develops more broadly in the country.
I doubt it will, sadly.
Can I just ask Topping, out of curiosity, are there any circumstances under which you could see yourself supporting a Leave vote either now or in the future?
This is not a trick question. I'm interested in exploring the basis of your views.
Impact wad is not answering your question of what it would take for me to want to leave.
Ture.
On the
(I really, really don't think that being out-out is a good idea.)
That is a fair point and one that troubles me also. But there is also a risk in staying in because a future Labour government could give up the opt outs we currently have so even if on balance you think it best to stay in, even unenthusiastically, don't these two issues more or less cancel each other out?
Well, as @Indigo mentions, Lab would be in charge so asylum-wise you're already in trouble. And yes I wouldn't put it past them to give up the opt-outs so a Leave vote would certainly remove that option, whether or not they found some way of opting back in.
As for the negotations themselves, however, I think NCAs are certainly semi-autonomous and can argue, regardless of colour of government, for the UK's best interests.
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
This referendum is exposing those who govern us for who they really are. It's the most remarkable political event in a generation, and whatever the result the ramifications will be large and long lasting.
Business as usual? I don't think so.
You have a good point there. We have people at the top of Govt, at the top of the main opposition and the 4th party (LDs) all with Leaders with poor ratings, advocating a position, which if they win, could blow up in their faces due to the inherent untackled problems of the EU.
Whether there is a self regarding, self preserving global elite or not, remain are doing a pretty good job of convincing people there is.
It strikes me that what binds those advocating remain (they and theirs all do well in terms of money or status out of the current arrangements), is far greater than what divides them.
That's why I want to vote leave. To shatter this club.
JackW's 'friends' should consider writing to Jeremy Corbyn for a PMQ's shout out.
"JackW's friends" are more concerned with the future of the company than the dribblings of Jezza.
They should get in with him now, because based on the current performance of Cameron and Co, Corbyn's in with a shout in 2020. It doesn't take too many disgruntled Tories sitting on their hands when it comes to voting, for a Conservative loss to become a reality.
Anyone complacent enough to pooh pooh the idea, is a fool.
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
If the Remain side had put 10% of the effort into prepraing positive reasons to stay in instead of inventing tales to scare small children they'd be in a much better position.
You see Richard we can all do this , it adds nothing to cumulative wisdom of PB and simply results in bad humoured posting, what do you say we give it a rest for bit ?
I was just making an observation about the politics. I don't think that relentless messenger-trashing is a good way for the Leave side to address doubts amongst potentially persuadable but as yet not fully persuaded voters. (And, conversely, I do think that 'scare' stories are a good way for the Remain side to persuade such voters to stay with the status quo).
You see Richard we can all do this , it adds nothing to cumulative wisdom of PB and simply results in bad humoured posting, what do you say we give it a rest for bit ?
Comments
Zero the damn foreign aid budget so we only give out in disaster cases & other genuine need not to support 3rd world dictators or countries that don't need it. Otherwise its barely disguised bribery.
Media Guido @MediaGuido
Whittingdale Story Source Accuses @tom_watson of "Lies" http://guyfawk.es/1STJeef
The attempt is being made to put the punch in, then move the story on before the report is actually available - thereby sucking the oxygen out of it while the Treasury is on top.
May I suggest reversing the subject and object and using 'carried along on the tide of our sweat' in place of 'drag'. (Innocent face).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3237073/Cameron-Osborne-quietly-pay-1-7BILLION-bill-Brussels-dismisses-totally-unacceptable.html
Fraser Nelson ✔ @FraserNelson
It seems Osborne has STILL not published Treasury Brexit document,leaving journalists unable to test whether his claims reflect its analysis 15m
It won't be easy - and the BBC won't help - but they must try and set the agenda, or HM Government will do it for them.
It's beyond implausible. I wonder what the wonk or press office bod was smoking
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/here-why-political-betting-ramped-up.html?m=1
I think the biggest problem, therefore, and what continues to make me think twice, is the thought that a future Labour govt would sign up to any old bolleaux from the EU. As many have pointed out, we will at some stage get another Lab govt, and the EU will at some point have a bright idea of ECU.
My second derivative concern, however, is that unless we are out-out (ie non-EEA/EFTA), Lab is likely to sign any bonkers EU initiative into EEA law. So whereas I could live with EEA, I really don't think out-out is a good idea. Being in the EEA, however, might deliver the same result, with Lab in charge, as being in the EU, but with none of the influence of being in the EU, but this latter is saying why I want to stay in, and is not answering your question of what it would take for me to want to leave.
A huge part of financial services - insurance, for instance - finds the EU a massive hindrance and not a significant business opportunity. Robert Hiscox, for instance, told me the other day that his business has been much more success in the US - despite the complexities and state-by-state regulation - than in the EU where they have been dragging their feet over the single market.
And that is not even taking into account the fact that the EU tried to close down his Latin American business because it didn't conform to what the Spanish wanted.
Hhhmmm .... I wasn't sure whether to post the following but after a chat this morning with the chap principally involved I thought I would add the sobering story to the mix. So here we go :
PART 1
Early last week Mrs Jack W and I had lunch with the son and wife of a dear family friend who passed away a few years ago. The son (I'll call him Simon) I've known boy and man and he's a tremendous credit to his late parents.
Simon and his wife "Jill" took over the family firm more than a decade ago. It's a medium sized employer with around 30 staff that has coped with 90's recessions and the more recent crash and has in recent years gradually taken on more employees. Most of their work is home and EU based. They pay well with a profit sharing scheme and have excellent staff retention - even the cleaner/driver/handy man has been with the firm more than twenty five years. They are an example of good business practice and I'm sure not unlike many companies of their type and size nationwide.
Simon and Jill I'd say were both pragmatic mildly eurosceptics politically but not really given to the cut and thrust of the EU referendum or politics generally. That situation has changed markedly. Several weeks ago a contract with an overseas EU firm, Company A, up for renewal was almost lost. This was a shock. They had traded together for decades successfully. Company A stated the uncertainty over Britain's EU status was a severe stumbling block and with growing competition in the sector Company A felt it was a risk they didn't need to take. Simon managed to head off the loss of the contract until after the June vote.
Simon and Jill then decided to contact overseas suppliers and end clients and were severely taken aback by their conversations. Company B advised them that they had already been frozen out of bidding for a long term contract. Simon had thought that their recent foray into this sphere had counted against them but Company B stated that whilst this had been discussed Simon's company would have been allowed to tender but Company B decided that they had plenty of willing suitors not encumbered by the difficulties following BREXIT. Company B would also review Simon's core business contracts as they ended.
Company C stated that BREXIT would see them draw back their business with Simon until a more stable situation prevailed. Other clients took a longer view and were more willing to see how the whole process played out. Still others stated BREXIT would have little or no effect.
PART 2 to follow.
Immediately Simon and Jill decided to not only hold off the hiring of two further staff and their first apprentice but contemplate the loss of five employees. Late on Friday they held one of their regular full staff meetings including calling in two long distance team members. Previously this move had presaged very good news. Not this time.
The mood of the meeting turned from cheery expectation to gloom in seconds. Disbelief turned to barely concealed shock and then silence. The tears came. However worse was to come. Simon and Jill announced that they had also started to plan for a company move within the EU.
..................................................................................................................
Clearly this is only one smallish company and within the context of wider economic arguments is simply a splash in the ocean. Indeed there may be other companies who are chaffing at the bit to be out of the EU with endless positive implications. However what cannot be denied is that the uncertainty over BREXIT is causing some short term damage.
Further within our discussions on PB it's all to easy to forget that for some the referendum isn't just a debating contest, cut and paste battle or betting extravaganza but a very real intrusion into their daily life here and now.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/18/whittingdale-source-accuses-watson-of-lies/
Most independent analysis seems to be clustering around 1-2% downside near term, but rapidly recovering to being pretty much even stevens with the "remain" case. That feels about right to me. This really shouldn't be about economics on a macro level - we will do just fine whatever happens.
Agree with you about the tedium at present but that is inevitable (and why for the moment I post infrequently except episodically e.g. when Casino incurs my righteous wrath). Like TSE, l may now provide some help for the Remain campaign post May 5th local elections, which I had been planning to sit out, prompted by some of the pb leavers (not your good self I might add).
Doom mongering by HMG isn't helping. Perhaps Cameron should throttle back the scare stories?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/721993255974543360
Whilst I disagree with that, and I'm frustrated we haven't been able to convince you this time, I respect your position and hope we might be able to win you over again in future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq-pDjrs-FA
I don't think that's a reason to embrace ever closer union or remain part of a club that seems to vary between being disinterested in the UK's perspective or actively wishing us economic harm (thankfully the Tobin tax came to nothing).
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/kevin-doyle-political-corpses-rise-together-for-a-zombie-coalition-34635733.html
Business as usual? I don't think so.
Osborne "can't export to single market without paying EU for access". Japanese exports to EU: €55 billion,contribution to EU budget: €0.00
If we are out of the EU and in EEA then Lab I suspect will be keen to sign in every EU law into EEA law (and we will of course be the elephant in the EEA). So my hedge against this is to stay in, so we get some influence over the regs before we sign them up.
(I really, really don't think that being out-out is a good idea.)
1. It is legally ambiguous as to whether we have to remain a party to ECHR while in the EU
2. Rgardless of ECHR the ECJ exercises oversight through the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.
On #2, see this case as an example http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/06/uk-ban-on-prisoner-voting-is-lawful-eus-highest-court-rules
As it happens, they upheld this particular law from France. But that does not mean they would uphold the UK's stricter law.
When europhiles sneer that eurosceptics don't understand the difference between ECHR and ECJ and so are ignorant about matters such as prisoners' voting they miss two important points: firstly, it is a weakness of the institutions that they are poorly understood, that is not a reason to recommend our involvement; secondly, as shown above, the ECJ is involved in prisoner voting rights, and therefore the sneering europhiles are themselves wrong.
For the sake of clarity, not all europhiles are like this. But I've lost count of the number of times in conversation a europhile will say 'oh, but people don't understand that it is Strasbourg, not Luxembourg, which rules on prisoner voting', or similar
FWIW, our family company, which employs close to 500 now, sees mainly benefits from BREXIT. That's despite being in a sector which several people claim will be devastated by leaving the EU. But equally, we always do well in times of uncertainty - the family stands behind the business, and our pledge carries weight in the eyes of customers.
As an aside, I was reading through some archives the other day and came across a note made by one of my cousins in the 1930s which I thought was very nice: God has been very good to our family. We have been asked to play a role in which we can serve the public, in a manner that is pleasant, and is not unrewarded in worldly terms
Repealing the HRA, writing a British Bill of Rights and then making the UK Supreme Court the arbiter would then set boundaries on interpretations of rulings from the ECtHR through our signature to the ECHR.
Otherwise it doesn't mean very much.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks-factbox-idUKKCN0VO0UF
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a86ab36-afbe-11e5-b955-1a1d298b6250.html#axzz46AbciIGF
The Treasury figures sound pretty mainstream; 6% cumulative reducton in GDP in a deal without full access to the Single Market (i.e. a Canada-style deal) sounds about right.
No you're a WIND
Also, welcome to the site (I know it's not your first post, but one of the first).
I've been looking at the buyside work.
'Let's chuck in whatever negative factors we cant think p[ Plato dear, that is what is called 'forcing the result'
'I know, let's chuck in whatever negative factors we can think of and, hey presto, we get a really negative outcome'.
What struck me was the upheaval that had already been caused to "Simon" and his firm and the impact that has already had on the lives of those who had no sense of what was coming. Normal folk embroiled in the heady waters of this huge decision. I feel for them, the more so as they have been familiar faces in passing over the decades.
Charles sent you a 200 pager.
There is a long one on VLTC's website
And I know this will come as a shock, but not one on this forum is "Leave" so we are unlikely to be coming up with a plan!
That's the problem.
No matter how big the UK is they cannot change what laws are applied under the EFTA agreement that controls non EU membership of the EEA. Not only do all decisions by the EFTA Council have to be unanimous (none of that stupid QMV stuff) but the terms of the EEA Agreement are defined by treaty. A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement. So basically it is the Single Market rules.
A Labour run UK could unilaterally adopt some EU social policy if it wanted to but it would not be binding on any future Government in the way current EU rules are. It would be like any other Westminster derived law and could be changed or repealed by future UK Governments without in any way affecting UK membership of EFTA and the EEA.
Did they not think that there would be consequences to this negativity?
You see Richard we can all do this , it adds nothing to cumulative wisdom of PB and simply results in bad humoured posting, what do you say we give it a rest for bit ?
Seems pretty reasonable to have a variable in the model determining if a country speaks English or not - obviously that has an impact on the ease of trade.
As for the negotations themselves, however, I think NCAs are certainly semi-autonomous and can argue, regardless of colour of government, for the UK's best interests.
That's why I want to vote leave. To shatter this club.
Anyone complacent enough to pooh pooh the idea, is a fool.
I take it Osborne has now formally given up on ever being PM, insulting half your party tends to lose you votes.